- 24 -
first blush that on or about November 1, 1993, when Mr. Young and
counsel for respondent signed the stipulated decision document,
Mr. Young was duly authorized to represent Mrs. Dornbrock and the
estate of her deceased husband. Moreover, the evidence is clear
that neither Mr. Young nor counsel for respondent received any
notice or had knowledge that Mr. Young no longer had the
authority to represent Mrs. Dornbrock or her husband's estate.
Mrs. Dornbrock contends that Mr. Young represented her as a
subagent, who had been appointed by and through her agent, Mr.
Dornbrock. She alleges further that, under common law principles
of agency, a subagency terminates upon the death of the agent.
Therefore, she argues, Mr. Young's authority to represent her
terminated with the death of her husband. In support of this
proposition Mrs. Dornbrock cites several excerpts from the
Restatement (Second) of Agency and a case decided in the Probate
Court of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. See Bowman v. Bowman, 3 Ohio
Misc. 161, 210 N.E.2d 920 (1965) (stating that the death of the
agent terminates the authority of the subagent to act for the
principal).
The Court agrees with the general proposition that, in a
true subagency relationship, the death of the agent terminates
the relationship between the principal and the subagent. Even if
there was a subagency relationship that terminated upon the death
of Mr. Dornbrock, Mrs. Dornbrock failed to show that Mr. Young's
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011