IN RE: CONSERVATORSHIP OF MAURICE M. ACREE, JR., et al., v. NANCY ACREE, et al.

In this action a Petition was filed and a conservator was appointed for Dr. Maurice M. Acree, Jr., and William Acree was made a party to that proceeding. Five years after a conservator was appointed, William Acree filed a "Complaint" in that action. The Trial Court determined that a complaint could not lie in that action, and treated it as a Rule 60 Motion and denied William Acree any relief. William Acree has appealed to this Court and we affirm the Trial Court's Judgment, but modify the Judgment on the basis that the record reveals plain error which should be addressed because the trusts remain active.

Attorney 1: 

Suzette Peyton, Brentwood, and George E. Copple, Jr., Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, William Q. Acree.

Attorney 2: 

C. Dewey Branstetter, Jr., and Stacey K. Skillman, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Nancy Acree, C. Dewey Branstetter, Jr., and Austin Catts.

Judge: 
Franks
AttachmentSize
acreem_112112.pdf217.24 KB
Groups: