Verdict 19,355 euros deducted from accounts of a dementia patient

BGH: Supervisor must be able to prove use in cash withdrawals
(Jur). If a supervisor lifts 19,355 euros from the account of a person with dementia who does not have exact proofs of use, this is an indication of a lack of support. Because of the presumed lack of probity can then be appointed by the Supervision Court a professional advisor, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled in a resolution published on Monday, August 22, 2016 in Karlsruhe (Ref .: XII ZB 616/15).

Caregivers of a dementia patient must prove withdrawals from the account. Image: Gina Sanders - fotolia

Specifically, it was about a 1935 born dementia patient from the Kempten area in the Allgäu. In October 2014, the care facility in which the husband was at that time, had a care encouraged. In the course of the proceedings, the complainant submitted a notarised child care order according to which the person with dementia selected her on 12 December 2014 as a caregiver, inter alia for the purpose of providing her with a pension.

But both the district court and the district court Kempten ordered instead a professional advisor. Reason: On the one hand, it can be assumed that the person affected can no longer make a conscious decision about the power of attorney since he has been suffering from moderate dementia since at least November 2013.

There are also concerns about the integrity of the plenipotentiaries. The woman made numerous cash withdrawals from the accounts of the person with dementia during the period from January to March 2015, without being able to prove the exact use of the money. Overall, 19,355 euros have been withdrawn.

In its decision of 3 August 2016, the Federal Court of Justice confirmed the court order of the professional guardian. If an adult of legal age suggests a caregiver, it must be complied with in principle if it does not run counter to his well-being. It is sufficient that the person concerned wishes a certain person as a caregiver. As a rule, there should also be no business capacity or natural ability to see the person to be cared for.

But there are meaningful findings that the supervisor lacks the aptitude and he acts against the well-being of the person concerned, be a professional supervisor to order, emphasized the Karlsruhe judges. This is the case here. The authorized representative had justified the cash withdrawals with the fact that in the interest of the dementia patient for a necessary building project a cash payment of 14,500 euros needed.

However, this alone could not prove the cash withdrawal of over 19,000 euros. And about the use of the 14,500 euros, the plenipotentiaries have so far submitted no sufficient evidence. The District Court had therefore rightly appointed a professional advisor because of doubts about the probity of the plenipotentiary. fle / mwo