A BILL to amend and reenact § 64.2-1617 of the Code of Virginia, relating to Uniform Power of Attorney Act; acknowledged power of attorney; definition.
HB929 amends Virginia’s Uniform Power of Attorney Act, specifically the section governing when third parties may accept and rely on an “acknowledged” power of attorney. The bill defines “acknowledged” as purportedly verified before a notary public or other authorized individual, and it preserves the rule that a person acting in good faith may rely on an acknowledged power of attorney unless the person has actual knowledge that the document or the agent’s authority is void, invalid, terminated, or being improperly exercised. The bill also clarifies that this protection does not apply if the power of attorney contains a forged signature of the principal.
The bill further spells out what a person may request when asked to accept a power of attorney: an agent’s sworn certification about factual matters, an English translation if the document contains non-English language, and an opinion of counsel on legal issues, provided the requester gives a written reason. It also states that translations or counsel opinions requested from the principal’s or agent’s counsel are paid for by the principal, and that these materials must be in recordable form when recordation is required by law. Finally, it adds a rule for businesses using employees and internal communication procedures, treating them as lacking actual knowledge of a relevant fact if the employee handling the transaction follows commercially reasonable procedures and still does not know the fact.
The bill’s impact is limited to the administration and acceptance of powers of attorney under Virginia law. It does not create a new power of attorney form, but it clarifies standards for reliance, documentation, translation, and legal opinions, which affects principals, agents, financial institutions, title companies, and other entities that routinely review these documents. By tightening the definition of “acknowledged” and clarifying when reliance is permitted, the bill is aimed at reducing disputes over whether a third party must honor a power of attorney.
The available legislative history suggests generally favorable committee support, as the bill was continued to the next session in the House Courts of Justice Committee by an 11-3 vote. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded debate to indicate broader public sentiment. The vote margin suggests the measure had substantial support, though not unanimous backing.
The main point of contention appears to be the balance between protecting third parties who accept powers of attorney in good faith and preserving safeguards against fraud or misuse. The explicit exception for forged signatures, the ability to demand translations or counsel opinions, and the rule about actual knowledge for businesses likely reflect concerns from institutions that need certainty before honoring these documents, as well as concerns from principals and agents about added administrative burden and cost.
HB929 would amend § 64.2-1617 of the Code of Virginia, refining the Uniform Power of Attorney Act’s rules on acceptance and reliance. It clarifies the meaning of an “acknowledged” power of attorney, adds an express forged-signature exception to good-faith reliance, authorizes requests for certifications, translations, and legal opinions, assigns certain translation/counsel costs to the principal, and establishes a commercially reasonable procedures standard for businesses assessing actual knowledge. The bill would primarily affect how powers of attorney are reviewed and honored by banks, title companies, other financial and commercial entities, principals, and agents.
The overall sentiment appears moderately favorable. The bill advanced in the House Courts of Justice Committee on an 11-3 vote and was continued to the next session, indicating meaningful support but not final passage. With no committee transcript available, the record does not show detailed debate, but the vote suggests the proposal was viewed as a useful clarification of existing law rather than a controversial overhaul.
The likely areas of contention are the burden placed on parties asked to accept a power of attorney and the level of protection afforded to those parties. Supporters would favor clearer reliance rules and anti-fraud safeguards, while opponents may worry that the bill gives institutions too much discretion to demand translations, sworn certifications, or counsel opinions, potentially increasing delay and expense for principals and agents. The forged-signature carveout and the business knowledge standard also suggest tension between fraud prevention and ease of use in everyday transactions.