Musician Danny Tate freed from conservatorship, assets still targeted in Nashville probate court

 Photo by Alex Anderson

With the bang of Davidson County (TN) Circuit Court Judge Randy Kennedy’s gavel, court was adjourned and Nashville musician Danny Tate exited a May 24 legal proceeding free from a conservatorship and appearing to have for the first time in nearly three years the ability to control his assets, enter into contracts and even accept or reject medical treatment.   As the courtroom full of supporters have gone home and the news media have turned their attention to other stories, Tate’s victory may be short-lived, perhaps even premature to call, based upon court documents filed in recent days by attorney Paul T. Housch on behalf of himself and Tate’s brother David, the now former conservator.

Tate openly admits having battled alcohol and drug dependency for much of his adult life.  After 18 years of sobriety, the early part of this decade brought new challenges compounded by a troubled marriage and shoulder surgery.  Upon entering rehab in 2007, Tate gave his brother power of attorney to ensure his bills were paid while in treatment.  Instead, David Tate used his younger brother’s funds to hire an attorney and petition for conservatorship.  The first hearing happened without Tate’s knowledge and three weeks later at a second hearing, he was denied legal representation and instead committed to a psychiatric ward.  These actions set the stage for a combative legal battle pitting brother against brother and showing the power held by probate courts over both property rights and civil liberties.

A Nashville Scene article did much to initially bring attention to this case and Brantley Hargrove aptly describes the animus surrounding the “War Between the Tates” as follows:

That claim brings into focus the Catch-22 at the heart of Danny Tate’s legal woes, now being echoed in similar cases across the state. The absence of process served to Danny at the outset was troubling. So was the ease with which he was made a ward — a state in which a man legally becomes a cipher, a nonentity with no say over his assets. Legal scholars have long warned of the hazards of such deprivation.

So if the ward believes this is wrong, does he fight it (as is his right) with everything he has — which will only double the rate at which he loses his assets? Or if the ward is as sick as Danny was, should he comply? Should he see the psychiatrists? Should he submit to the drug testing? Should he cooperate? There’s an argument to be made, and David would undoubtedly make it, that Danny would be better off if he had.

But as the proceedings grew more contentious, Danny never believed they’d let him go. At least not if he had anything left. And, in fact, the court seemed not to heed the warning of the chief physician at a rehabilitation center where Danny was treated for a month. The physician said the sibling-controlled conservatorship was corrosive, venomous and not at all conducive to Danny’s recovery. Yet the court persisted — causing some to question whether Danny’s best interest was ever even a concern.

Probate abuse is often perpetrated through the use of legal instruments such as wills, trusts, guardianships (called conservatorships in some states) or powers of attorney.  Many observers view the Tate conservatorship case as a prime example of this abuse which, in its most extreme form, is a hijacking of a person’s personal freedom and property rights.

If this conservatorship was initiated with good intentions and with Danny Tate’s best interests the priority, it’s curious that David Tate would have elected to remain conservator despite he and Danny Tate having a clear, mutually antagonistic relationship.  It’s curious that attorney Paul T. Housch would not have counseled replacement of the conservator with a less incendiary party to hopefully better serve Danny Tate’s interests.  And as Judge Randy Kennedy oversaw this entire process, the curiosity continues with, despite warnings, an apparent lack of interest in exploring options to tone down the situation’s animosity so as to encourage, not impede, Danny Tate’s personal efforts to deal with his substance abuse.

Danny Tate’s assets once exceeded $600,000, but have largely been depleted during the conservatorship.  Michael Hoskins, Danny Tate’s attorney, told the Associated Press that he plans to fight attempts to sell the songwriter’s house in order to pay legal fees.  Tate’s royalty payments were set up as targeted funds at the May 24 hearing when attorney Housch informed the judge that “as far as expenses, court reporter, things of that nature, there’s going to be a lack of funds, cash funds right now, to pay those.  There are BMI funds available, coming in June.”  Based on recent court filings, these assets along with others are now being sought by David Tate and Housch as part of “winding down” the conservatorship they initiated against Danny Tate.

Upon terminating the conservatorship, Judge Kennedy said that he would hear from the attorneys on this matter but that generally the court’s position is to allow a minimum of 60 days for the conservator to make a “full, complete, and detailed accounting of all receipts and disbursements and all accounts that may have come into his hands.”  Kennedy went on to say:

And that’s not to say that the Court is not going to immediately allow for Mr. Tate to begin to manage his money affairs.  But for those matters over which there’s been dominion and control, there must be a period of time to do that detailed accounting that the Court requires, and that the conservatee requires, so that he can make an objective determination as to whether or not his moneys have been properly expended or his assets properly preserved.

