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.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.
Full Article and Source:
Nashville Probate Court Still Center of Musician's Conservatorship (Guardianship) Dispute
See Also:
Free Danny Tate!!!
Facebook: Friends For Danny Tate's Defense
14 comments:
I hope Danny's lawyer can end this
judicial scam, on the return date, based on Kennedy's screw-up at the inception.
Thank goodness there is media attention on the case. Judge Kennedy would probably state the law does not apply to this case.
It looks like it's crystal clear that is does, but, a judge to cover his tracks and judicial imunity would just drag this on and on at the expense of the victim.
This is happening all over the country.
In the end, Danny Tate will have the last word.
Our quest for justice against Team Probate has just begun.
If Paul Housch and the probate mob squad thinks the interest, the energy and the forward movement will go away, ha! I say to you Paul Housch and David Tate et al you ain't seen nothing yet.
JUSTICE FOR DANNY TATE!!!
Great article -- keep the heat on them!
I believe Michael Hoskins will prevail!
How does it feel, David Tate, to have your financial welfare threatened? How does it feel when it happens to you?
Very well written article!
How much is enough, Housch? You've taken everything, including child support for Danny's children and now you want the house too?
Is there a point where a greedy person "fills up"?
The vultures don't stop until the carcass is picked clean.
Thank you for continuing to keep us informed on this important case.
Danny Tate, we will celebrate your victory and the demise of the perps!
i think danny tate should run for public office in the future that is after danny is back making beautiful music
paul housch and his gang of thieves belong in a federal cage
Hey, jerri right on!
Now it's time to dump on David and Housch!
I think there is a lot of confusion due to the article writer’s (Lou Ann Anderson’s) interpretation of the laws & casual use of legal terms. First, she says that David Tate was the temporary conservator. (Danny Tate’s entire public case was built upon the notion that Judge Kennedy unfairly appointed a temporary conservator for him, as well.) Then, the writer said, “After 32 months of Danny Tate only being temporarily conserved, no fiduciary was appointed.” This is a misunderstanding of the law or the situation.
If Judge Kennedy determined (fairly or unfairly) that Danny Tate was incapacitated and placed his estate in a court-appointed conservatorship, it appears that he 'Ordered' the conservatorship. If the judge wrote an Order for a conservatorship, whether ‘temporary’, ‘interim’, ‘partial’ or ‘full’, then he appointed a person or entity as conservator, or fiduciary. SOMEONE was controlling the estate. The public and Danny Tate said that his brother, David, is the fiduciary/conservator who wrongfully assumed control of Danny’s estate. If David Tate is the Appointee on Judge Kennedy’s Order, then he was Danny Tate's conservator through May 24, 2010, when the judge revoked the conservatorship. If TN law says the ward’s estate pays fees of the conservator and his/her attorney, court costs, etc., then the estate of Danny Tate is responsible for Attorney Housch’s fees and everything else mentioned in the law, through May 24. Like everyone else in this legal bind, Danny Tate will pay fees incurred through May 24, until he’s indigent, if need be.
Ms. Anderson said, a law says, “If no fiduciary is appointed, the costs of the proceedings shall be charged against the petitioner.” As I understand the similar rule in my State, this refers to a situation in which a judge determines, upon anyone’s petition to appoint a guardian and/or a conservator, that the alleged incapacitated individual is not incapacitated and, therefore, does not need a temporary or full fiduciary. Danny Tate was determined incapacitated upon petition to appoint a conservator, so I don’t understand the relevance of this rule to his situation. One must presume that Attorney Hoskins has more to work with, than this.
It appears that the last word is in Kennedy's original Order establishing the conservatorship. Attorney Paul Housch for David Tate was there, in the beginning.
What is the other side talking about they can not touch custodial accounts for the children.
That money has to be used for the children. It's illegal to take that money. If it was not they would of already grabbed it.
Judge Kennedy knows that what garbage.
Judge Kennedy is playing games.
Post a Comment