THE CHANCERYCOURT FOR TENN JEWELL S. TINNON I 5; ErGREATER NASHVILLE. REGIONAL Case Neg 5 VI GUARDIANSHIP PROGRAM EOR DEMAND (12) THE ELDERLY, ra cr2?~r~{ and . KIM S. HALE, ihdividualIy,.and a PUBLIC GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL COUNCIL PUBLIC GUARDIAN SHIP PROGRAM FOR. THE ELDERLY, . and - .. . TENNESSEE MUNICIPAL LEAGUE RISK -) and Q) . KARL D. WARDEN., ESQ . . Defendants. VERIFIED COMPLAINT Plaintiff Jewell S. Tinnon for her complaint against Defendants, Greater Nashville. Regional Council, Public Guardianship Program for the Elderly, Ms. Kim S. Hale, Tennessee Municipal League.Risk Management Pool, and Mr. `Karl D. Warden, ., allegesas follows: SQ. 0 0 It INTRODUCTION This civil acti_on_?is for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent hiring, retention and supervision, outrageous conduct and legal H?0m Defendants' actions or omissions in the Conservatorsliip of Jewell S. Tinnon, Seventh Circuit_ Court for Davidson County, Tennessee, Case No. IOP-1322. is -also a' suit against- the blanket bond oove1;ing? Greater Nashville Regional Council, Public Guardianship Program fortlte Elderly. II. PARTIES 1; _Plaintif`f` Jewell S. Tinnon or ?"Tinnon"), is. an eighty-two (82)?year old citizen and ?resident of Davidson County, Tennessee. Prior to the acts complained of herein, Tinnon owned her own home free and clear and had considerable personal property she had acquired during herlifetime. an 2. Defendant Greater Nashville Regional Counsel, Public Guardianship- Program for the Elderly upon 'infomiation and"b?lief? is an inactive- Tennessee non-profiti corporation doing business in Tennessee, and a grantee agency in contract with the Tennessee Commission on Aging and Disability, providiitg conservatorship services to citizens and residents- of Davidson County, sixty (60) years old or older. GNRC, PGPE does* not maintain a. registered agent with the Tennessee Secretary of State. 3, Defendant Kim S. Hale upon information and belief, is an individual employee or agent of GNRC, PGPE who serves as "District Public Conservator" for elderly disabled persons domiciled in or residing in Davidson County,. Tennessee. 4. Defendant Tennessee Municipal League Risk Management Pool upon information and belief;. is an active Temtessee nonprofit corporation and insurance cooperative providing insurance services in Tennessee, and which has issued a "blanket bond" covering 2 . a. i I I an and/or l--Iale--against claims ofliability. Dawn Crawford?is -the Poolistregistered agent with the Termessee Secretary ofTState, and may be served with process at Way,. Brentwood, Tennessee 3702-7. . 5. Defendant Karl D. Warden, Esq.. is an;attomey licensed to practice. I law in the State-of Tennessee, and practicing in Davidson County, Tennessee, Ill. AND VENUE . 6. Jurisdiction is propenin this courtpursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. 1.6- 16-11-103, 16--11-114, and because the actions or omissions- alleged occurred in_Dav_idson County, Tennessee. Venue is proper in this court pursuant lo Tenn., Code Ann. IV. Z. On August 24, 2010, an Emergency Petition to Appoint Temporary Conservator and Application -for Restraining Order was tiled against Tinnon- in the- Seventh Circuit Court of Davidson County, Tennessee, Case No. IOP-1322, by Tinnonis two grandsons requesting '*that' the court appoint them as `Temporary Co=Conservators of the; person ?and property of Tinnon; - 8. The Petition did not contain the name of Tinnon's physician -or 9. The Petition did not contain a sworn medical examination? report. 10. The `Petition did not contain a- statement _that Tinnon had been examined. but the -swom-medical examinationreport had not been received but would.be tiled beforethe hearing, ll. The Petition did not contain a. statement that Tirmon refused to be examined voluntarily, with a request that the court direct. Tinnon to submit to medical `examination. 