### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE N ove m be r 3, 200 9 S es sio n ROBE RT KENT DRAKE, ET AL 

### . v. PA ULAMAE D RA KE

A p p ea l f ro m th e C h a n ce ry C o u rt fo r H a m b len C o u n ty N o. 2008- 471 H on. T hom as R . F ri ers on, I I . , Judge

N o. E 2009- 00540- C O A - R 3- C V - F I L E D JA N U A R Y 19, 2010

C h ild re n o f

d e f e n d a n t m o th e r b ro u g h t th is a c tio n to h a v e a c o n se rv a to r a p p o in ted f o r th e ir m ot heron t he gr ounds t hatt he mot hersu ffer ed dement i a, Par ki ns on' s di s eas e and other i nfirm i t i es and w as i nco m petent and un able t o m ake d eci si on s abou ther health an d finances. Fol l ow i ng t r i a l , t h e Tr i a l Cou r t f o u n d t h e r e was c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t t he m ot herw as di s abl ed and i n need of s uper vi s i on, pr ot ect i on and as s i s t ance bym eans of a co n ser vat or s hi p due t o herperm anentm ent al i ncapa ci t y . T he s ons w er e named as coc o n s e r v a t o r s o f

h e rp e r s o n a n d e s t a t e . T h e a t t o r n e yf o rt h e mo th e rf

i l e d a n a p p e a l , a n d we a f f irm th e Ju d g m e n t o f

th e T ria l C o u rt.

Tenn. R . A pp. P. 3 Appealas of R i ght ; Judg m e nt of

t he C hanc e r y C our t A f f i r m e d.

H E R S C H E L P I CKENS F RAN KS , P .J ., d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e Co u r t , i n wh i c h D. M I C HA EL S W INEY , J ., and J OH N W. M C C L AR TY , J

. , j oi ned. W

. D ougl as C ol l i ns , M or r i s t ow n, T ennes s ee, fort he appe l l ant ( s ) , Paul a M ae D r ake. C yn th ia J . K in g , N e w p o rt, T e n n e ss e e , fo r th e a p p e llee (s) , R o b e rt K e n t D ra k e a n d D e n n is Sol om on D r ake.

OP I NI ON

P e tit io n e rs P e tit io n e d f

o r th e a p p o in tm e n t o f a c o n se rv a to r f o r th e p e rso n a n d e sta te of P aul a M ae D r ake, al l egi ng t hat M s . D r ake, w ho i s t hei rm ot her , s uffe r ed fr om dement i a,-2-

Par ki ns on’ s di s eas e, and cor onaryar t erydi s eas e, and w as i ncompet ent and unabl e t o m ake deci s i ons about her heal t h or fi nance s . A guar di an ad l i t em and an at t or ney ad li tem w ere a p p o in te d f

o r M s . D ra k e . T he Tri al C our t co n d u ct ed an e vi dent i aryhear i ng, and t ook t he i s s ues under s ubm i s s i on att he cl os e of th e ev ide nt i aryhear i ng. T he C our tt hen i s s ued a M emora ndum O pi ni on, fi ndi ng t her e w as cl earand convi nci ng evi dence ( fr om t he t es t i m onyand the doct or s ’ s t at ement s ) t hat M s . D r ake w as di s abl ed and i n need of s uper vi s i on, pr ot ect i on and assistan ce b ym ea n s o f a co n serv atorsh ip du e t o h er pe rm an en t m en tal inca p ac ity . T h e C o u rt found thati tw as i n M s . D r ake’ s bes ti nt er es t s t o name hers ons as co- cons ervat or s of her p e rs o n a n d e s ta te , a n d e n te re d a n O rd e r o f C o n s e rv a to rs h ip

. M s . D r ake then fi l ed a M ot i on for N ew T r i al , al l egi ng thatone of the phy s i ci ans w ho o p i n e d t h a tM s . D r a k e w a s i n c o m p e t e n t , i

. e . , D r . J u l i e J a c q u e s , r e c a n t e d h e r o p i n i o n t w o d a ys pr i ort o t r i al , but t hat M s . D r ake’ s couns el w as unabl e t o s chedul e a de pos i t i on orobt ai n a w r i t t en st at ement fr om D r . J acque s pr i or t o t r i al

