### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d O n B ri ef

Ja nuary 28, 200 5
IN R E: C ONS ERV ATO RS HIP O F A LVIN A. MOO RE
Direc t Appeal from the P robate C ourt for Shelb y County

No. C-9628 D onn S outhern, Jud ge

No. W2004-01828-C OA-R3-C V - F iled March 30, 2005

Separate petitions for the a ppointment of conser vato r were f iled, one by

the two niece s of the disabled person and the other by a daughte r. Notwithstanding the statutory pref ere nce g iven to the daug hter, the pr obate c ourt determined that it was in the best interest of the disabled pe rson to g rant the pe tit ionfi le d b y

the nie c e s. We a ff

ir m.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he P r oba teCo ur t A ffirm e d; and Rem anded
D AVI D R. F ARMER , J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e c o u rt, inw h ic h W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., joined.
Nathan S. Mo or e , N a sh vil le , T e nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt, Ma

ry Sc ott

. Cha rl e s E . Ri c h, Me mph is, Te nn e sse e , f or the app e lle e s, Vi rg ini a

Qu inl e y a ndKay e Wag e s.
OP IN ION
This controver sy

results from the f

iling of c ompet i n g petitions for the appointment of a
conservator of the person and estate of Alvin A. M oore. Virg inia Quinley and Kay e Wag es, niec es of Mr . M oo re , p e tit ion e d the c ou rt to ap po int the m a s c o- c on se rv a tor s. Th e pe tit ion re c ite s th a t Ms

. Quinley is a reside nt of Mississ ippi a nd Ms. Wag es resides at 5287 Airview in Memphis, Tenne ssee. The a ffidavits of two phy sicians wer e filed, e ach stating that they wer e of the opinion that Alvin A. Moore is a disable d person a nd unable to mana g e his persona l and f i n an ci al aff

airs and
rec ommended that a conservator be appointed for those purposes. The petition further r ecites that Mr. Moore, a g e 73, pre sently resided at 5287 Airview, Memphis, Tenne ssee. I t f urther r ecites that Mr. Moore ha s been dia g nosed with paranoid schizophrenia and is in such mental a nd phy sical condition that he is not competent to either manag e and control hi mself or his property and fina ncial aff airs. F ollowing the f

iling of this pe tition, the probate court e ntere d an orde r appointing attorney Russell S . Glass as Gua

rdian a d L item to repre sent and de fend the interest of Mr . Moore.“ ‘ D i s abl ed pers on’ m ean s any p er s on ei gh t een (18) y ear s o f age o r ol der det er mi ned by t he cour t t o be i n n eed 1

o f p a rtia l o r full su p e rv isio n , p ro te c tio n a n d a ssista n c e b y re a so n o f m e n ta l i llne ss, p h ysic a l i llne ss o r inj u r y, d evel o p m ent al dis ab i l i t y or o t her mental or p hy si cal i ncap aci t y [. ]” T enn. C o d e A nn. § 3 4

- 1

- 1 0 1 (7) (20 0 1 ). -2- Sho rt ly a ft e r the app oin tme nt o f the Gu ard ia n a d Lite m, a pe tit ionwa s f

ile d b y Ma ry Sc ott , t h e d au g h t e r

o f M r
. M o o r e , r e q u e s t i n g t h a t s h e b e ap p o i n t e d c o n s e r v a t o r o f h i s p e r s o n a n d p r o p e r t y. This pe tition re cites that Ms. Scott resides in Franklin, Tennessee and states that Mr. Moor e’s other children, along with his former wif e and the mother of his childre n, Mary Moore, joined in support of the pe tition of Mary

Scott.
The c ourt below hear d evidenc e in this matter on April 20, 2004 and de termined that, at the time of the hea

ring , Mr. Moore w as a 74 y ear old resident of Shelby

County , Tenne ssee. The court found that he w as a disable d person within the mea ning of Tenne ssee Code A nnotat ed § 34-1- 1 0 1 ( 7 ) b y r e a s o n o f

m e n t a l i l l n e s s a n d p h ys i c a l d i s ab i l i t y. T h e c o u r tf o u n d t h e p e t i t i o n o f

K a ye 1 Wage s and Virg inia Quinley to be well take n and the pe tition of Mary Scott not well taken. The court found Kay e Wage s and Virg inia Quinley as fit to se rve as co-e x ecutor s of the p er s o n and pr op e rty of Al vinA. Mo or e , th a t it

wa s in the be st i nte re st o f Mr

. Mo or e , c on sid e ri ng the state of his ill health, that he re main wher e he curr ently resides at 5287 Airview, Memphis, Tenne ssee, in the
ca re o f K ay e W age s an d Vi rgi n i a Q u i n l ey
. T h e c o u rt n o t ed t h e s t at u t o r y p ri o ri t y o f a p p o i n t i n g a c hil d o f the dis able d p e rs on ov e r oth e r re la tiv e s, bu t fe lt in thi s c a se that it wa s n ot i n th e be st i nte re st of the disabled pe rson, Mr. Alvin A. Moore . The statute is cle ar that the priority o f p er s ons to be considere d for appointment is subject to the court’s determination of what is in the best interest of the disabled pe rson. Ms. Scott perfec ted a timely appea l and contends that the trial court err ed in f ailing to f ollow the statut ory

priority of Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d § 34 -3 -1 03 wh ic h p ro vid e s a s f oll ow s:
P r ior it y of pe r so ns to be c ons idered f or a p poi nt m e nt . – Subject to the court’s de te rm inatio n o f w hat is in the be st i nte re sts of the dis able d p e rs on , th e c ou rt sh a ll consider the following persons in the orde r listed for appointment of the c onservator: (1) The pe rson o r per sons desig nated in a w riting sig ned by the alleg ed disabled per son; (2) The spouse of

the disabled pe rson; (3) Any

child of the disabled pe rson; (4) Closest relative(s) of the disabled pe rson; and (5) Other pe rson(s). Tenn. Code Ann. § 34- 3-103 (2001)