0 0 .12. On August 24, 2010, the Seventh-. Circuit Court entered an "Order App_ointing Temporary Co-C-bnservators and Granting Injunction" appointing Tinnon's _two (2) gnjandsons temporary co--conservtors over'Tirmon's personand property. -- .13. On August 24, 2010, Temporary Letters of Co-Conservatorship of the Personaand Property of` Tinnon were iissued to Tinnon's two grandsons. - 1_4. Tinnon was first served notice of` the conservatorship proceeding against her on September 9, 2010, which was sixteen days after her rights and `liberties been 15. On September 16, 2010, Warden filed at motion in the Seventh Circuit Court to be appointed `Tinnon's attorney ad litem. In his motion, Warden asserted that Tinnon '*was alarmed about a conservatorship" and "assured him that she was perfectly capable of` making her. own- decisionsa . '16. On September 22, 2010, the Seventh Circuit Court conducted at hearing and_ appointed Wardenas attorney ad litem for Tinnon. The Order- evidencing Wardenls appointment was entered by the Seventh Circuit Court on October 11_, 2010, 17l The October 11, 2010 Order also set a final hearing on the Petition for December .2, 201.0 18. upon infomation and belief, on November 15, 2010, Warden took Tinnon for a medical examination to be_ performed by Stephen.D* Amico, M.D. 1.9. On November 20, 201'0, Dr. Amico filled out and .signed a "Repo1=t of Physician" opining that Tinnon was in need of a conservator to act on her behalf ?as a fiduciary. Warden-personally notarized Dr. Amico's' "Report of"Physician." 4. 0 0 20. On November 30, J20.10, Warden filed Dr., Amico's "Keport of Physician" of record with the Seventh.Circuit Court, 21.. On December 2, 2010, ?at 9:42 Warden filed an unverified Answerto the Petition on Timron's' behalf. In the- Answer, Warden ?stated that "Ms. Tinnon objects- to a conservatorsliip over her person- and_ prpperty." 22. On December 2, 201.0, the Seventh Circuit Court conducted a hearing in the matter. Tinnon was present at the hearing, along with several of` her friends. `During the hearing, Tinrron testiHed she did not need a conservator, wanted to move back into. her own home and have control over her own finances, At the December 2, 2`01`0 hearing, Warden entered into an agreement with petitioner's counsel, in direct_ contravention to his clierrt*s' wishes, to have the. Greater Nashville Regional Counsel appointed as Tinnon's conservator. Warden's agreement to have the GNRC serye as Tinno_n's conservator is: expressly stated in the December'3, 2010 Order, which Warden personally drafted and submitted. to the Court for entry. . . 25. The-December 3, 2010 Order, reset the final hearing of` the matter to January 20, .20l'1` at 1:30 p.rn. 26. On December 3, 2010,- Hale signed a Fiduciary Oath, swearing she would honestly and faithf`ully' perform her duties as: court-appointed? fiduciary for Tinnon. I-Iale's Fiduciary Oath? was filed of` record on December 7, 2010. 27. On December 7, 2010, unlimited Letters of Conservatorship were issued to GNRC, empowering it to takei full control over Tinnon's person, rights and property, 5 QPPY 28. On January 20, 2011, 'ITinnon's? niece, Ms,. Margie Y. lnrnan, RN, intervened in the matter by filing .a Request for Appointment, notifying the court that she was willing and able to assist Tinnon in.?any legal capacity needed. 29._ On January 20,2011, Wardentiled a Motion to Continue the tinalhearing-_ set for? hearing- the same day, partially in light of Ms. Imnan's request, but also because the original petitioners ('I?innon's two (2) grandsons) had not yet filed a `Final Accounting or turned over to GNRC. 30. On January 20, 2011, the Seventh Circuit Court entered an` Order expanding 'the authority-of the GNRC, PGPE and expressly authorizing PGPE to immediately enter into =a contract for the auction of 'ITinnon's'per"sonal and real property; 3,1. Defendant Warden did not object to the sale of Tinnon's real and personal property -at=auction. 32. On February 11, 201`1, -an Order was entered.;requiring the Guardian ad litem to file a report by February 15, 2011. 33. On.March 12, 2011, '1`innon's' home, located at 1301 Southside Circle, Nashville,. Tennessee. 3721*2, her 1995 Pontiac Grand Am automobile; her home furnishings, clothes and personal belongings accumulated over rr ilifetiine were sold at public auction to the highest bidder. 34; On March 14, 2011, an Order was entered appointing GNRC, PGPE as the Permanent Conservator of the Person and Property of Ms. Tinnon 'and discharged Warden as attomey all litem. PGPE agreed to _pay the auctioneer's commission and fees from Tinrron's assets; . 