Friday, February 22, 2013

Judge David Randy Kennedy's written response to The Tennessean's questions

The following are excerpts from written answers given by 7th Circuit Court Judge David Randy Kennedy to questions by The Tennessean.

Question: I did note that following complaints from Joe Haynes, you reduced her requested fee in the case of Nora Roberts ((09p923) ... Have you reduced her fee requests in any other cases?

“With respect to Ms. Roberts case, 09P923, I determined that it was appropriate to reduce the amount of Ms. Stuart’s fee. The Order entered November 20, 2009 reflects a fee of $22,796.25 whereas the Motion was for $29,396.26, for a reduction of $6,600.01. While I recall this as being a contested case relative to who should be appointed, as you are aware the hearing on this particular Motion occurred more than three years ago, and I just do not have any independent memory of the specific arguments presented by counsel. Clearly, there was an objection to the amount and I was appropriately persuaded to reduce the fees as indicated. The establishment of fees and compensation is within the discretion of the trial Court. Case law requires the Court to examine a wide range of facts including a determination as to whether the amount being sought by the fiduciary or attorney is reasonable and necessary, whether the service benefitted the ward or his estate, and if the service did not ultimately benefit the estate, whether it was intended to benefit the ward or his estate. In cases where the amount of the ward’s assets or income is extremely limited, there are occasions where the court either denies or reduces fees on the basis of fairness and equity. If an objection is filed to a Motion for fees, the court is obligated to examine the objection and to take evidence in conformity with the Local Rules and Rules of Evidence to determine whether the objection is valid.

“It is certainly possible that I have reduced her fees in other cases, as I have with respect to other fiduciaries and attorneys. However, I have never made a finding of malfeasance on her part and have never been presented with any evidence that would support such a determination. Rarely, in the years that Ms. Stuart has served as Public Guardian have I received any objection to her fees. The job of Public Guardian is enormously challenging and frequently requires much more direct human interaction, as well as explosive family conflicts than one might expect.”

Full Article & Source:
Judge David Randy Kennedy's written response to The Tennessean's questions


stewart said...

I am always impressed by the guarded self serving nuances of a judges comments when pressed for specifics.
This judge has a mastery of the art.

Thelma said...

Sorry. I didn't thik he was such an artist, because he's pretty damn careless.

jerri said...

crafty cold and its all about a name on paper easy to disregard hey theres a person who belongs to that name its all about the money money money big business

David said...

Judge Randy Kennedy in the spotlight again? Well, well, well. This is great and I am thankful for The Tennessean for shining a bright light on his ugly mug.

StandUp said...

When one hears the name, "Judge Randy Kennedy" of Davidson County TN, one automatically then hears, "Danny Tate, Ginger Franklin, Jewell Tinnor, Maurice Acree" and then we wonder why he hasn't been debenched a long, long time ago.

Betty said...

It amazes me that Kennedy has held on to the bench despite all the publicity of the harm he has done to the very people he is duty bound to protect.

Sue said...

The power Kennedy has over innocent people scares the ***** out of me. We're all at risk in our respective states so look around folks, check out the probate judges in YOUR jurisdiction.