. Ou r s ta nd ardof re vie w i n th is n on -j ury c a se is de novo u p o n t h e r ec o rd o f t h e p ro ce ed i n gs below and the re is no presumption of correc tness with respec t to the trial court’s c onclusions of law. Cam pb e ll v . Flor ida Ste e l Co rp ., 919 S.W .2d 26 (Tenn. 1996); and Te nn. R. App. P. 13(d). The tria l
co u rt ’s fa ct u al fi n d i n gs ar e, h o we v er , p re s u m ed t o b e c o r r e ct an d we m u s taf fi rm s u ch fi n d i n gsT h e r epor t of t h e G u ar di an a d Li t em s t at es t h at t h e s t r ok es be g an oc cu r r i n g on M ar ch 4, 2002. 2
-3- absent a preponde rance o f evidenc e to the contr ary
. Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston , 854 S.W .2d 87 (Tenn. 1993)

. Be cause th e tria l ju d g e is in a b e tt e r p o s it io n to w e ig h a n d e v a lu a te th e c r e d ib il it yof the witnesses who testify

orally , the weig ht, faith, and cre dit to be g iven to any witness’s testimony

lies in the first instance w ith the trier of fact, and the credibility acc orded w ill be give n g reat weig ht by the appe llate court. In re Estate of W alton v. Y oung , 950 S.W .2d 956, 959 (Tenn. 1997)

. The a ppellant ar g ues that the trial c ourt’s dete rmination of Mr. Moore ’s best i ntere st is not supported by

medical pr oof. She is corr ect in that the record before us does not contain any medical reports with the ex ception o f t h e t wo phy sician af fidavits here tofore disc ussed. I n revie wing the
rec ord, it appea

rs t hat t he facts are l arg ely undisputed. The parties are in ag ree ment that Mr. Moore suffe red a debilitating stroke in Fe bruary of 2002 ; that he suff ers f rom paranoid schizophrenia and 2 that he is in need of

a conse rvator. Kay e Wag es testified that he r husband, Jim my Wage s, stay ed with Mr. Moore “ every hour of the day ” a s so me on e ha d to be wi th h im 2 4 h ou rs a da y . Sh e fu rthe r t e sti fi e d th a t V ir g ini a Quinley and J ean Waters stay ed with Mr

. Moore approximately one wee kend per month so that she and Mr. Wag es could ha ve a w eeke nd o ff

. S h e fu rther te stified that Billy Wage s stay s with Mr. Moore whe n she and Mr. Wage s have to g o to the g roce ry store. Home hea lth care aides g ive Mr. Moore his bath Monday throug h Friday

. Ms. Wage s testified t hat M r. Moore came to live with her and her husband in May

2002 and they

had ca red f or him since that time. Mary Scott testified that she lives with her husband in Fra nklin, Tennessee , and that if the court saw fit to gr ant her petition, Mr. M oore would be li ving in Fairvie w, Tenne ssee, with his son, Cliff Moore a nd his wife. She testified that Cliff Moore ’s wifedid not w o rk and w ould take ca re of Mr . M oo re on a

day -t o- day

ba sis

. Vi rg ini a Qu inl e y te sti fi e d th a t Mr . M oo reis p araly z ed on hi s rig ht s ide , h a s a tub e in h is bla dd e r anda

fe e din g tub e in h is s tom a c h. She fu rthe r t e sti fi ed, in he r o pin ion , h e wa s u na ble to trave l. Wh il e th e r e w a s te s ti mo n y th a t M r
. M o o r e h a d in d ic a te d a p r e f e r e n c e to r e maininthe Wage s’ home, there wa s further evidenc e that the only

way to ext rac t information from Mr. Moore wa s th ro ug h a

se ri e s o f l e a din g qu e sti on s.
We have c oncluded that a lay person suc h as Ms. Quinley , who has observe d Mr. Moore f or an extended period of t ime, would be able to testify as to his para ly sis and the insertion of the tube s and medica l testimonywould not be re quired. The ref ore, w e ar e of the o p i n i o n t h at t he evide nce does not preponde rate ag ainst the finding of the trial c ourt t h at i t was in the be st interest of the disabled per son, Alvin A. Moore, that he rema in at the Memphis a ddress a nd that the appointment of Kay e Wag es and V irg inia Quinley as his co-c onservators is in his best i ntere st. There fore , the-4-

jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt is a ff ir me d. Th e c os ts of thi s app e a l are ta xed to the app e lla nt, Ma ry Sc ott and her surety

.

___________________________________ DAVID R. FARMER, J UDGE