6 - 0 0 36. On April l, 20l an Order was entered approving'the Contract for Sale of Real Property (Tirmon's home) for $83,000.00. After deducting its commission and fees, the auctioneer to GNRC as proceeds from the sale of'Tinnon's home. Ti_rmon's home was sold for less than half of its fair market?value. 37. 'The atictioneer remitted $2,648.78 to GNRC as proceeds from the sale of Tihnon's automobile,. home furnishings, clothing and personal belongings. 38. On- June 10, 2011, the Court entered an Order authorizing GN-RC, PGPE to cash 'surrender" 'I`innon's American General Lsife and Accident Insurance Company Whole. Life Insurance Policies being and policy number 0?l`2`533300S. . V. CAUSES OF ACTION A. CLAIMS ALLEGED AGAINST DEFENDANT WARDEN COUNT 'l MALPRACTICE . 39, Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re--alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs l>>38 above as if stated verbatimherein. 40. Warden, as Tinnon'?s attomey ad litem, owed Timion a duty of reasonable care, skill and diligence. . Warden failed to adhere to the professional standard of carerrequired of 'fermessee attomeys. 42;. Warden's negligence is so clea1=' and palpable it.i"s within- -the common `knowledge o_f lay persons. Instead of opposing and resisting the conservatorship,.as. was hisgstatutory duty =under Temi. Code Ama. Warden agreedand- consented to the court's appointment of GNRC ?as Ti_nnon's conservator. 7 0 0 43. As- a.result of Wai?den*s professional negligence Tinnon lost all of her individual rights, property and assets. 44. Warden's professional negligence was the cause in fact and proximate cause of "l`innon's damages. - 45. Had Wai?den.n6t betrayed his ?duty but. had zealously represented; his client Tinnon would not have suffered the dama'ges?'she did. COUNT IIABREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 46. Plaintiff incorporates by reference. and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs l--45 above-as ifstated verbatim herein. -47. Warden owed Tinnon a fiduciary duty while fasting ?as her attomey ad litem. Term. Code Ann. 34-l--l-25(a) proyides, in relevant part, "[t]he attomey ad litem shall be an advocate forthe respondeht ih requested- -relief`." 48.- Warden breached his fiduciary duty owed to Tinnon when he failed to resist the conservatorship. 49. Warden. breached- -l1is fiduciary duty owed to Tinnon when he agreed to and. consented to the court's appointment of GNRC as Tinnon'?s conservator. 50. Warden breached his fiduciary duty .owed to Timron when he failed to moveto set aside. all ex pdrte orders entered by~the? Court before Tinnon was. served notice of"the;proceeding, for want of personal jurisdiction;. 51. Warden breached his fiduciary duty owed to Tinnon when he failed to plead or bring to'the Court's attention that no medical proof had beensubmitted to -the Court. 52, Warden breached his fiduciary duty`owed to Tinnon when -he?procured -the--Report of Physician, adverse to this client's,interests, and filed it of record with .the=Court. -8 ,53. Warden _breached.his fiduciary duty owed Ito Timron when he failed to attempt to obtain- or failed to procure a comp_eting Report of`.Physician finding that Timron did not need a conservator-to act.as her fiduciary. 54. Warden breached his fiduciary- duty owed to Tinnon when he failed to argue, plead, or present to the Court a less restrictive conserzvatorship of his client's person and property. 55. Warden acted -in his own interest and not in the interest of` his client. Warden guaranteed payment of his` legal fees from TinnonTs estate by volunteering to serve as her attomey ad litem- and then failing'to ze`alously resist'the conservatorship. 56. Tinnon has suffered and continues to suffer `injuries as a direct- and proximate result of` Warden's breach of his fiduciary duties owed to her. B. CLAIMS ALLEGED. AGAINST DEFENDANT GN RC, PGPE . COUNT I-NEGLIGENCE 5.7. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs I-56 above asZ'if stated verbatimhereirr. 58._ GNRC, PGPE owed 'Tinnon a- duty of care to act in her best 'interest in the- management of her person, property and finances. I 59. GNRC, PGPE`breached its duty of care owed to Tinnon when it failed to seek the least restrictive means-available to protect '1`innon's? interests. 60. crime, PGPE breached--its?duty of care owed to Tinnon when it her estate. 