The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville holds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear a guardianship case because the respondent did not have the mental capacity to change his domicile from New York to Tennessee. In re Conservatorship of Rowe (Tenn. Ct. App. No. E2023-01236-COA-R3-CV, October 18, 2024).
After moving together from New York to Tennessee, Janice Peters-Rowe filed for guardianship of her husband, Charles Rowe, in Tennessee. Mr. Rowe had Alzheimer’s disease and suffered a stroke after he and his wife planned to move to Tennessee but before the move occurred.
His daughter from a previous marriage, Dawn Rowe, intervened in the guardianship case, seeking to be her father’s guardian. She made several arguments, including that the Tennessee court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
The trial court granted Ms. Peters-Rowe guardianship and made the daughter the successor guardian. It found that it had subject matter jurisdiction because Mr. Rowe formed his intention to change his domicile prior to the move. Guardian ad litem (GAL) fees were split between the wife and daughter, with the rest of the costs taxed to the estate.
On appeal, the issue is whether the Tennessee court has subject matter jurisdiction over the guardianship case.
The Tennessee Code provides that a guardianship action must be brought in the county of residence of the proposed protected person. Mentally incompetent individuals cannot change their domicile or legal residences. They must have the intent to change domiciles at the time of the relocation.
In this case, the record does not establish that Mr. Rowe was mentally competent when he moved with his wife to Tennessee following his stroke. Therefore, the trial court incorrectly relied on evidence of Mr. Rowe’s intent prior to his move. Since no evidence established Mr. Rowe’s mental competency at the time of the move to Tennessee, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
While the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, its allocation of fees was within its discretion. With respect to the GAL fees, the Tennessee Code gives the court discretion to assess fees against petitioners, including the wife and daughter.
Because there was insufficient evidence that Mr. Rowe intended to change his domicile at the time of his move, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The appellate court remands the case for a dismissal order and collection of costs against Ms. Peters-Rowe.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