. T he C our toverrul ed the M ot i on forN ew T r i al , as w el l as M s . D r ake’ s at t or ney ’ s M ot i on t o W i t hdr aw as couns el

. T hi s appea l ens ued. T he i s s ues pr es ent ed ar e: 1. W hether t he evi dence pr es ent ed at t r i al cl ear l y and convi nci nglyestabl i s hed t hatM s . D r ake i s di s abl ed and i n need of a cons ervat or s hi p? 2. W hethert he Tri al C our tfai l ed t o adequa t el ycons i derevi d en ce t hatw as d isc o v e re d o n th e e v e o f trial? I n an i nvol unt ary cons ervat or s hi p pr ocee di ng s uch as t hi s , t he bur den of pr oof i s on t he p et i t i on ers t o sho w bycl ear and co nv i ncing ev i de n c e th a t the p roposed w ard i s a

“ d is a b le d p e r s o n ” a s d e f in e d in th e c o n s e rv a to rs h ip s ta tu te

. I n r e: C ons er vat ors hi

p of G r oves , 1 0 9 S .W .3 d 3 1 7 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). T h is h e ig h ten e d sta n d a rd o f p ro o f sh o u ld be enough t o pr oduce i n t he fa ct

- fi nder ’ s m i nd a “f i r m bel i ef orconv ict ion r egar di ng t he t rut h of the factual pr opos i t i ons s oughtt o be es t abl i s hed byt he evi dence

. ” I d. , quot i ng Fr uge v. D oe , 95 2 S

. w . 2d 40 8, 41 2 (T enn . 19 97 ). T enn . C o d e A n n . § 3 4 -1- 10 1(7) defi nes a “d isab led p erso n ” a s “a n yp erso n eigh teen (18 ) y ea rs o f ag e or o lder d eterm ined b ythe c o u rt t o be i n need of par t i al orful l s uper vi s i on, pr ot ect i on and as s i s t ance byr eas on of m ent al i l l nes s , phy s i cal i l lnes s ori nj ur y , devel opm ent al di s abi l i t y , orot herm ent al orphy s i cal i ncapa ci t y . ” I n t hi s cas e, t he pr oof s how ed th atM s . D r ake r equi r ed ext ens i ve ca r e atl eas ts i nce 200 3 , the t i m e w hen s he moved t o T ennes s ee a nd m oved i n w i t h hers on and daught er - i n--3-

l aw . T heyb o t h t e s t i f

i e d t h a ts h e n e e d e d d a i l ya s s i s t a n c e i n b a t h i n g a n d h y g i e n e , f ood pr ocur em en t and pre par at i on, m anagi ng m edi cat i on, pay i ng bi l l s , t r ans por t at i on, et c. T he D r akes t es t i fi ed that t hey had not been abl e t o l eave M s . D r ake a l one the ent i r e t i m e s he w as l i ving w i t h them , and had t o h ire n urses t o care for her i n thei r absence. O t her w i t nesses’ tes tim o n y su b sta n tiate d th is ev id e n c e , a s w e ll a s the f a c t th a t M s. D ra k e w a s c u r re n tly r ece i vi ng s uch as s i s t ance i n a nur s i ng hom e fa ci l i t y . T he D r akes and Lt

. C l oeral s o t es t i fi ed r egar di ng m anyi ns t ance s of bi zarr e and danger ous behavi or by M s . D r ake w i t hi n t he y ear b e f o re trial. M s . Dr a k e a r g u e d t h a t s h e was c a p a b l e o f c a r i n g f o r h e r s e l f

, b u t a d mi t t e d t h at s he coul d notdr i ve, t hats he di d not know w hat m edi cat i ons s he w as pr es cr i bed, t hats he di d not kn ow ho w m uch i nco m e she recei ved each m on t h n or w hat bi l l s she had t o p ay , e tc. M s. D r ake’ s t es t i m onyover al l i s m uddl ed, and she se emed confus ed at t i m es aboutw hats he w as s uppos ed t o be t al ki ng about

