WPC(A v5%#a_kKތVR?J72\"eK}LX1BnE&8)Is_1dN>mLy 'K'֞ϜQV[8WT\\9/W_.W0R,ڈҊ=N!hM+7b!Wq~ ?!:EVP\K d,5I(w'Uwn}ց3ηڊq`k{)39sf7Z:N+)ʹTi"3~_N) 76tYWd`T``xp#ڋ*s/Y՜QBz+aZXB<ճП׭9vJ4a3; ?{xê)|LvTocjcOG7<ǹYS):uGN\ܧr^,`,Nԍ!b %\U @b 05U :UMN N_ 0a zU  0 0 0 0hG  0_NJ 0L 01E 0 0 0 0 0 0g 0= 0 0 0 0w 0X 06 0 0 0! 0" 0_# 0+$ 00$ 0<$% 0`% 0>&b\& 0vd& 0`& 0`:' 0`' 0`' 0`Z( 08( 0( 02) 0) 0:* 0Y,+ 0_+ 0 + 0j, 0X. B*/ D/0 050 D/1 01 062 02 0:3 0^.4 0<4U64U >4U*<5ff5ah5^ |5w5455 05G7 mI7#`7 B!9Q>9 0Q; D3< D-= 0K@= 0D= AS="> 0Q> 0D9@ A}@(9 Z(Times New Roman ( $..8Tydd8    #`a!#`4!aZG4ZGZ,cAZ"Arial Regular("  Z6Times New Roman Regular2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5   C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  ӁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition- -(''&H1      XXX(&H2  XXX(&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(&H5  XXX(&H6  XXX20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKI<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSJ\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KI<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXSJ\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KI<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSJ\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7@(X7  ?K%2A`Arial?7Z(X7  XXXSJ\  `&Times New RomanS&  d d?)1dxd<:zTop of For7B(X7  ?K%2A`Arial?7Z(X7  XXXSJ\  `&Times New RomanS?)2dxd0KS.SampleKI<6X9`(Courier NewKSJ\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKI<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSJ\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`ArialTable_AnuV+s j5+Ʀk2 ͧ3|x()G2K)$ !.8]=dXXd8    4|{@4|{@YrYr      0  -UHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0 d G RK)$  4|{@4|{@YrYr    1  -  _ԀMs._Curren_Ԁdiedpriortotheentryofthefinalorderinthetrialcourt.Nosuggestionofdeathwasinitially  made,buttheproceduralerrorwascorrectedinthetrialcourt,andtherecordinthisCourtsupplementedaccordingly.()3pp$ !.8]=dXXd8    4|{@4|{@YrYr  VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  (#$  0  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5()3pp$ !.8]=dXXd8    4|{@4|{@YrYr  ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8]=dd8    4|{@4|{@YrYr  _  8 X Xdd8  @   INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @mm$ATNASHVILLE# #Ԉ $   March8,2001Session H R R # RR#STATEOFTENNESSEEDEPARTMENTOFHUMANSERVICESv. C MICHELLESTEWART,PERSONALREPRESENTATIVEOFTHE  S ESTATEOFCHARLIEMAE_CURREN_,DECEASEDR R   c @@ ADirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  \ @@No.993130IITheHonorableCarolL.McCoy,Chancellor  C  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200000633_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober22,_2001_   AV) ` dE<k` A l    R R RR  TheDepartmentofHumanServices(_DHS_)institutedanactioninchancerycourtpursuant d totheTennesseeAdultProtectionAct,_T.C.A._Ԁ#R R RR#R\R RR#R RRR\6#R R RRԀ716101etseq.(1995)afterreceivingareportof M possibleabuse,neglect,orexploitationoftherespondent.Thecourtappointedcounseltorepresent 6 therespondentandalsoappointedaguardianadlitemtorepresentrespondent.Subsequently,the o courtalsoappointedatemporaryguardiantorepresenttheinterestoftherespondent.Afteran X evidentiaryhearing,thetrialcourtfoundthat_DHS_Ԁhadnotcarrieditsburdenofproofrequiredby A theapplicablestatuteandhadfailedtoproperlyinvestigatethecasebeforeproceedingwiththe * action.Thetrialcourtalsoorderedthat_DHS_Ԁproceedwiththefilingofaconservatorshipproceeding  intheprobatecourtwhich_DHS_Ԁdid.Respondentsappointedattorney,guardianadlitem,temporary  guardian,andlatertheconservatorfiledmotionsforassessmentoffeesanddiscretionarycosts  against_DHS_.Thetrialcourtgrantedthemotionsandassessedthefeesanddiscretionarycosts ~ against_DHS_._DHS_Ԁhasappealed.Wereverse. g #R R RR|## RR#R R _Tenn.R.App.P._Ԁ3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtReversed  "!r    # R[ #C(W.