While each state has different legislation in relation to enduring powers of attorney, one issue that has come up over the last few days, which is common to the rules in virtually every state, is the ability to appoint different people for financial related matters as compared to personal (or ‘guardianship’) matters.
Previous posts have considered various aspects of an advanced health directive (which is effectively the 3rd main component of the areas where you can appoint someone else to make decisions on your behalf).
Often, it will be the case that the people a client is wanting to entrust with their financial affairs will be different to those they wish to have make decisions in relation to personal healthcare matters.
Providing the documentation is crafted appropriately, there is no legal reason that different people cannot be appointed.
One practical issue that needs to be kept in mind however is that many of the personal health related issues will have at least a partial financial aspect to them.
For example, the decision as to the standard of nursing home care to be provided is ultimately as much a financial decision as it is a personal health care decision.
Unless there are compelling reasons to have different people appointed, therefore our default recommendation is that the same people are nominated in all roles.
** for the trainspotters, the title here is riffed from the New Order song, ‘Senses’.