CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. M2012-01918-COA-10B-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2012

In Re: Conservatorship of John Daniel Tate

This case concerns an interlocutory appeal of right from the denial of a motion for recusal in a conservatorship proceeding for John Daniel Tate. Mr. Tate argued the trial judge exhibited personal bias due to contentious litigation, adverse rulings, his public criticism via a blog, and a federal lawsuit he filed against the judge. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, reviewing de novo under Rule 10B, found no reasonable basis to question the judge's impartiality. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, noting that adverse rulings and a litigant's actions to force recusal are generally insufficient grounds for disqualification. Additionally, the court found no procedural errors regarding the promptness or written explanation of the denial, and dismissed other jurisdictional claims as outside the scope of a Rule 10B appeal.

Recusal MotionConservatorshipInterlocutory AppealJudicial BiasAppellate ReviewTennessee Supreme Court Rule 10BMotion DenialTrial Judge DisqualificationCourt of AppealsAdverse Rulings
References
7
Case No. E2009-01009-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2010

Lewis Fryer v. Conservatorship of Mary Jo Fryer

This appeal addresses a dispute over unpaid spousal support from Social Security benefits. Lewis Fryer sought these benefits from the conservatorship of his deceased wife, Mary Jo Fryer, represented by her daughter Treva Schlosshan, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Bond. The trial court found Conservator liable but reduced the award by applying a statute of limitations sua sponte. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conservator's liability, rejected the unclean hands defense, and reversed the application of the statute of limitations, granting Mr. Fryer the full $23,900 in unpaid spousal support.

Spousal SupportSocial Security BenefitsConservatorshipStatute of LimitationsAffirmative DefenseUnclean Hands DoctrineFuneral ExpensesAppellate ReviewChancery CourtTennessee Law
References
26
Case No. M2012-01878-COA-10B-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2012

In Re: Conservatorship of Alfonso B. Patton

This case involves an interlocutory appeal from the Probate Court for Davidson County concerning the denial of a motion for recusal. Patricia Richmond, the ward's daughter, alleged that the trial judge was biased due to adverse rulings and an appearance of impropriety arising from opposing counsel's prior role as a law clerk for the judge. The Tennessee Court of Appeals, reviewing the matter de novo, affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court concluded that adverse judicial rulings alone do not demonstrate bias and that a former professional association between a judge and an attorney is insufficient to mandate recusal without additional evidence.

Recusal MotionJudicial BiasAppellate ReviewInterlocutory AppealConservatorship LawTennessee Court of AppealsDue ProcessImpartialityFormer Law ClerkStandard of Review De Novo
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Conservatorship of Wargold

This case concerns an application by the Public Administrator for the appointment of a conservator for Susan Ellen Wargold's property under Article 77 of the Mental Hygiene Law. Susan, the sole distributee of her father's estate, was alleged to be unable to manage her property due to mental infirmity. Hearings included testimony from Dr. Deutsch, a psychiatrist, who noted Susan's history of bizarre behavior and a likely diagnosis of schizophrenia, but also significant improvement since her hospitalization. Susan testified about her financial habits, including high spending and reliance on a guardian ad litem, but affirmed her ability to manage daily finances and desire to retain control over investments with an advisor. The court found that while Susan exhibited eccentricities and potential poor judgment, there was insufficient clear and convincing evidence of 'substantial impairment' of her ability to care for her property as required by law. The petition for conservatorship was denied, though the court noted remaining areas of concern and suggested future applications might require additional counsel for Susan.

ConservatorshipMental Hygiene LawProperty ManagementFinancial IncapacityPsychiatric EvaluationSchizophreniaGuardian Ad LitemSubstantial ImpairmentRight to PropertyMedical Testimony
References
4
Case No. M2003-01274-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2004

Clayton O. Lovlace, Jr. v. Susan Verlain Irvine Lovlace

The trial court granted Mother’s petition for conservatorship of the parties’ disabled son; enforced MDA provision requiring Father to pay child support beyond child attaining age of majority; increased Father’s child support obligation; and ordered Father to continue to maintain life and disability insurance. We affirm.