61. GNRC, PGPE.breached. its_duty of care owed to Tinnon when it failed to preserve_ and protect Tinn'on's? estate by choosing to dispose of her real and personal property at a public 9 auction, and by allowing the auction company?to withdravwauction fees from _the? proceeds of the sale. _62. GNRC, PGPE could have saved Tinnon's home and assets by allowing her to move back into her home- under the care of her niece Margie Y. Imnan, RN and/or Tinnon's other friends, who were wil-ling and able to =serve and assist 'Ijinnon is any capacity she needed, of which PGPE was fully aware. 63. GNRC, PGPE breached its duty of care owed to Tinnon when it. offered and agreed to serve as with full knowledge that Tirmon had a familymember-or friends who were willing and able to serve in suchcapacity, if`.f`ound needed, I 64. GNRC, PGPE breached its duty of -care- owed to Tinnon when it failedio allow Tiimonito determinatively participate as fully .as possible in all decisions 65. GNRC, failure to act has caused, and continues to jcause, Ms. Timion significant and severe- dam`age. 66, fI`innon's damages were actually and proximately caused by GNRU, negligent, reckless and/or intentional acts. COUNT II-BREACH FIDUCIARY DUTY 67. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re>>alleges the- allegations contained in - paragraphs I-66 above as'=if` stated verbatimherein. - 68. GNRC, PGPE owed Tinnon a fiduciary duty while. acting as herconservator. 69. GNRC, PGPE. breached its fiduciary duty when it tmdersold Tinnon's real. and personal assets. As a. direct. result of - GNRC, PGPE's breach- of its fiduciary duty to preserve 'Tinnon's assets, Tinnon is, now living in public housing. - 10 GPPY 70. GNRC, PGPE breached its fiduciary duty when it cash surrendered Tinnon's $75,000.00 life insurance policies, for nominal values of lessthan $.1,800. 71. GNRC, PGPE breached it_s_ fiduciary duty when it lost, undersold or misappropriated "lTinnon's personal property, including fumiture, clothing, Family Bible` (wliieh she had- owned since 1963), and.four diamond rings. I 72. GNRC, PGPE breached its fiduciary duty owed to Tirmon when it offered and agreed to serve as Tirmon's? conservator with; full knowledge that Tinnon had a family membercor friends who were willing and able to serve in such capacity,-if fo_und?need_ed. GNRC, PGPE breached its fiduciary duty owed to Tirmon when it- failed to allow `Tinnon to determinatively participate??as fully as; possible in all decisions affecting her. 74. Timion has suff`ered. and continues to suffer injuries- as a direct and proximate result of GNRC, PGPE's breach ofiits fiduciary duties owed to her. COUNT - VICARIOUS LIABILITY 75. Plaintiff incorporates; by reference and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-74 above asifstated herein verbatim. 76. Hale is GNRC, PGPE's agent or employee. 77. GNRC, PGPE, as principal, is liable- for the negligent acts or omissipns of Hale- under the doctrine of. respondent superior, because Hale's negligence caused Tirmon to ?suf`f`er' damages while Hale was acting on the principal's- business and within. the scope of her employmentwhen the injury occurred. COUNT IV -- NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION. AND RETENTION 78. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-77 above ?as if statedverbatim herein; fl CPPY 79. Upon infomation and belief} GNKC. PGRE had knowledge or should have had knowledge- that Hale was an-unfit person to serve--as District Public Conservatoron its behalf 80. Upon infomation and belief, the harm caused by Haleis negligent actions or omissions was reasonably foreseeable, to GNRC, PGPE. I 81. Upon information and belief;. GNRC, PGPE had specific knowledge that would have put GNRC, PGP-E on notice of Hale'_s wrongful acts. COUNT oUTRAcnoUs coNnUcT I 821 Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs .l -81 above as if stated?verbatim herein. E83. GNRC, PGPE's umiecessargy liquidation of Tim1on's assets was intentional or recklesst 84.. conduct in its treatment of Tinnon was so outrageous that. it is not. tolerated by civilized society. - 85,. Upon information and belief] GNRC, PGPE's humiliation. and outrageous treatment??of Tirmon resulted in,serious mental to Tinnon. C. CLAIMSAIJLEGED AGAINST COUNT I-NEGLIGENCE 86. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re--alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs if stated verbatim herein. 