- 12 -
knowledge of this litigation and she did not personally authorize
Mr. Young to represent her in this case. Mrs. Dornbrock contends
further that, if Mr. Young had the authority to represent her in
filing the joint petition, he was acting as her subagent (by and
through her agent, Mr. Dornbrock) rather than as her agent.
Accordingly, she argues that, under common law principles of
agency, Mr. Young's status as subagent for her terminated upon
the death of Mr. Dornbrock, her agent. Thus, Mrs. Dornbrock
contends that Mr. Young's authority to represent her as a
subagent terminated upon the death of her husband.
With regard to her argument that Mr. Young lacked authority
to represent her husband's estate, Mrs. Dornbrock contends that,
under Michigan law, Mr. Young's authority to represent Mr.
Dornbrock terminated upon Mr. Dornbrock's death. She contends
that Mr. Young never obtained her permission, as personal
representative of her husband's estate, to substitute parties as
he did in this case. She argues further that her husband's
estate was closed in 1988; yet, the estate was not substituted as
a party until 1993. Therefore, she contends, this Court never
obtained jurisdiction over the estate of her deceased husband.9
9
Mrs. Dornbrock's position on this argument is not clear as
to whether the Court's purported loss of jurisdiction over her
husband's estate reverted back to the date of the filing of the
petition or the date her husband died.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011