In Re Conservatorship of Otto Tillman Stiefel, W2016-02598-COA-R3-CV

Petitioner Cyle Woodhouse sought permanent conservatorship over his step-grandfather Otto T. Stiefel, alleging dementia and mismanagement of funds used for Stiefel’s wife’s care.
The probate court ordered medical examinations; multiple physicians submitted reports with conflicting opinions: Dr. Burns (recommended conservatorship), Dr. Villanueva and Dr. Battle (found Stiefel competent; MMSE 29/30 noted).
At the November 17, 2016 hearing, only Woodhouse testified; after an off‑record bench conference counsel stated an agreement to appoint Stiefel’s son as conservator of the person and the Aging Commission as conservator of the estate.
The trial court’s written order recited a finding by “clear and convincing” evidence that Stiefel was disabled and in need of a conservator but did not include Rule 52.01 factual findings or explain best‑interest analysis.
On appeal, the court concluded the evidence admitted at the hearing (primarily Woodhouse’s testimony and the guardian ad litem’s report) was insufficient to meet the clear and convincing standard, and that Dr. Burns’s court‑ordered report was not properly treated as admissible evidence.
Because the record ambiguously reflects counsel’s on‑the‑record statement of agreement, the Court of Appeals vacated/ remanded limited to determining whether a binding agreement under Tenn. Code Ann. § 34‑3‑121(b) was reached and, if so, whether it is in Stiefel’s best interest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Woodhouse)	Defendant's Argument (Stiefel)	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supported appointment of conservator	Woodhouse: testimony, guardian ad litem report, and Dr. Burns’s sworn report collectively show Stiefel is disabled and needs a conservator	Stiefel: evidence at hearing was inadequate; other medical reports show competence; burden on petitioner not met	Court: Reversed — evidence properly before the factfinder at the hearing was insufficient to meet the clear and convincing standard
Whether the court relied on improperly admitted evidence or an agreement to appoint conservator	Woodhouse: Dr. Burns’s court‑ordered examiner’s report is prima facie evidence of disability; parties agreed to appointment so court could approve under §34‑3‑121(b)	Stiefel: Burns’s report was contested and other medical reports exist; no enforceable agreement was established on the record or approved as being in Stiefel’s best interest	Court: Dr. Burns’s report was not admissible evidence at the hearing; agreement’s existence and best‑interest approval unclear — remanded to determine if a valid §34‑3‑121(b) agreement was reached and, if so, whether it is in Stiefel’s best interest

In re Conservatorship of Groves, 109 S.W.3d 317 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (conservatorship purpose and high burden; dementia and capacity analysis)
Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82 (Tenn. 2001) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
Walton v. Young, 950 S.W.2d 956 (Tenn. 1997) (clear and convincing standard described)
Rast v. Terry, 532 S.W.2d 552 (Tenn. 1976) (admissions in pleadings may remove issues from proof)
Cain‑Swope v. Swope, 523 S.W.3d 79 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016) (Rule 52.01 findings requirement; findings must show trial court’s reasoning)
Lovelace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2013) (Rule 52.01: subsidiary facts necessary to disclose steps to conclusion)