Bottom line of the ruling appeared to be that Danny Tate is a man free to immediately control his person and assets while his brother has 60 days to prepare a final accounting of actions taken during this 32-month “temporary” conservatorship.  Judge Kennedy said the ruling would be nunc pro tunc allowing David Tate during this transition the capacity for corrective action pertaining to any transactions he conducted while acting as conservator.

While Michael Hoskins prepared and submitted to the court an order to such effect, Housch has submitted an order which, if approved, significantly changes what appeared laid out in the May 24 court proceedings.  Hoskins’ order mirrors the judge’s ruling by calling for the Temporary Conservator, David Tate, to “immediately return any and all property of Mr. Tate which is in the Temporary Conservator’s possession or under his control.”  In order for Danny Tate to enjoy the rights restored by Judge Kennedy, the order further calls on the Temporary Conservator to be enjoined (i.e., prohibited) from “transferring, spending, liquidating or making any further expenditures on behalf of Mr. Tate or with the funds of Mr. Tate, except for remitting to Mr. Tate all funds or other property which the Temporary Conservator has in his possession or under his control.”

Meanwhile, Paul Housch has filed an alternate order calling that during the 60 days designated for accounting preparation, David Tate should be allowed to “wind down the affairs of the Conservatorship” which includes paying any and all expenses of the Conservatorship.  This order, filed May 27, was preceded earlier in the day by two David Tate-initiated motions.

In the first of these two motions, David Tate is asking the court to direct payment of Danny Tate’s BMI royalty proceeds to him as Temporary Conservator despite the position having been dissolved and Danny Tate’s own property rights restored three days prior.

The second filing has David Tate asking the court to authorize a selling of Danny Tate’s investment assets, including pension funds, to “pay outstanding expert fees, court reporter expenses; subpoena/record costs; transcript costs, deposition costs; etc. presented by the Respondent’s Attorney and Attorney for the Temporary Conservator.”  The motion additionally cites the existence of custodial funds for Danny Tate’s two daughters, but says the Temporary Conservator prefers “not to encroach on the custodial amount, unless the Court deems it necessary to pay the aforementioned expenses.”

In a May 28 filing, attorney Paul Housch is 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 the May 27 motions seeking confiscation of Danny Tate assets seemingly in contradiction to Judge Kennedy’s ruling that terminated the conservatorship.  As Michael Hoskins predicted, 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…”

On May 24, Danny Tate’s personal freedom was restored, but his property is under siege and his future well-being is further jeopardized with what appears a last assault on his assets.  Acts being perpetrated by those alleged to have been acting in his best interests.  An awareness concert took place the night before the hearing and here’s how Tate described his conservatorship experience:

When you are made a ward of the state and every right that you have is stripped from you, including your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Where your own signature is no longer legally valid.  When every Constitutional and civil right, every human right, that you can have is taken from you and you literally are a ghost legally, it’s no way to live.  It is life on hold.  It is like walking around - and they don’t have you incarcerated - you feel like your soul is incarcerated.  They try to take your voice from you, they try to silence you, they try to put you away, they try to medicate you - anything they can do to try and create the person that they need you to be to justify what it is they’ve done to you.

Danny Tate was not silenced.  His case was initially bolstered by a FreeDannyTate.com web site, a detailed article in Nashville Scene and a Friends of Danny Tate’s Defense Facebook page.  Regarding the support, Danny Tate said:

When you’ve walked through this thing alone.  They make you feel lonely.  And they make you feel real insignificant.  And they make you feel like you don’t deserve anything, much less  the support of people and to find people rallying around me for this cause, I’ve got to tell you - it was truly being born again from the love of friends and I want to thank you for that.

Because of the Danny Tate case, people previously unaware have learned the power wielded by probate courts and the destruction that abuse of this power can bring.  To borrow the phrase, they’ve learned that democracy is not a spectator sport and that more today than ever, ongoing vigilance is critical if our freedoms are to be maintained.

Danny Tate’s friends may have returned to their normal routines, but many know the ruling they heard at a May 24 Nashville court hearing.  Don’t think they’re not watching to see it carried out.

For more info:

Danny Tate conservatorship cases sees increased media activity with AP coverage (May 22, 2010)

Musician Danny Tate’s conservatorship brings scrutinization of probate issue (May 18, 2010)

Musician Danny Tate shows “fight for your life” aspect of Nashville (and other) probate courts (May 3, 2010)

Austin musicians (and others) beware the guardianship plight of Nashville rocker Danny Tate (April 11, 2010)