Conservatorship LawChild Support ModificationMarital Dissolution Agreement EnforcementDisabled Adult SupportParental Contractual ObligationJurisdictional DisputeAttorney's FeesLife Insurance ProvisionDisability Insurance ProvisionSpecial Needs Trust Consideration
References
18
Case No. 2020-06-0517
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 09, 2024

Taylor, Lauren v. John & Stephanie Ingram, LLC

Lauren Taylor sustained a severe traumatic brain injury from a horse kick while working out-of-state for John & Stephanie Ingram, LLC, based in Tennessee. A workers' compensation settlement was approved by the Tennessee trial court while Taylor was under a Georgia conservatorship. After the conservatorship was terminated by a Missouri court, Taylor repeatedly attempted to set aside the settlement, alleging fraud and invalidity of prior orders. The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's denial of her motion, finding it untimely and lacking sufficient evidence of fraud, and upheld the trial court's exercise of subject matter jurisdiction.

Traumatic Brain InjuryWorkers' Compensation SettlementConservatorship TerminationMotion to Set AsideSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 60.02Timeliness of MotionAllegations of FraudFull Faith and CreditMulti-state Employment
References
17
Case No. 01-22-00396-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2024

In Re C.J.S., a Child v. the State of Texas

This case is an appeal from a default final order in a child custody and paternity suit involving C.J.S. The father, Zach, appealed the Texas trial court's decision, which established jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, appointed joint managing conservators, awarded primary conservatorship to the mother, Victoria, and ordered supervised visitation for Zach. Zach also sought to set aside the default judgment due to his attorney's mistaken advice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's exercise of jurisdiction and its orders regarding conservatorship and possession, finding Texas was C.J.S.'s home state. However, the court reversed and remanded the awards of attorneys' fees and appellate fees to Victoria due to insufficient evidentiary support.

UCCJEAChild CustodyHome State JurisdictionDefault JudgmentAttorney FeesAppellate FeesParental RightsPaternityConservatorshipSupervised Visitation
References
116
Case No. Cause Number 4301
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of T. M.

The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (DPRS) appealed a trial court judgment concerning the conservatorship of a child, T.M. The trial court had dismissed DPRS's petition to terminate parental rights or be appointed managing conservator, due to statutory deadlines under the Texas Family Code § 263.401, and instead appointed Josie Gonzales as sole managing conservator and T.M.'s parents as possessory conservators. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the statutory deadlines were mandatory and could not be extended by a Rule 11 agreement. The court also found no error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings or its refusal to terminate parental rights, concluding that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the conservatorship orders.

Child CustodyParental Rights TerminationTemporary Managing ConservatorshipStatutory DeadlinesTexas Family Code Section 263.401Rule 11 AgreementDismissal with PrejudiceAppellate ReviewLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceFactual Sufficiency of Evidence
References
10
Case No. 12-18-00281-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2019

in the Interest of B. L. W., a Child

This case involves an appeal by Brandon Lynn Walker against a trial court's order concerning conservatorship and child support for B.L.W., a child he shares with Kamena Taquay Handsborough. Brandon challenged the custody arrangements, child support calculations, the denial of his motion for a new trial, and the refusal to grant additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as his motion to suspend judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's conservatorship decisions, finding no abuse of discretion in appointing both parents as joint managing conservators and Kamena with the exclusive right to designate the child's primary residence. However, the court reversed and remanded the portion of the order regarding child support due to an inconsistency in the ordered amounts, which were not properly supported by evidence or calculation guidelines. All other issues raised by Brandon were overruled.

Child CustodyChild SupportParental RightsAbuse of DiscretionFamily LawConservatorshipMotion for New TrialFindings of FactConclusions of LawMotion to Suspend Judgment
References
43
Case No. 14-14-00968-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2016

in the Interest of J.O.A., a Child

This case involves an appeal by the mother (A.S.A.) concerning a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) order from the 257th District Court of Harris County, Texas. The order modified conservatorship and child support in favor of the father (A.A.) of J.O.A., a child. The mother contended the trial court erred by awarding custody to the father, denying her motions for new trial and continuance, and that the evidence was insufficient. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. While the conservatorship issue was deemed moot as J.O.A. had turned 18, the appellate court found a live controversy remained regarding financial obligations. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mother's motion for new trial, citing her counsel's conscious indifference to the trial setting, and her oral motion for continuance was properly denied for lack of verification. The awards for child support and attorney's fees to the father were also upheld.

Child Support ModificationConservatorship DisputesAppealsDenial of New TrialDenial of ContinuanceParental AlienationBest Interest of ChildTexas Family CodeAttorney's Fees AwardMootness Doctrine
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 52 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational