In the Matter of Lyle L. LAWTON. Stephen Lawton v. Lyle L. Lawton
384 S.W.3d 754
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Conservatorship petition filed Jan. 20, 2010 for Mr. Lawton, age ~91, with disabilities.
- Veteran’s Affairs payment of $358,000 and marriage to Lena Lawton-Kite preceded the petition.
- GAL appointed; three physicians evaluated Lawton; GAL urged conservatorship and a neutral fiduciary.
- Parties reached a settlement for a partial conservatorship during the Nov. 16, 2010 hearing.
- Nov. 30, 2010 consent order established partial conservatorship; Lawton later moved for Rule 59 rehearing.
- Feb. 23, 2011 order clarified findings, including disability and best-interests determination, which Lawton challenged on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should have held an evidentiary hearing | Lawton argues there was no clear, evidentiary basis. | Lawton contends the agreement lacked necessary findings. | No error; evidentiary basis existed via GAL and physician reports; independent best-interest finding satisfied. |
| Whether evidence was properly introduced and considered | Lawton asserts evidence wasn’t properly admitted. | Parties stipulated admissibility of GAL and medical reports. | Admissibility sustained; stipulated evidence considered in findings. |
| Whether Lawton's request to be heard in court was improperly denied | Lawton sought to address the court in open court. | Court allowed a brief recess to hear him; no withdrawal of consent. | No error; court permitted opportunity to speak; no withdrawal of consent. |
| Whether the Rule 59 findings were improper for adding new findings | Rule 59 added findings not in November 30 order. | Court had examined evidence and Lawton stipulated admissibility; findings consistent. | No abuse of discretion; independent best-interest finding supported by record. |
Key Cases Cited
- AmSouth Bank v. Cunningham, 253 S.W.3d 636 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (conservatorship protections; standard for determining disability and need for supervision)
- In re Groves, 109 S.W.3d 317 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (requires court to determine disability and best interest, and to use least restrictive means)