The wording of the appointments governs. If the parties are named, "with authority to act independently" or something similar, then they don't need to agree.
But the issue of successful service by joint or multiple proxies is one that really turns on family dynamics. My sister was the medical professional; I had the legal background. We never argued but just discussed what the options were and deferred to the other's expertise. Check the DPOA document to see how it's worded.
Are these feuding parties able to compromise - if they're (hopefully) rational people, perhaps they can sit down, discuss their positions, and work out a compromise instead of feuding. This doesn't bode well for the future.
Yes, they can. It's just a matter on how far theyre willing to take it. This is why more than one DPOA is never a good idea - in my opinion. Someone has to be able to have the final say so. At a minimum seperate health and financial POAs might work but even that is fraught with pitfalls. As the saying goes "too many chefs in the kitchen spoils the broth" - or something like that.
How is it worded? With my MIL, the Daughter is listed first and then wording like "if she is unable or refuses to" be the DPOA, then it goes to my husband to take over.
Is the wording like that, or are they designated as Co-DPOAs?
But the issue of successful service by joint or multiple proxies is one that really turns on family dynamics. My sister was the medical professional; I had the legal background. We never argued but just discussed what the options were and deferred to the other's expertise.
Check the DPOA document to see how it's worded.
Are these feuding parties able to compromise - if they're (hopefully) rational people, perhaps they can sit down, discuss their positions, and work out a compromise instead of feuding. This doesn't bode well for the future.
Is the wording like that, or are they designated as Co-DPOAs?