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE._Highers_,J.andHollyKirby "B" _Lillard_,J.,joined. ## PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,PamelaA.HaydenWood,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,Nashville,For #%s % Appellant,TennesseeDepartmentofHumanServices %.!& DavidA_Dearolf_,Nashville,ForAppellee,CharlieMae_Curren_ T'"(  OPINION #CF#R R ($*   )$+9 _# RR#R R_    InaproceedinginstitutedbytheTennesseeDepartmentofHumanServices(DHS)against  respondent,CharlieMae_Curren__W \#  1      _,pursuanttoTennesseeAdultProtectionAct,_T.C.A._ԀR\R RR#R RRR\I#R R RRԀ716101   etseq.(1995),thetrialcourtfoundthat_DHS_Ԁdidnotcarryitsburdenofproofanddismissedthe  complaint.Priortodismissingthecomplaint,thecourtsuspendedthehearingtoallow_DHS_Ԁtofile k aconservatorshipproceedinginprobatecourt.Duringthependencyofthechancerycourtcase,the T courtappointedanattorneyfortherespondent,aguardianadlitemfortherespondent,andthen =  subsequentlyappointedatemporaryguardianforrespondentchargedwiththeresponsibilityoftaking & v chargeofrespondentsassets,payingherbills,andotherwisebeingresponsibleforherwelfare.  _   Byvariousorders,thetrialcourtassesseddiscretionarycostsagainstthestate(which  1  includedtheguardianadlitemfees)assessedrespondentsattorneysfeesagainstthestate,assessed    thetemporaryguardianfeesagainstthestate,andassessedtheconservatorsfeesagainstthestate.   Thestatehasappealed,andtheonlyissuesforreviewarewhetherthetrialcourterredinits   assessmentofthesevariouschargestothestate.     Sincethestatehasnotpresentedanissueconcerningdismissalofitscomplaint,itwould W  extendthisopiniontoanunreasonablelengthandconsumethetimeofthecourtfornouseful @ purposeforustoreviewthevariouspleadingsandtheevidenceatthehearingleadingtothe )y assessmentofthechargesatissue.Wewillthereforedispensewiththatprocedure. b   Thefirstissuetoconsideriswhetherthetrialcourterredinassessingrespondentsattorneys 4 feestothestateandassessingtheguardianadlitemfeestothestateaspartofdiscretionarycosts.    TheTennesseeAdultProtectionActunderwhichthestateproceededprovidesforthefiling  ofacomplaintbythestatetoremoveasubjectadultfromthechosenplaceofresidenceaftermaking  reasonableeffortstoexhaustallpracticalalternativesforsuchremoval._T.C.A._Ԁ#R R RR#R\R RR#R RRR\s#R R RRԀ716107(a)(1)(A). q Theactfurtherprovides: Z 8  8`   Theadulthasarighttobepresentandrepresentedbycounselatthe ,| hearing.Iftheadultisindigent,orinthedeterminationofthejudge e orchancellor,lackscapacitytowaivetherighttocounsel,thenthe N courtshallappointcounsel.Iftheadultisindigent,courtcostsand  7 thecostofrepresentationshallbebornebythestate;otherwisesuch !   costsshallbebornebytheadult." !` x` x T.C.A.#R R RR#R\R RR#R RRR\ #R R RRԀ716107(a)(4)(1995). $#   TheactfurtherprovidesthatifDHSdeterminesthatthereisaneedforprotectiveservices, ]&!% andrespondentlackscapacitytoconsenttosuchservices,thedepartmentmaythenproceedby F'"& complaintsettingforthspecificfactsshowingthattheadultisinneedofprotectiveservicesandlacks /(#' thecapacitytoconsent.Theactprovides: )h$( Ї8  8`   Iftheadultisindigentor,inthedeterminationofthejudgeor  chancellor,lackscapacitytowaivetherighttocounsel,thenthecourt  shallappointcounsel.Iftheadultisindigent,courtcostsandthecost  ofrepresentationshallbebornebythestate;otherwisesuchcosts k shallbebornebytheadult.T` x` x T.C.A.#R R RR #R\R RR#R RRR\$#R R RRԀ716107(b)(2)(1995). & v   Itisconcededthatrespondentwasnotindigent.DHSassertsthatundertheabovestatutes  H thereisnoauthoritygrantedtoassesscostsandfeesagainstthestate.  1    AppelleesassertthatguardianadlitemfeesmaybetaxedascostspursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.   17.03andthatpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.54.04discretionarycostsmaybeassessedbythecourt.   