Despite Davidson County (TN) Circuit Court Judge Randy Kennedy having terminated the temporary conservatorship of Nashville musician Danny Tate, commitment to steps ensuring an outcome as the ruling implied are not yet visible. Instead, the initial conservatorship (also known as guardianship) termination has generated a new wave of financial assaults by the former temporary conservator, Danny Tate’s brother David, and his attorney, Paul T. Housch, on what’s left of their former ward’s estate. Tate and his legal team continue, however, to persevere on and along the way are finding some interesting twists. And as new developments unfold, courtroom observers and other probate case watchers are questioning if the May 24 final hearing was a public relations effort to defuse court criticism and dissuade efforts of a “Free Danny Tate” campaign or was it a ruling based upon fair-minded application of law which, in theory, would disallow legal process and gamesmanship to undermine a legitimate ruling.
In Oct. 2007 and under questionable circumstances (see articles below), Judge Randy Kennedy placed Danny Tate under a temporary conservatorship petitioned for by David Tate with Paul Housch acting as his counsel. For 30 months and during a time when Danny Tate was personally battling to regain control of drug and alcohol abuse problems, the antagonistic nature of Tate and his brother’s relationship was well-known, even documented by consulting health care professionals. Replacement of David Tate by a more neutral party did not appear a consideration, neither did scheduling a final hearing on the conservatorship – a hearing that, if properly held, would have allowed Danny Tate his “day in court” to fight the conservatorship status. Only after a late 2009 Tennessee Court of Appeals ruling that found Tate as entitled either a chance to get out of the conservatorship or else to appeal it was the May 24 hearing scheduled. Tate’s estate had a cash value of more than $600,000 when the temporary conservatorship began. By the May 24 termination of the conservatorship, it was largely depleted.
Upon issuing a case decision, judges sign a final order. The prevailing party is often instructed to prepare the order for the judge’s signature. Bottom line of the May 24 ruling appeared to be that Danny Tate is a man free to immediately control his person and assets while his former conservator has 60 days to prepare a final accounting of actions taken during the 32-month “temporary” conservatorship.
Tate attorney Michael Hoskins submitted such an order reflecting the “immediate” nature of Judge Randy Kennedy’s ruling thereby calling to “immediately return any and all property of Mr. Tate which is in the Temporary Conservator’s possession or under his control.” Kennedy’s ruling was designated nunc pro tunc allowing David Tate the capacity for corrective action pertaining to any transactions he conducted while acting as conservator during a 60-day period in which he has to prepare and submit an accounting.
Conversely, Paul T. Housch, attorney to David Tate, is asking Judge Kennedy to sign a final order that allows David Tate functional control of his brother’s estate through the 60-day accounting preparation period to “wind down the affairs of the Conservatorship” which includes paying any and all expenses of the conservatorship. Prior to filing this proposed final order, the former conservator filed two additional motions. In issuing his ruling, Judge Kennedy stated:
…that’s not to say that the Court is not going to immediately allow for Mr. Tate to begin to manage his money affairs…
David Tate’s first motion seeks to divert Danny Tate’s BMI royalty payments from the musician and instead have them sent to him as temporary conservatorship despite termination of the capacity. The second motion asks the court to authorize selling of Tate’s remaining investment assets, including pension funds, to pay outstanding court costs related to the conservator-initiated legal battle to keep Danny Tate in the conservatorship now deemed as unwarranted. Funds held in custodial accounts for Danny Tate’s two daughters are noted, but not currently targeted with the motion reading the temporary conservator prefers “not to encroach on the custodial amount, unless the Court deems it necessary to pay the aforementioned expenses.”
A separate filing finds attorney Paul Housch asking the court to award nearly $26,000 in attorneys fees for work performed February 24, 2010 through May 28, 2010 which includes preparation of former conservator David Tate’s latest motions seeking confiscation of Danny Tate assets – again, seemingly in contradiction to Judge Kennedy’s ruling that terminated the temporary conservatorship. As Michael Hoskins earlier anticipated, the motion also calls for an “Attorney’s Lien in favor of Paul T. Housch, Attorney” to be placed against Danny Tate’s house “to further secure payment of any attorney fees and expenses awarded by the Court in said motion…” Danny Tate’s house was severely damaged in the recent Nashville flood such that a forced sale at this time would likely be difficult and disadvantageous to the musician. As a side note, Tate’s flood losses also included equipment uninsured due to the temporary conservator’s election to discontinue certain insurance coverage.
