The degree to which appearances can be deceiving seemed apparent June 11 in a Nashville courtroom when the 32-month “temporary” conservatorship (guardianship) of musician Danny Tate was once again the topic with Davidson County Circuit Court Judge Randy Kennedy presiding and the costs associated with Tate’s “freedom” at issue.
On May 24, before a courtroom full of Danny Tate supporters and a television news team, Kennedy appeared to terminate a temporary conservatorship in place since October 2007 that gave David Tate control over his brother’s person and property. In the court record, Judge Kennedy stated that David Tate was 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.
While appearing a victory for 54-year-old Danny Tate, the “devil” truly is in the details. A proposed final order along with a series of other filings by David Tate and attorney, Paul T. Housch, within days of the proceeding seemingly contradicted the provisions and spirit of the May 24 ruling to the point of portending that all might not be as it seemed. Whether Judge Kennedy would staunchly uphold or circumvent his ruling through respective denial or approval of the post-termination filings became a significant question. A column Nashville probate court still center of musician’s conservatorship (guardianship) dispute detailed issues on the docket of the June 11 hearing.
Despite Tate attorney Michael Hoskins promptly preparing and submitting for Judge Kennedy’s signature a final order reflecting the “immediate” nature of the ruling so publicly pronounced on May 24, Danny Tate learned late June 10 that the judge instead appeared to have quietly signed and filed an alternate final order prepared by Housch, the attorney hired in October 2007 by David Tate and involuntarily financed for 32 months by Danny Tate. In contrast to the May 24 ruling, the order called for the former temporary conservator to maintain functional financial control for 60 days past the “termination” date to “wind down the affairs of the Conservatorship.”
Danny Tate’s estate had a cash value of more than $600,000 when David Tate became his brother’s temporary conservator. By the temporary conservatorship’s May 24 “termination,” the estate was largely depleted. Danny Tate’s diminished estate was the basis on which David Tate filed motions (after the conservatorship’s termination) asking the court to authorize both diversion of the musician’s forthcoming BMI royalty checks for payment of conservatorship expenses as well as to allow liquidation of remaining Tate investment accounts as needed for payment of outstanding expenses – largely court costs related to the conservator-initiated legal battle to keep Danny Tate in the conservatorship now deemed as unwarranted. On June 11, Judge Kennedy granted these motions.
Funds held in custodial accounts for Danny Tate’s two daughters were noted in the filing, but not specifically 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.” At this point, the funds remain intact, but are subject to future court review.
In a separate filing, attorney Paul Housch asked the court to award nearly $26,000 in attorneys fees for work performed February 24, 2010 through May 28, 2010 – work that included preparation of former conservator David Tate’s motions seeking confiscation of Danny Tate assets, a move seemingly contradictory to Judge Kennedy’s May 24 ruling. Housch also sought 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…”
As Danny Tate’s house was severely damaged in the recent Nashville flood, a forced sale at this time would likely be difficult and disadvantageous to the musician and compound other losses including equipment uninsured due to the temporary conservator’s election to discontinue certain insurance coverage.
Despite reportedly animated June 11 exchanges that included Michael Hoskins arguing how the conservatorship has pushed his client to the verge of bankruptcy, Judge Kennedy ruled that Danny Tate is responsible for “reasonable court costs and attorneys’ fees,” but said he “wouldn’t make a determination” on the attorney’s lien against Tate’s home.
Danny Tate was “temporarily” conserved for 32 months with no fiduciary appointed. Tate’s legal team filed a motion asking for a chargeback of legal and other discretionary costs to David Tate citing Tennessee law which says “if no fiduciary is appointed, the costs of the proceedings shall be charged against the petitioner…” A case similar to Tate’s was used as precedent and ironically, the case judge was Randy Kennedy. Nonetheless, this was the one motion of the day flatly rejected by Kennedy.
Our first words ever written about this case are as follows:
Probate courts’ power is often overlooked and underestimated. Unbeknownst to many, this status generates opportunity to quietly defend or destroy the personal liberty and/or property rights of those coming before such venues.
Danny Tate has defied the often quiet nature of these matters. A Free Danny Tate web site along with nearly 4,000 Friends for Danny Tate’s Defense Facebook group have brought specific attention to Tate’s case and general – probably unwelcomed – awareness to the power and conduct of probate courts.
A newly-launched site, Nashville Criminals, describes its content as “demonstrating the criminal conduct of various citizens and attorneys and sanctioned by a specific judge. You decide if this criminal and unethical conduct should continue.”
Judge Kennedy’s May 24 hearing seemed an event orchestrated for an audience, cameras and the appearance of a “happy ending.” Reports on the June 11 hearing indicate a reversion to familiar practices void in originality for those who follow questionable probate cases.
A prior column asked if the May 24 hearing was an exercise to dissuade bad public relations or to administer good public policy. That question appears to have been answered.
