In Re Conservatorship Of Ruth Tomlinson Osborn, M2020-01447-COA-R3-CV

In 2015 DHS obtained emergency protective orders and the Putnam County Chancery Court appointed Kelly Tayes (Private Conservator, LLC) conservator for Ruth Tomlinson (the Ward).
Appellants Harlen and Grace Dixon had been defendants in separate litigation with the Conservator and, in 2018, entered a court‑approved Settlement Agreement requiring, among other things, that they convey or pay for certain properties and that the parties cooperate to sell the jointly owned Fox Knob Lane property if the Ward had no other funds for medical care.
The Conservator moved in December 2018 to sell two properties, including the jointly owned Fox Knob Lane parcel, alleging Appellants defaulted under the settlement and the Ward lacked funds to continue home care.
After hearings, the trial court found sale of the Fox Knob Lane property necessary to keep the Ward in home care, authorized unilateral severance of the joint tenancy and sale (July 2019), and entered a final Rule 54.02 judgment.
Appellants argued below and on appeal that the court lacked jurisdiction, that their due process rights were violated, and that the presiding judge should have recused; the appellate court concluded Appellants waived each issue by failing to preserve or properly present them in the trial court.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, held the appeal frivolous, and remanded for an award of the Conservator’s attorney’s fees incurred on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Dixons)	Defendant's Argument (Tayes)	Held
Due process — deprivation of property interest by severing joint tenancy	Tolling or protection needed because Appellants were "not before the court" and lacked procedural safeguards for sale	Appellants had actual notice, participated in proceedings, and had agreed to sale contingency in Settlement Agreement	Waived: not raised as a constitutional due‑process claim in trial court; even substantively weak because joint tenancy may be severed unilaterally (no protected entitlement)
Personal jurisdiction	Court lacked personal jurisdiction because no formal petition or service against Appellants	Appellants consented repeatedly (notice, appearances, agreed orders, settlement)	Waived: not designated as an issue on appeal; parties’ conduct and agreed orders supported court’s exercise of jurisdiction
Recusal of trial judge	Judge previously recused in related case; that raised an appearance of partiality here requiring recusal	No Rule 10B motion or supporting affidavit filed; no evidentiary basis in record showing bias	Waived: Appellants never filed the mandatory written motion/affidavit under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B; no preserved or proved basis for recusal
Conservator’s request for appellate attorney’s fees	N/A	Appeal was frivolous because all issues were waived or meritless	Granted: appellate court found appeal frivolous and remanded to trial court to determine reasonable fees

Bryant v. Bryant, 522 S.W.3d 392 (Tenn. 2017) (joint tenancy with right of survivorship may be unilaterally severed)
Keller v. Casteel, 602 S.W.3d 351 (Tenn. 2020) (to trigger procedural due process, a property interest must be a legitimate entitlement)
Tennessee Dep't of Corr. v. Pressley, 528 S.W.3d 506 (Tenn. 2017) (defining protected property interests for due process purposes)
Keisling v. Keisling, 92 S.W.3d 374 (Tenn. 2002) (notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties satisfies basic due process)
Turner v. Turner, 473 S.W.3d 257 (Tenn. 2015) (personal jurisdiction requires service of process; actual notice alone does not substitute)
Hodge v. Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325 (Tenn. 2012) (appellate briefs must present and frame specific issues for review)
Landers v. Jones, 872 S.W.2d 674 (Tenn. 1994) (personal‑jurisdiction objections may be waived by defendants)