In a new twist, Michael Hoskins has filed a motion asking the court to charge all costs of legal proceedings and other “discretionary costs” related to the process of petitioning for conservatorship of Danny Tate back to the petitioner, David Tate, the former temporary conservator. He cites Tennessee law which says:
If a fiduciary is appointed, the costs of the proceedings, which are the court costs, the guardian ad litem fee, the required medical examination costs and the attorney’s fee for the petitioner, shall be charged against the property of the respondent to the extent the respondent’s property exceeds the supplemental security income eligibility limit. If no fiduciary is appointed, the costs of the proceedings shall be charged against the petitioner…
After 32 months of Danny Tate only being temporarily conserved, no fiduciary was appointed, which by this law, directs costs of the proceedings to David Tate. As precedent is an important element for supporting legal contentions, Michael Hoskins cites a case in which HCA-owned Centennial Medical Center of Nashville filed an emergency petition for conservator appointment over one of its patients, Dorothy Barron. On the same day of the filing, the court appointed a temporary conservator “until further hearing on this matter.” Per Tate’s motion, though Barron denied that she was disabled, the court used a subsequent hearing to uphold the temporary conservatorship and authorized the temporary conservator to exert full control over Barron’s person and property. At a final hearing, the court found Barron to not be disabled as per the required legal definitions and dismissed the petition. The motion further states “after determining Ms. Barron did not need to have a permanent conservator appointed, the trial court taxed all the costs to HCA,” (emphasis added), a decision upheld in 2007 by the Tennessee Court of Appeals. The motion also makes a case for awards of discretionary costs generated by David Tate’s effort to remain in the temporary conservatorship position.
The similarities of this and the Tate case are significant. In both, temporary conservatorship was granted to the petitioner on the same day of petitioning during an “emergency hearing.” Additionally like Barron, Danny Tate denied that he was disabled and after a subsequent hearing, the trial court still upheld the temporary conservatorship authorizing full control over both wards’ person and property “pending further orders of this court.” The parallels continue as final hearings brought both Barron and Tate rulings in which they were deemed not presently disabled and therefore the conservatorship petitions were dismissed. Michael Hoskins points out perhaps the most ironic of similarities stating:
Moreover, the decision to tax all the costs of the proceeding to the petitioner, even though a temporary conservatorship was previously granted and exercised, was made in this court with Honorable Randy Kennedy presiding. Id., at *1. Further, the Court of Appeals did not alter this court’s decision to tax all the costs of the proceedings against HCA, the petitioner in Barron. Id., at *5, fn. 2.
May 24 was Danny Tate’s final conservatorship hearing, but the matter is far from over. With no final order, any measure of victory cannot yet be discerned. Plus, two key dates are upcoming. At a June 11 hearing, Judge Kennedy will address former temporary conservator David Tate’s motions seeking his brother’s BMI royalties and investment accounts which could include UGMA funds for his daughters. He also will hear Housch’s petition for fees that includes placing an attorney’s lien on Danny Tate’s house. On June 18, Kennedy will hear Danny Tate’s petition asking the court to act as it has before in charging proceeding costs against the petitioner of a dismissed petition as well as to award allowable discretionary costs generated due to the petitioner’s actions.
The Friends of Danny Tate’s Defense Facebook page remains active as also does FreeDannyTate.com. The remaining question for those involved and others watching the case comes back to the musician’s May 24 hearing which is yet to be determined as an exercise to dissuade bad public relations or to administer good public policy.
For more info:
Musician Danny Tate freed from conservatorship, assets still targeted in Nashville probate court (May 30, 2010)
Danny Tate conservatorship cases sees increased media activity with AP coverage (May 22, 2010)
Musician Danny Tate’s conservatorship brings scrutinization of probate issue (May 18, 2010)
Musician Danny Tate shows “fight for your life” aspect of Nashville (and other) probate courts (May 3, 2010)
Austin musicians (and others) beware the guardianship plight of Nashville rocker Danny Tate (April 11, 2010)
Lou Ann Anderson is an advocate working to create awareness regarding the Texas probate system and its surrounding culture. She is the Online Producer at www.EstateofDenial.com and a Policy Advisor with Americans for Prosperity – Texas Foundation. Lou Ann may be contacted at info@EstateofDenial.com.
