Her Sons Sued to Strip the Agent She Picked Under Her Power of Attorney — Then a Delaware Judge Threw the Case Out at Her Request

Photo credit: AI-generated image created using ChatGPT. Illustrative only.

Family fights have a special kind of sting, especially when they’re dressed up as “legal protection.” In a Delaware Court of Chancery case, two sons sued their sister, trying to undo their mother’s decision to make the daughter her sole agent under new power-of-attorney documents. The twist is the mother herself stepped into the case and asked the court to dismiss it.

The court agreed. In a December 29, 2025 final report, a Senior Magistrate in Chancery recommended granting the principal’s motion to dismiss and closing the case, describing it as an “unsupported attack on the principal’s autonomy” that had to be dismissed at her request under Delaware’s Durable Personal Powers of Attorney Act. The details are laid out in the source material.

If you’ve ever watched siblings circle each other around an aging parent—each one convinced they’re the responsible one—you’ll recognize the contours. But the law doesn’t start with “who seems nicest” or “who used to help more.” It starts with the grown adult at the center of it all and a presumption that she’s still the one steering her own life unless there’s a real, specific reason to say otherwise.

A 95-year-old mother, three adult children, and a change in who’s in charge

The plaintiffs, William H. Williams, V and Steven D. Williams, are the adult sons of Nettie May Williams, the “principal.” The defendant, Susan F. D’Andelet, is their sister. The principal turned 95 on November 23, and the family’s conflict centered on who had authority to act for her.

According to the report, the principal executed a power of attorney and advance healthcare directive in August 2022 naming all three children as equal co-agents. Around that same season, after the principal’s husband died in 2022, she looked to her children for support. The sons alleged they initially took turns caring for their mother, but later, the principal decided she wanted to live full-time with her daughter in Ocean View, Delaware, starting around October 2022.

The dispute escalated after the sons said they had trouble visiting and maintaining a relationship with their mother, claiming they hadn’t seen or heard from her since April 2024. Then came the key event: on September 6, 2024, the principal executed documents that appointed the daughter as her sole agent—the “2024 Documents.” The sons challenged those documents, arguing their mother lacked capacity or was unduly influenced.

What the sons claimed: dementia, dependence, and no access

The sons painted a picture of serious decline. They alleged their mother’s dementia had progressed to the point that she couldn’t manage financial and legal matters independently. Their complaint described confusion, forgetfulness, fatigue, increasing frailty, and dependence on others for medications and finances.

The report recounts allegations and affidavits describing memory lapses and moments of disorientation—things like getting confused mid-sentence, forgetting names, needing help paying a restaurant bill, and difficulty using a telephone without assistance. They also claimed that by 2023 she needed help ordering from a menu and that she no longer drove.

They tied these claims to what they were asking the court to do: remove or strip the daughter’s authority as agent and undo the change that made her the sole decision-maker. The sons filed the action on December 27, 2024, and amended it as litigation unfolded.

The mother intervened—and asked the court to shut it down

This is where the case stops being a standard sibling-versus-sibling fight. The principal herself moved to intervene, and the court granted that intervention. Later, on August 8, 2025, she filed a motion to dismiss the operative complaint.

Under Delaware law, that matters—a lot. The report focuses on the Durable Personal Powers of Attorney Act, specifically a provision that says the court “shall dismiss” this type of challenge “upon motion by the principal,” who is presumed to have legal capacity. There’s an exception, but only if the court finds the principal lacks capacity to revoke the agent’s authority or revoke the power of attorney itself.

Plain English: if Mom shows up and says, “I want this dismissed,” the court starts from “yes,” not “maybe.” The burden shifts to the challengers to plead enough specific facts to show a real capacity problem, not just family suspicion and frustration.

The legal standard: you don’t get to pry without real facts

The report leans heavily on prior Delaware decisions, including Parkhurst v. Nalley and Harker v. Grimes, which developed what’s described as a gatekeeping approach. The court compared this to other capacity-related contexts, like guardianships and will contests: you don’t get to drag an elderly person into an intrusive inquiry just because someone thinks they should be in charge.

The magistrate framed the issue through a Rule 12(b)(6) lens—whether the sons pleaded enough non-conclusory facts to state a reasonably conceivable claim that their mother lacked “contractual capacity” at the time she executed the 2024 Documents. That means more than showing age, forgetfulness, or the sad normal erosion that can come with the last stretch of life. The question is whether she was incapable of understanding the nature and effect of what she signed, or so impaired she couldn’t properly protect her own property rights at that moment.

This is one of those moments where the law sounds cold until you realize what it’s protecting. If vague allegations were enough, any adult child with a grievance could force a humiliating fishing expedition into a parent’s mind, medical history, and private life. And if you’ve ever seen family members weaponize “concern,” you know why courts are cautious.

Why the court said the pleadings didn’t clear the bar

The sons’ claims, as described in the report, relied on a dementia diagnosis and anecdotes about confusion and dependence. The court acknowledged those allegations, but found they aligned more with cases where capacity claims were dismissed at the pleading stage than with cases where the pleadings were strong enough to require further inquiry.

The report contrasts the sons’ allegations with situations where pleadings described vivid delusions and clear inability to grasp reality at the relevant time. Here, the court saw the sons’ assertions as falling short of the required specificity tied to the exact time the 2024 Documents were executed.

The report also notes that the principal submitted confidential medical records spanning June 2023 through July 2025. Those records indicated marked hearing loss affecting communication and possible age-related memory loss that could be interpreted as confusion, but a provider described her as “stable” and “oriented,” with “no signs of advanced or worsening dementia.” The magistrate also emphasized that, for the purpose of deciding whether the complaint stated a prima facie claim, the analysis was constrained to the pleadings rather than outside exhibits.

Autonomy isn’t a technicality, even in a messy family

There’s a hard, grown-man lesson sitting underneath this case. A parent can be aging, forgetful, stubborn, and physically limited, and still be the one making her own choices. A family can be strained, and a sibling can be controlling, and the court still won’t assume the parent is helpless just because two adult kids are angry or shut out.

The report’s language about autonomy is pointed: it characterizes the litigation as an unsupported attack on the principal’s autonomy. That’s not a small rebuke. It’s a reminder that “I’m doing this for your own good” can turn into a cover story for “I don’t like that you chose her instead of me.”

Faith doesn’t require pretending families don’t fracture. It just makes it harder to justify using power, paperwork, and pressure as substitutes for humility, patience, and honest conversation. Courts can’t fix a family’s heart, but they can refuse to let a legal process become a lever for control.

The recommendation in the final report was straightforward: grant the principal’s motion to dismiss and close the case. Whatever else is going on in that family, the court treated the mother’s voice as the starting point, not an obstacle to get around.