AppelleesconcedethatunderTennesseelawattorneysfeesareonlytobeawardedifprovidedfor   bycontract,statute,orarecognizedequitableground.Theyargue,however,thattheawardinthe n  instantcaseisarecognizedequitableground. W    Wefirstbeginourinquirybyconstruingtheapplicablestatuteconcerningthepaymentof )y costsandfees. b   Ininterpretinglegislativeprovisions,thecourtistoascertainandgiveeffecttothelegislative 4 intentwithoutundulyrestrictingorexpandingthestatutescoveragebeyonditsintendedscope.   Hathawayv.FirstFamilyFinancialServices,Inc. ,1S.W.3d634(Tenn.1999).Thelegislative  intentmustbeascertainedfromthenaturalandordinarymeaningofthestatutorylanguagereadin  thecontextoftheentirestatutewithoutanyforcedorsubtleconstructionwhichwouldextendor  limititsmeaning. Statev.Butler ,980S.W.2d359(Tenn.1998); Chrismanv.HillHome s Development,Inc. ,978S.W.2d535(Tenn.1998). ^   Theabovequotedprovisionsoftheapplicablestatutesindicateinplainlanguagethatthe 2 legislatureintendedthatanadultrespondentwhoisnotindigentshouldberesponsibleforthecosts k andfeesassociatedwithaproceedinginstitutedforrespondentsownprotection.Moreover,theact  T furtherprovides:  = 8  8`   S#b" S#R R RR$#JR R RR(7)Ifthedepartmentrefusestoexercisethepowersgrantedtoitby #b! subdivision(a)(1),anyprivatenonprofitagencyrepresenting #+" disabledadultsmayproceedundersubdivision(1),aftergivingnotice $# tothedepartmentofintenttodoso.Ifanorderauthorizingthe m% $ provisionofprotectiveservicesresults,thedepartment's 6&!% responsibilitiesarethesameastheywouldhavebeenifthe &O"& departmenthadsoughttheorder.Ifthecourtfindsthatanorder '#' authorizingtheprovisionofprotectedservicesisnotwarranted,any (#( agencyproceedingunderthissubdivisionwillberesponsibleforthe Z)$) costofthecourtappointedattorneyrepresentingtheindividualfor #*s%* whomprotectiveservicesweresoughtaswellascourtcosts. S#R R RJR'.#R R RR*<&+` x` x  +%', T.C.A.#R R RR?2#R\R RR#R RRR\2#R R RRԀ716107(a)(7)(1995)(emphasisadded).    Inthelatterquotedprovision,thelegislaturespecificallyprovidedforassessmentofcosts  againstagenciesotherthanthestateactingpursuanttothestatute.Thestatutoryprovisions k concerningattorney'sfeesandcostsuniformlyprovideforassessmenttorespondentunlessthe T respondentisindigent,exceptinonlyoneinstance,i.e.,whenthestaterefusestoproceed,anda =  private,nonprofitagencyproceedsonitsown.Thereisnothinginthestatutetoindicateany & v intentionthatthestateistoberesponsibleforcostsandfeesifitfailstoprevailonitscomplaint.  _ However,itisquiteclearthatanyotheragencywillbesoresponsible.Thefundamentalruleof  H statutoryconstructionisthatthementionofonesubjectinastatutemeanstheexclusionofother  1  subjectsthatarenotmentioned. Phillipsv.TennesseeTechnologicalUniversity ,984S.W.2d217    (Tenn.1998).Givingthelanguageofthestatuteitsnaturalandordinarymeaning,thelegislaturedid   notprovideforfeestobeawardedagainstthestateifthestatewasunsuccessfulinitscomplaint.     Appelleesassertthatattorneysfeesshouldbeawardedasarecognizedequitableground. p  Wedonotagree.Althoughthestatesactionwasdismissedbecauseoflackofproofofabuse, Y  neglect,orexploitation,thetrialcourtrecognizedthattherespondentwasinneedofcareand B protectionandinstructedDHStoinstituteconservatorshipproceedings.Theproofisclearand +{ virtuallyundisputedthatrespondentwasincapableofhandlingherownaffairsandbyvirtueof d DHSsaction,shereceivedtheprotectionofanappointedguardianafterherconditionwasmade M knowntothecourt. 