For more info:
Nashville probate court still center of musician’s conservatorship (guardianship) dispute (June 7, 2010)
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 tags musician Danny Tate with conservatorship ‘freedom tax’
The degree to which appearances can be deceiving seemed apparent June 11 in a Nashville courtroom when the 32-month “temporary” conservatorship (guardianship) of musician Danny Tate was once again the topic with Davidson County Circuit Court Judge Randy Kennedy presiding and the costs associated with Tate’s “freedom” at issue.
On May 24, before a courtroom full of Danny Tate supporters and a television news team, Kennedy appeared to terminate a temporary conservatorship in place since October 2007 that gave David Tate control over his brother’s person and property. In the court record, Judge Kennedy stated that David Tate was 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.
While appearing a victory for 54-year-old Danny Tate, the “devil” truly is in the details. A proposed final order along with a series of other filings by David Tate and attorney, Paul T. Housch, within days of the proceeding seemingly contradicted the provisions and spirit of the May 24 ruling to the point of portending that all might not be as it seemed. Whether Judge Kennedy would staunchly uphold or circumvent his ruling through respective denial or approval of the post-termination filings became a significant question. A column Nashville probate court still center of musician’s conservatorship (guardianship) dispute detailed issues on the docket of the June 11 hearing.
Despite Tate attorney Michael Hoskins promptly preparing and submitting for Judge Kennedy’s signature a final order reflecting the “immediate” nature of the ruling so publicly pronounced on May 24, Danny Tate learned late June 10 that the judge instead appeared to have quietly signed and filed an alternate final order prepared by Housch, the attorney hired in October 2007 by David Tate and involuntarily financed for 32 months by Danny Tate. In contrast to the May 24 ruling, the order called for the former temporary conservator to maintain functional financial control for 60 days past the “termination” date to “wind down the affairs of the Conservatorship.”
Danny Tate’s estate had a cash value of more than $600,000 when David Tate became his brother’s temporary conservator. By the temporary conservatorship’s May 24 “termination,” the estate was largely depleted. Danny Tate’s diminished estate was the basis on which David Tate filed motions (after the conservatorship’s termination) asking the court to authorize both diversion of the musician’s forthcoming BMI royalty checks for payment of conservatorship expenses as well as to allow liquidation of remaining Tate investment accounts as needed for payment of outstanding expenses – largely court costs related to the conservator-initiated legal battle to keep Danny Tate in the conservatorship now deemed as unwarranted. On June 11, Judge Kennedy granted these motions.
Funds held in custodial accounts for Danny Tate’s two daughters were noted in the filing, but not specifically 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.” At this point, the funds remain intact, but are subject to future court review.
In a separate filing, attorney Paul Housch asked the court to award nearly $26,000 in attorneys fees for work performed February 24, 2010 through May 28, 2010 – work that included preparation of former conservator David Tate’s motions seeking confiscation of Danny Tate assets, a move seemingly contradictory to Judge Kennedy’s May 24 ruling. Housch also sought 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…”
As Danny Tate’s house was severely damaged in the recent Nashville flood, a forced sale at this time would likely be difficult and disadvantageous to the musician and compound other losses including equipment uninsured due to the temporary conservator’s election to discontinue certain insurance coverage.
Despite reportedly animated June 11 exchanges that included Michael Hoskins arguing how the conservatorship has pushed his client to the verge of bankruptcy, Judge Kennedy ruled that Danny Tate is responsible for “reasonable court costs and attorneys’ fees,” but said he “wouldn’t make a determination” on the attorney’s lien against Tate’s home.
Danny Tate was “temporarily” conserved for 32 months with no fiduciary appointed. Tate’s legal team filed a motion asking for a chargeback of legal and other discretionary costs to David Tate citing Tennessee law which says “if no fiduciary is appointed, the costs of the proceedings shall be charged against the petitioner…” A case similar to Tate’s was used as precedent and ironically, the case judge was Randy Kennedy. Nonetheless, this was the one motion of the day flatly rejected by Kennedy.
Our first words ever written about this case are as follows:
Danny Tate has defied the often quiet nature of these matters. A Free Danny Tate web site along with nearly 4,000 Friends for Danny Tate’s Defense Facebook group have brought specific attention to Tate’s case and general – probably unwelcomed – awareness to the power and conduct of probate courts.
A newly-launched site, Nashville Criminals, describes its content as “demonstrating the criminal conduct of various citizens and attorneys and sanctioned by a specific judge. You decide if this criminal and unethical conduct should continue.”
Judge Kennedy’s May 24 hearing seemed an event orchestrated for an audience, cameras and the appearance of a “happy ending.” Reports on the June 11 hearing indicate a reversion to familiar practices void in originality for those who follow questionable probate cases.
A prior column asked if the May 24 hearing was an exercise to dissuade bad public relations or to administer good public policy. That question appears to have been answered.
For more info:
Nashville probate court still center of musician’s conservatorship (guardianship) dispute (June 7, 2010)
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.