
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