funds because, prior to their liquidation, the CDs had been payable to another son — the defendant’s brother— upon the father’s death. Id. at 365 (¶ 14). Thus, the court reasoned that “even if the transfers [were] voided, the assets would not return to the estate, but rather to [the defendant’s brother].” Id. at (¶ 15). ¶ 49. Reviewing the issue de novo, we cannot agree that Elva Mae’s surviving sisters were the proper parties to challenge transactions executed in violation of ¡the terms of the POA. A POA “is nothing more than one form of a principal-agency relationship.” Clark v. Ritchey, 759 So.2d 516, 518 (¶7) (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (citing McKinney v. King, 498 So.2d 387, 388-89 (Miss.1986)); see also King Metal Bldgs., Inc. v. Renasant Ins., 159 So.3d 567, 570 n. 8 (Miss.Ct.App.2014) (<HOLDING>). As in any other principal-agent relationship,
holding that a principal is bound by a contract entered into by the principals agent on her behalf if the agent had authority to bind the principal holding a power of attorney allows a principal to convey to an agent the authority to act on its behalf in identified matters holding that unless that power is restricted by the principal an agent under a california statutory healthcare power of attorney has the power to execute applicable admission forms including arbitration agreements holding that agency relationship existed where principal paid plaintiff directly and written agreement stated agent was signing on behalf of principal recognizing that statements made by agent on behalf of principal to principals attorney may be protected by principals attorneyclient privilege