Estate of Denial® provides news, analysis and commentary on abusive practices occurring in probate courts and via probate instruments (wills, trusts, guardianships, powers of attorney). We provide original perspective to educate the public regarding this growing threat to both individual freedoms and property rights.
Nashville probate court still center of musician’s conservatorship (guardianship) dispute
Despite Davidson County (TN) Circuit Court Judge Randy Kennedy having terminated the temporary conservatorship of Nashville musician Danny Tate, commitment to steps ensuring an outcome as the ruling implied are not yet visible. Instead, the initial conservatorship (also known as guardianship) termination has generated a new wave of financial assaults by the former temporary conservator, Danny Tate’s brother David, and his attorney, Paul T. Housch, on what’s left of their former ward’s estate. Tate and his legal team continue, however, to persevere on and along the way are finding some interesting twists. And as new developments unfold, courtroom observers and other probate case watchers are questioning if the May 24 final hearing was a public relations effort to defuse court criticism and dissuade efforts of a “Free Danny Tate” campaign or was it a ruling based upon fair-minded application of law which, in theory, would disallow legal process and gamesmanship to undermine a legitimate ruling.
In Oct. 2007 and under questionable circumstances (see articles below), Judge Randy Kennedy placed Danny Tate under a temporary conservatorship petitioned for by David Tate with Paul Housch acting as his counsel. For 30 months and during a time when Danny Tate was personally battling to regain control of drug and alcohol abuse problems, the antagonistic nature of Tate and his brother’s relationship was well-known, even documented by consulting health care professionals. Replacement of David Tate by a more neutral party did not appear a consideration, neither did scheduling a final hearing on the conservatorship – a hearing that, if properly held, would have allowed Danny Tate his “day in court” to fight the conservatorship status. Only after a late 2009 Tennessee Court of Appeals ruling that found Tate as entitled either a chance to get out of the conservatorship or else to appeal it was the May 24 hearing scheduled. Tate’s estate had a cash value of more than $600,000 when the temporary conservatorship began. By the May 24 termination of the conservatorship, it was largely depleted.
Upon issuing a case decision, judges sign a final order. The prevailing party is often instructed to prepare the order for the judge’s signature. Bottom line of the May 24 ruling appeared to be that Danny Tate is a man free to immediately control his person and assets while his former conservator has 60 days to prepare a final accounting of actions taken during the 32-month “temporary” conservatorship.
Tate attorney Michael Hoskins submitted such an order reflecting the “immediate” nature of Judge Randy Kennedy’s ruling thereby calling to “immediately return any and all property of Mr. Tate which is in the Temporary Conservator’s possession or under his control.” Kennedy’s ruling was designated nunc pro tunc allowing David Tate the capacity for corrective action pertaining to any transactions he conducted while acting as conservator during a 60-day period in which he has to prepare and submit an accounting.
Conversely, Paul T. Housch, attorney to David Tate, is asking Judge Kennedy to sign a final order that allows David Tate functional control of his brother’s estate through the 60-day accounting preparation period to “wind down the affairs of the Conservatorship” which includes paying any and all expenses of the conservatorship. Prior to filing this proposed final order, the former conservator filed two additional motions. In issuing his ruling, Judge Kennedy stated:
David Tate’s first motion seeks to divert Danny Tate’s BMI royalty payments from the musician and instead have them sent to him as temporary conservatorship despite termination of the capacity. The second motion asks the court to authorize selling of Tate’s remaining investment assets, including pension funds, to pay outstanding court costs related to the conservator-initiated legal battle to keep Danny Tate in the conservatorship now deemed as unwarranted. Funds held in custodial accounts for Danny Tate’s two daughters are noted, but not currently targeted with the motion reading the temporary conservator prefers “not to encroach on the custodial amount, unless the Court deems it necessary to pay the aforementioned expenses.”
