Florida Powers of Attorney
Portia B. Scott, J.D., L.L.M. • April 1, 2025

Myths V. Facts

Of the many documents variations of which can be found on the internet, we have Powers of Attorney (“POAs”). As is the old saying, a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous.


With this writing, we are going to explore some of the most prevalent myths about POAs which are, at best, troublesome and, at worst, catastrophic to your plans.


Myth 1: A POA strips from the person who signed it (the Principal) all authority and vests that authority in the person who receives it (the Agent). 


The nightmare I have seen are an Agent waiving the POA around, declaring “I am in charge now,” and “you have to do what I say” regardless of the wishes of the Principal. This is simply untrue. 


A POA will allow another to perform your financial duties. Typically, a POA does not require you to be unable to make informed decisions in order for the POA to be used. The POA duplicates in another person the authority you have over your finances but does not strip from you any of your rights and powers. Now, if you are declared to be incapacitated by a Judge, that would strip you of your authority and the POA could be used to fill in the gaps in your financial care, but the execution by you of a POA does nothing to your own authority.


The POA will be effective even after a Judge, if there were an Incapacity matter filed, says you are incapable of making informed decisions regarding your own finances.


Myth 2: A POA is effective after your death.


It is not. Since a POA duplicates in another person whichever financial authority you chose to give the Agent, and, since when you are dead you cannot do anything, the POA’s usefulness is over. A dead person cannot write checks and neither can his/her Agent using a POA.


In fact, it would might be considered a fraud by the Agent to use the POA after the Principal’s death; it certainly would be void once discovered.


Myth 3: An Agent gets to make the decisions about how the Principal’s money is spent.


Though generally an Agent can spend the Principal’s money, the Agent may only spend the Principal’s money on the things the Principal wants. So, if the Principal wants to send her granddaughter a $100.00 birthday gift and asks the Agent to write her a birthday card with a check in it, that is fine. However, the Agent may not decide to write the check for $1,000.00 nor to include all of the grandchildren. Especially, the Agent may not write herself a check because, she needed the money. If the Agent were to borrow money from the Principal, the Agent should back that up with an I.O.U. (a promissory note) from the Agent to the Principal and keep a record of it.


Certainly, unless there are extraordinary circumstances, the Agent cannot change title to a car or house or boat from the Principal to the Agent or ever to the Agent and Principal together without breaching her fiduciary duty to the Principal.


Myth 4: The Agent can give away some of the duties granted under a POA to another person.


The State of Florida specifically prohibits the Agent from delegating the authority under a POA. If the Agent can not do the act authorized, only the Principal can.


These are just some of the common wrong-headed beliefs regarding Powers of Attorney.  These POA can be very useful in many circumstance, but they do not grant “carte blanche” to the Agent. 


Talk to an attorney about the bounds of a POA, especially if you have been appointed and do not understand the limits on your power thereunder.


Share this article

And furthermore....

By Portia B. Scott, J.D.,L.L.M. • April 2, 2026
Another Warning from our Appellate Court Regarding Al I hate to repeat myself, but.... The March 25, 2026 release of written opinions from our own Fourth District Court of Appeal (4th DCA) has another warning to persons venturing into the Court system. As you may know, I wrote about a warning from the 4th DCA about a self- represented Appellant (person seeking to have the trial court's decision overturned) using Al and the possible, but not inflicted, sanctions which could have resulted. Now, again, in Gouveia v. Meridian Financial Investments, LLC, the 4th DCA has again written to address this increasingly abusive use of Al in the Courts. In this more recent case, there was a contract dispute and the trial court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff (the party making the complaint...get it? "Plaint-iff" based on "Com-Plaint?"). The losing side filed an appeal, asking for the 4th DCA to overturn the decision of the trial court. Well, that went nowhere and the Plaintiff kept its win. The story here is that the person who lost at trial and on appeal, in his case and appeal to the 4th DCA apparently used Al to help write his argument. The Al manufactured ("hallucinated") prior cases which did not exist or, if they did exist, did not stand for what the person said it did. It would be as if the person made reference to Roe v. Wade (a case which does exist) and told the appeals court that it stood for the legal principal that a Jack of Spades has a higher value in poker than the King of Spades (which is absolutely not what Roe v. Wade said). Is that straight-up nonsense? Yes and as absurd as that which was submitted to the appeals court as if it were true. The Court issued another warning about the possibilities of sanctions if it is done again by the person submitting it, just like before. But, as the concurring opinion in this case points out something else (a "concurring opinion" is a written opinion which agrees with the actual opinion but has more to say). The concurring opinion points out how meaningless it is to threaten sanctions against someone who will most likely not be before the Court again. That means that the opportunity to misbehave for this person is greatly reduced. Most self-represented folks only appear once -if at all- before the appellate court. The concurring opinion said that with attorneys, it is not a problem as sanctions will work against us, seeing how we are in court so often. What is the solution? The writer of the concurring opinion doesn't know but suggests some pro-active steps. (Sanctions are, by their very nature, reactive - they are issued in response to something done.) Perhaps forcing sworn statements from the parties that they have not used Al or, if they have, exactly what the Al included; that the party submitting the Al- generated document has double-checked the sources. Something which can help us all work with the rising tide of Al, Chatbots, LLM tools.  Stay tuned!

Appellate Court Issues Warning to Non-Attorneys Filing Appeals

By Portia B. Scott, J.D.,L.L.M. • March 26, 2026
The Florida trial courts' decisions are subject to appeal to a higher Court. This happens when a litigant (the Plaintiff or Defendant) believes the trial court made a mistake and that the mistake should be corrected. The mistake believed to have been made by the trial court can be based in the facts of the case ("that is not what the evidence showed"), the law ("that is not what the statute or other source of law says"), or both. A recent opinion from the 4th District Court of Appeal (which takes such claimed mistakes from the circuit trial courts in Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River and Okeechobee Counties) dealt with an alleged mistake of law. The person who was claiming the mistake (the Appellant), was representing herself. Without an attorney to help her write the appeal, she resorted to Artificial Intelligence ("AI"), as we can expect many people do or might start doing. The decision came back from the 4th District Court of Appeal, disagreeing with her; the appeals court found no error by the trial court. But for the use of Al, there probably would not have been any thing actually written. The 4th would have just said something like, "we find no error." However, the Al tool had "hallucinated" what other, prior District Courts' had said. In the paperwork submitted by the Appellant, she had cited certain old cases saying that these cases were opposite of what the trial court had ruled. She claimed that the trial court had used the wrong law and that she should have won. The problem, as you might have guessed, is that the cases did not exist - some of them not at all. Other cases she cited to the 4th were actual cases, but did not say what her Al asserted they said. Here is the reason everyone needs to know this: Self-represented litigants are held to the same standards as an attorney. Obviously, attorneys are not allowed to make up old cases and present them to a Court (trial or otherwise). If we do use Al to help find the old cases, we absolutely have to check to make sure that they are real and do exist. If we do not, we can be sanctioned - maybe even having to pay the other side's attorney's fees which, for an appeal, can easily be in the tens of thousands of dollars! That is a scary prospect. The self-represented litigant could have faced sanctions - just like her attorney would have had she had one. In this particular case (Roussell v. Bank of New York Mellon, Etc., decided March 11, 2026), the appellate court did NOT sanction her, but easily could have. This was probably a decision issued as a warning to all.