"In the text case, Penny Garrison v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles, plaintiffs sought to sue a residential care facility and avoid the effect of a durable power of attorney by which the decedent's daughter signed agreements to arbitrate disputes involving the facility. Which of the following was the result?

a. That the durable power of attorney was ineffective because it did not grant the holder authority to enter into arbitration agreements and that the arbitration agreements, therefore, were unenforceable.
b. That the durable power of attorney was ineffective because it did not specifically give the daughter authority to enter into agreements involving health care and that the arbitration agreements, therefore, were unenforceable.
c. That the durable power of attorney was ineffective because it was revoked after the decedent became ill and that the arbitration agreements, therefore, were unenforceable.
d. That the durable power of attorney was effective but that the arbitration agreements were void as against public policy.
e. That the durable power of attorney was effective but that the arbitration agreements were void as against public policy

"PENNY GARRISON et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPREME COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; COUNTRY VILLA BELMONT HEIGHTS HEALTHCENTER et al., Real Parties in Interest. , 132 Cal. App. 4th 253"

The following resulted:

It was resolved that the durable power of attorney would hold and that the consensus to arbitrate would be upheld.

Due the powers availed by Cal. Prob. Code §§ 4683(a), 4684, and 4688, the heir apparent had the authority to enter into the two arbitration arrangement on instead of the deceased.

Cheers!