. M s . D r ake a t t empt ed t o r efut e s om e of t he t es t i m onyr egar di ng hererr at i c beha vi orovert he pas ty ear , butherexpl anat i ons w er e notl ogi cal

. M s . D r ake sta ted th a t h e r ho m e in O h io w a s n o t in d isre p a ir w h e n sh e lef t it , b u t th e n c o u ld n o t ex p lain w h yth e y e a rs- o ld p h o to s th a t w e re p u t in e v id e n c e sh o w e d sim ilar c o n d iti o n s. S h e tried to e x p lain th a t th e “ lep re c h a u n ” sh e to ld h e r d a u g h ter sh e sa w in th e h o sp ital w a s a p rie st w ith a poi nt yhatw ho came t o t ake he rt o the bathr oom . She al s o cl ai m ed the doct ordi d a s o m e rs a u lt o v e r h e r b e d w h ile e x p la in in g h e r i n s u ra n c e b e n e f its

. T he medi cal evi dence s how ed M s . D r ake s uffe r ed fr om deme n t i a , a s h e rf a mi l ydoct or re p o rte d in h e r sw o rn re p o rt, an d th is w a s co n f irm e d b ya lette r f

ro m h e r n e u ro lo g ist, as w e ll as t he r ecor ds fr om L akes hor e H osp it al. In fa ct , t he Lakes hor e r ecor ds s how ed thatt he phy s i ci an ther e di agnos ed h er w it h a psy chot i c di s or der

. M s . D r ake di d notdi s put e the tes tim o n yth a t sh e h it h e r so n o n th e f a c e w ith a w e t h o u se sh o e , a n d a d m itt e d th a t sh e d id hi thi m once ort w i ce be caus e s he w as angryt hathe w anted to p u therhous e s hoes i n t he dr y er . L t

. C l oer , an i ndepende ntw i t nes s , corr obor at ed the D r akes ’ acc ountof thi s epi s ode of vi ol ence , and t es t i fi ed thathe ca l l ed the s her i ff’ s depart m ent and t ook par ti n t he dec i s i on to h av e M s. D rak e tran sp o rt ed to the h o sp it al, b ec au se h e f eltsh e w as a d an g er. T h e C o u rt s aw and hea r d al l of t he w i t nes s es t es t i fy , i ncl udi ng M s . D r ake, and cr edi t ed the t es t i m ony o f h er c h il d ren an d d au g h ter-i n -l aw , as w ell as L t. C loer. T he Tri al C our tal s o had the bene fi tof the guar di an’ s r epor t , w her ei n s he det ai l ed her i nt er vi ew s w i t h ot herfami ly m ember s and fr i ends , as w el l as M s . D r ake, and made t he rec o m m en d ati o n that M s. D ra k e w as in d ef init e n ee d o f a co n serv ator. T h e re co rd es t abl i s hes t he C our thad cl earand convi nci ng ev idence t hatM s . D r ake w as a di s abl ed person u nd er the st atute, and t he T ri al C ou rt did no t err i n ap po i nti ng a con ser vatorfor M s. D r ake.-4-

F inally , M s. D rak e a rgu es th e T ri al C o u rtd id n o t pro p erlyco n side r th e L ak esh o re re c o rd s , w h ic h w e re th e “ m o s t c o n te m p o ra n e o u s ” re c o rd s o f M s . D ra k e ’s m e n ta l s ta tu s . A r evi ew of thes e r ecor ds s how s , how ever , t hat t hey w oul d s uppor t t he T r i al C our t ’ s rul i ng, as M s. D rak e’s de m en ti a i s m en ti o n ed in sev era l p lace s, as i s the trea ti n g p sy ch iatri st, D r. C ra w f o rd ’s, d iag n o sis th a t M s. D ra k e su f f e rs f ro m a p sy c h o tic d iso rd e r. T h is a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit. T h e Ju d g m e n t o f

th e T ria l C o u rt is a f

f irm e d w ith th e c o st o f

th e a p p e a l as se ss e d to Paul a M ae D r ake’ s E s t at e.

_________________________________ H E R S C H E L P IC K E N S F R A N K S , P

. J.