87. Hale owed Tinnon a dutyof care to act in her. best interest as.her'cou1t appointed fiduciary'or conservator. 88. Hale breached her duty owed to Tinnon- when she refused to alloyv Tinnon to retum to her home and decided to sell Tinnon?.s home.and personal-property at public auction. 12 9 89. Hale breached her duty owed to Tinnon when she refused 'to allow Tinnon any meaningful input as to her living arrangernent. 901. "Hale breached her duty of care owed to Tirmon. when she offered and agreed ?to serve as 'I?innon's conservator with full that `Tinnon had a family member or friends who were willing and able to serve in such capacity, if fo_und needed. 91. Hale breached her duty o'f care owed to Tinnon when she failed to allow Tinnon -to determinatively participate as f11lly aspossible infalldeeisions affecting her; 92. Tirmon has suffered and continues to suffer injuries as a direct and pror?imate result of negligence. COUNT Il - BREACH OFKFIDUCIARY DUTY 93. Plaintiff incorporates; by reference and re-alleges- the allegations contained- in paragraphs l--92 above as if stated verbatim herein. i 9Yl. Hale owed Tinnon a fiduciary duty which ?acting as her conservator. 95;- Hale breached her fiduciary duty when she; sold Tinnon's home and personal assets. 96. Hale breached her fiduciary duty when she undersold Tinnon's real and personal. assets. As a direct result. of Hale's breach- of her fiduciary duty to preserve Tinnonis assetsr Timron is now living- in public housing. 97. Hale breached her fiduciary duty when she cash surrendered Tinnonis life insurance: policies for?-nominal values of less than $_l,800. 98. Hale. breached her- fiduciary duty when she lost, undersold or misappropriated personal property, `including firmiture, clothing, Family Bible (which she had owned since 1963), and form diamond rings. I3 99._ Hale- breached her fiduciary duty owed to Tirmon when she failed to =allow Tinnon to determinatively participate-as fiilly as possible in all decisions affecting her; 1'00. Tirmon- has suffered and continues _to; suffer injtuies as a. direct and proximate result of Hale',s breach of her fitiuciary duties owed to her. COUNT OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT 101. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges the allegations contained in- paragraphs 1,--100 above as if stated verbatim- herein; 102; Hale's unnecessary liquidation of Tinnon's assets was intentional or;reckless. 103. Hale'?s conduct in her treatment of Tinnon was so outrageous that. it is not tolerated by civilized society. 1-04. Upon information and belief; Haleis humi_liation and outrageous treatment of Tinnon resulted in serious mental injury'to Tinnon. D. CLAIMS ALLEGED AGAINST DEFENDANT POOL SUIT AGAINST BLANKET BOND 105. Plaintiff incorporates by reference -and re--alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs -12104 above as if stated verbatimherein. Upon information and belief, Tinnon alleges that Defendant Pool has lissued a 'EURblanket bond" covering GNRC, PGPE andfor- Hale against claims of liability. Undersigned .counsel has requested a copy of` said bond fiom the Davidson County Probate Court Clerk,.and has been told that they do not have a copy of said bond, :but that said bond was issued by the Tennessee Municipal League Risk Management Pool. 107. If` P-laintiffis in her claims against GNRC, PGPE and/or Hale, Tinnon; is entitled to. have her damage award paid.out by Pool under the blanketbond; 14 VI. PRAYER-. FOR RELIEF ln consideration of the foregoing allegations, Tinnon humbly and for the following relief: A. That process -immediately issue to all named Defendants and they summoned to appear before this Court; -and answer the allegations contained herein, within the timeframe provided under the Tennesseekules of ?Civi1-Procedure-or as. ordered byithe Court; B. Thatthe. Court empanel a jury of twelve (12) to try this matter; C. That the Court enters a. monetary judgment in Tinnon's favor against Defendant Warden, as compensatory damages, for Wardenis legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty in an amount not less than $400,000.00; D. That -the Court enters- a monetary judgment in Tinnon's favor against Defendant Warden, as punitive damages, for Warden's breach of fiduciary duty in an amount not less than $1.,200,000,00; E. That the Court _enters a monetary judgment in Tinnoi1's favor against Defendant, GNRC, PGPE, compensatory damages, for negligence, negligent hiring, supervision and. retention, outrageous conduct and breach of Hduciary duty in =an amount not lessj than $400,000,00; That the Court enters a monetary judgment in Tinnon's favor against.Defendant GNRC, punitive damages, for breach of `fiduciary duty- and/or outrageous. conduct in an amountnotless than $1,200,000.00; G. That the Court. enters Tinnon's favor against Defendant Hale, as compensatory damages, fornegligence, outrageous conductand breach of fiduciary duty in an am`ount not lessthan $400,000,00; l'5 ?s>py H. That the Court enters a monetary judgment in favor .against l-lale, as punitive damages; for breach 'of` fiduciary duty and/or--outrageous conduct in an amount not less than I. That the Court- finds GNRC, PGPE vicariously liable` tmder the doctrine of respondent superior, for any and all damagesattributed to Hale while acting in the scope of` her employment =as agent for GNRC, J. That?the Court finds that Pool is liable to pay out any damage award attributed to Defendants. GNRC, PGPE or' Hale pursuant to its blanket bond providing coverage for their negligent or wrongfiil acts;. - K. Alternatively, that the Court find all Defendants joint and severally liable for damages suffered .by' Tinnon; L. That the Court construes any contradictory pleadings as alternative pleadings pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.01; M. That Plaintiff `iis granted leave to amend her Verified Complaint to- correct- any errors orupon discovery of additional information -or as justice -so requires; . N. That the Court award Tinnon all discretionary costs and court costs imiurred i_n this matter;-and nl I O. ThatrPlaintiff is granted.all further relief] at law orequity; as. justice so requires,. FILED this Hyday of Mareh, 2012-. Respectfully Submitted, LAWOFEICE OF MICHAEL Cp, 16 0 I *1 3200 West.End Avenue, Suite 50_0 Nashville, 37203 Rhone: (615) 783:1757 Fax: (615) 866-5816 mgh@michaelghoskins;c0m C0-Ccunselfar Plqiniiflewell S. Tinnon LAW OFFICE oF RACHEL ODOM, LLC . . . . Rach om, Esq. No. 29328) 1215 Seventh Avenue North Nashville, Tennessee 37208? Telephone: (6.15) 352-3885 Facsimile: (6-15) 601-3.1 1 8 Tinnon OATH ..[ewel1_ `Timion, Plaintiff in the captioned action, swear or affirm that the. factual. allegationsstated herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief - I ewell"S. Tinnon NOTARY VERIFICATION -Personally appeared before me,_ Ms- Jewell. S. Tinnon, Plaintiff in the captioned matter, who is personally _known by me.-or proved to me her identity by valid state issued identification, andaiter being duly sworn, signed her name to the oath above, 2 Notary fc My Commission Expires: 9 uv couunssiori Exinnss: 9.:2016 17 Min MA-sm- *5 Transmit lar 19 201`2 10:20 Fax!Phuhe Number -Sta>>rt ima Page Qesult Huis 99999999 999999 - 2 999 . cum-.novrnm ?9r?;J Ari .. - 9 mm- (QW quang - FACSIMILE hud I I rc. Suite sux Nagsliviile JQZQI 61 :>>r862-5219 FAX: 015 862-5722 QI . il I 3 -- FAXQ .. . .- as . . 9 - -- ;_mqudi?g_gm__I . - 6 Scott (862-5710) - A IN THE CHANCERY COUR-T FOR THE- STATE- OF TENNESSEE JUDICIAL DISTRICT, DAVIDSON COUNTY ,%s2 JEWELLS. 4 mg Plaintiffsvs. Case No. 12-381--Il cg GREATER NASHVILLEREGIONAL . COUNCIL, PUBLIC GUARDIANSHIP 9- . PROGRAM FOR THE ELDERLY, . HALE, Individually, and ?as . PUBLIC GUARDIAN, Ifor the GREATER NASHVILLE REGIONAL. COUNCIL PUBLIC GUARDIANSHIP PROGRAM FOR THE ELDERLY, I TENNESSEE MUNICIPAL. LEAGUE RISK MANAGEMENT POOL I KARL D. WARDEN, ESQ RESPONSIBILITY COURT OF TENNESSEE . Defendants. ORDER OF RECUSALAND TRANSFER. For reasons satisfactory to the Court, the undersigned judge hereby recuses herself in the above referenced case and forwards this case to the Assignment. Judge, Randy Kennedy, to transfer tig-is case to Circuit court f0r_aII` further- proceedings. as this claim is for unliquidated damages-. A IT IS SO ORDERED. Ja I I a CAROL GHANCELLOR 0 cv cc: Rachel Odom, Attorney at Law 12`1.5 Seventh Avenue - Nashville, Tennessee 37208 - Michael G. Hoskins, Attorney at Law 3200 West End Avenue, Suite 500 - Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Judge.Randy Kennedy Assignment Judge. - -