I found it a fascinating read, not least because there was such detailed information about the POV of the ' big spender'. Extremely arrogant, suspicious of lawyers and the law, contemptuous of her sister. However, her wanting to provide a safe, suitable and attractive environment for her mother and herself to live in was understandable.
It became a sort of 'marriage'. She felt entitled to be compensated for everything she had given up and chose to achieve this by building a gilded cage for them both. It is hard to believe that the building works really cost that much!
The judgment explains what she could and should have done instead. That was fascinating too. So often we read about situations in the media, or here on TP, and think about what could or should have happened, but it is always distorted by not having all the facts. When presented before this court, the facts were clarified, but also the perspectives of all parties were outlined in short statements. Very interesting.
As a legal Guardian (same as a Deputy) I am required to be under much greater scrutiny by OPG than is an Attorney. I could not, for example, exclude my OH from active participation because as joint Guardian he has to sign the Inventory, Management Plan and Annual Account. I wish those with POA were a bit more actively accountable. An annual report signed by all Attorneys would be a good idea, if only the OPG had the resources to deal with actively monitoring all cases.