6   Appelleesalsoassertthattheyshouldbeawardedfeesbyvirtueof_T.C.A._Ԁ#R R RR3#R\R RR#R RRR\$<#R R RRԀ2012134  (1994)whichprovides:  Ss S#R R RRj<#JR R RR8  8`   Inallcaseswhereanycivilactionisbroughtonbehalfofthestate,in  laworequity,andthestateshallbeadjudgedtopayallcosts,such  costsshallbepaidoutofthetreasury,uponthesamebeingproperly X certified.!q` x` x   ThisassertioniscontrolledbythedecisionofourSupremeCourtin IntheMatterofHarris , Y  849S.W.2d334(Tenn.1993).In Harris ,DHSfiledapetitiontoterminateparentalrightsofthe "!r motherandfatherafterthechildhadbeenfoundtobedependentandneglected.Anattorneywas !;  appointedasguardianadlitemforthemotherandanotherwasappointedguardianadlitemforthe "! father.Subsequently,theguardiansadlitemwereawardedsubstantialfeesbythetrialcourt,DHS }#" appealed.DHScontendedthatifthefeesmustbepaid,itwastheobligationofthecounty.The F$# courtdealtwiththespecificprovisionsconcerningterminationofparentrightsandpaymentoffees %_ $ insuchproceedings,includingtheobligationofthecountyforthefees.TheCourtnotedthat %(!% Tenn.R.Civ.P.17.03providesfortheappointmentofaguardianadlitemforchildrenand &!& incompetentpersonsandprovidesthatthecourthasthediscretiontoallowfeesforsuchguardian j'"' adlitemtobetaxedascosts.TheCourtalsonotedthatTenn.R.Civ.P.54.04(1)providesthatcourt 3(#( costsmaybetaxedagainstthestateonlywhenspecificallyauthorized.Thecourtrejectedthe (L$) argumentthat_T.C.A._Ԁ#R R RJR"=#R\R RR#R RRR\D#JR R RRԀ2012134allowsassessmentofcostslimitedonlybythetrialcourts )%* determination.TheCourtstated: *%+  +&, 8  8`    Thefirstconsiderationindeterminingifthefeescanbe  chargedagainstastateagencyisthatthestatutorypowertoassess y costsagainstthestateisinderogationofthestatessovereigntyand B mustbestrictlyconstrued. Stateexrel.Chanaberryv.Stooksbury ,  [ 176Tenn.687,689,145S.W.2d775,776(1940).$` x` x  Id. at336.  \   Inholdingthattheobviousintentofthelegislationwastoallowalimitedawardofguardian D  adlitemfeesagainstthestateonlyinspecificinstances,theCourtnotedthatitsstatutory  ]  construction isalsoconsistentwiththeruleofconstructionthatwherethereisaconflictbetween  &  aspecialstatuteandageneralstatute,thespecialstatutewillbegiveneffect.(citationsomitted).   Ѐ Id. at337. h    Intheinstantcase,thespecialstatutequiteclearlyprovidesforfeesorcostsagainstthestate   onlyiftherespondentisindigent,andthespecialstatutemustbegiveneffect. i    Wewillnowconsidertheissueofwhetherthetrialcourterredingrantingfeestothe  temporaryguardianandtheconservator. j   Theappointmentofthetemporaryguardianbythecourtwasobviouslytoprotectthat  respondentsestateandinessencetoperformthedutiesofaconservator.Thepurposeofappointing k aconservatoristopreservetheestateofanincompetentordisabledperson._T.C.A._Ԁ#R R RJRD#R\R RR#R RRR\M#JR R RRԀ344202 4 (1991Repl.)Foradetaileddescriptionofthedutiesandresponsibilitiesofaconservator, seeGrahl M v.David ,971S.W.2d373(Tenn.1998).Withoutgoingintogreatdetail,sufficeittosaythata  conservatorischargedwiththedutyofactinginthebestinterestoftheconservatee,and,assuch,  isrenderingservicetotheconservatee.Thus,thetrialcourtshouldnothaveawardedtemporary X guardianfeesnorconservatorfeesagainstthestatebutshouldhavechargedthefeestothe !q respondentwhoreceivedthebenefittherefor._T.C.A._Ԁ3411112(1996Repl.)allowsreasonable : compensationtobepaidtoafiduciaryforservicesrenderedinthecaseofaminorordisabledperson  wherethereispriorcourtapproval.Inaddition,_T.C.A._Ԁ3411113(1996Repl.)providesfor | paymentbyafiduciaryofcostsdeemednecessarybythecourtfromthepropertyofaminoror E  disabledperson.Moreover,astotheconservatorsfees,thetrialcourtdidnotappointthe !^  conservator,andtheconservatorshipwasnotinthetrialcourt.Thebenefittotheestateaccruedin !'! theprobatecourtwheretheconservatorwasappointed,andanyfeesfortheconservatorshouldbe "" awardedbythatcourtoutoftherespondentsestate. i##   Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtassessingfeesandcoststothestateisreversed. % %  S#R R RJRcM#R R RRThecaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybenecessary.Costsof j&!& theappealareassessedagainsttheappellee. S'"' *LM ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,,t+  1'<(#(<(# 1 '<(#) '-#!<(#*  -Ѐ_#R R RRT## RR#R R_ %)u$*    `     h   __________________________________________ *G&,    `     h   W.FRANKCRAWFORD,PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.