A separate filing finds attorney Paul Housch asking the court to award nearly $26,000 in attorneys fees for work performed February 24, 2010 through May 28, 2010 which includes preparation of former conservator David Tate’s latest motions seeking confiscation of Danny Tate assets – again, seemingly in contradiction to Judge Kennedy’s ruling that terminated the temporary conservatorship. As Michael Hoskins earlier anticipated, the motion also calls for an “Attorney’s Lien in favor of Paul T. Housch, Attorney” to be placed against Danny Tate’s house “to further secure payment of any attorney fees and expenses awarded by the Court in said motion…” Danny Tate’s house was severely damaged in the recent Nashville flood such that a forced sale at this time would likely be difficult and disadvantageous to the musician. As a side note, Tate’s flood losses also included equipment uninsured due to the temporary conservator’s election to discontinue certain insurance coverage.
In a new twist, Michael Hoskins has filed a motion asking the court to charge all costs of legal proceedings and other “discretionary costs” related to the process of petitioning for conservatorship of Danny Tate back to the petitioner, David Tate, the former temporary conservator. He cites Tennessee law which says:
After 32 months of Danny Tate only being temporarily conserved, no fiduciary was appointed, which by this law, directs costs of the proceedings to David Tate. As precedent is an important element for supporting legal contentions, Michael Hoskins cites a case in which HCA-owned Centennial Medical Center of Nashville filed an emergency petition for conservator appointment over one of its patients, Dorothy Barron. On the same day of the filing, the court appointed a temporary conservator “until further hearing on this matter.” Per Tate’s motion, though Barron denied that she was disabled, the court used a subsequent hearing to uphold the temporary conservatorship and authorized the temporary conservator to exert full control over Barron’s person and property. At a final hearing, the court found Barron to not be disabled as per the required legal definitions and dismissed the petition. The motion further states “after determining Ms. Barron did not need to have a permanent conservator appointed, the trial court taxed all the costs to HCA,” (emphasis added), a decision upheld in 2007 by the Tennessee Court of Appeals. The motion also makes a case for awards of discretionary costs generated by David Tate’s effort to remain in the temporary conservatorship position.
The similarities of this and the Tate case are significant. In both, temporary conservatorship was granted to the petitioner on the same day of petitioning during an “emergency hearing.” Additionally like Barron, Danny Tate denied that he was disabled and after a subsequent hearing, the trial court still upheld the temporary conservatorship authorizing full control over both wards’ person and property “pending further orders of this court.” The parallels continue as final hearings brought both Barron and Tate rulings in which they were deemed not presently disabled and therefore the conservatorship petitions were dismissed. Michael Hoskins points out perhaps the most ironic of similarities stating:
May 24 was Danny Tate’s final conservatorship hearing, but the matter is far from over. With no final order, any measure of victory cannot yet be discerned. Plus, two key dates are upcoming. At a June 11 hearing, Judge Kennedy will address former temporary conservator David Tate’s motions seeking his brother’s BMI royalties and investment accounts which could include UGMA funds for his daughters. He also will hear Housch’s petition for fees that includes placing an attorney’s lien on Danny Tate’s house. On June 18, Kennedy will hear Danny Tate’s petition asking the court to act as it has before in charging proceeding costs against the petitioner of a dismissed petition as well as to award allowable discretionary costs generated due to the petitioner’s actions.
The Friends of Danny Tate’s Defense Facebook page remains active as also does FreeDannyTate.com. The remaining question for those involved and others watching the case comes back to the musician’s May 24 hearing which is yet to be determined as an exercise to dissuade bad public relations or to administer good public policy.
For more info:
Musician Danny Tate freed from conservatorship, assets still targeted in Nashville probate court (May 30, 2010)
Danny Tate conservatorship cases sees increased media activity with AP coverage (May 22, 2010)
Musician Danny Tate’s conservatorship brings scrutinization of probate issue (May 18, 2010)
Musician Danny Tate shows “fight for your life” aspect of Nashville (and other) probate courts (May 3, 2010)
Austin musicians (and others) beware the guardianship plight of Nashville rocker Danny Tate (April 11, 2010)
Lou Ann Anderson is an advocate working to create awareness regarding the Texas probate system and its surrounding culture. She is the Online Producer at www.EstateofDenial.com and a Policy Advisor with Americans for Prosperity – Texas Foundation. Lou Ann may be contacted at info@EstateofDenial.com.