No specific laws identified for this ruling.
South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and held that the attorney-in-fact lacked authority to sign the arbitration agreement on behalf of the facility resident, rendering the agreement unenforceable.
This appeal concerns the enforceability of an arbitration agreement executed between Ashley River Plantation, an assisted-living facility, and Thayer Arredondo, the attorney-in-fact under two powers of attorney executed by Hubert Whaley, a facility resident. In an unpublished opinion, the court of appeals held the arbitration agreement was enforceable. Arredondo v. SNH SE Ashley River Tenant, LLC, Op. No. 2019-UP-293 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Aug. 14, 2019). We reverse the court of appeals and hold neither power of attorney gave Arredondo the authority to sign the arbitration agreement.
What Happened
This case involved a dispute over whether a legal document forcing arbitration (private dispute resolution instead of court) was valid. Ashley River Plantation, an assisted-living facility, had an arbitration agreement signed by Thayer Arredondo, who was acting as a legal representative for facility resident Hubert Whaley under a power of attorney. When a dispute arose, the question became whether Arredondo had the proper authority to sign this agreement on Whaley's behalf.
What the Court Decided
The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the arbitration agreement was not enforceable. The court found that Arredondo lacked the legal authority to sign the arbitration agreement for Whaley, even though he was acting under a power of attorney. This reversed a lower court's decision that had upheld the agreement.
Why This Matters for Workers
This ruling protects workers and their families by ensuring that arbitration agreements cannot be improperly forced upon them. It establishes that someone acting on another person's behalf must have clear, specific authority to sign agreements that limit legal rights. This is particularly important for vulnerable workers in healthcare settings and their family members who may need legal representation.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in Arredondo from the same court.
For eighty-two years, this Court struggled to correctly apply the "statutory employee doctrine." Today, following our more recent decisions on the statutory employee doctrine, we apply the doctrine in light of the General Assembly's original purpose for enacting it. We find the circuit court and…
In this appeal arising out of Anderson County Council's approval of a severance agreement, the Court vacates the decision of the Court of Appeals finds the Severance Agreement invalid due to the County's lack of a quorum and remands to the circuit court to determine the exact amount that Preston…
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.