WPC= \lSTcjN oW*@j)G./m4vށ\83?jfؙ 2r2 }6Zz) ]2۟pX\)ȯ(kmK16Mmj4 KXOM͞q-dۀL-Tˍ+3r_W:e€rbWϤm]4\%28ب+nVxdH߾ZTdҋE`V67a`f ȼ` YVK-Y2kqHUo݉TNugD_`7ܙ3c|eOd0eZUWc Μ 6J5<mK1?2{΂7U5lRzm[F5P")t4߬J3к4Mg*ar>(}t,4I:]_ub %\U @b 0U :*U0NdN 0 z " 0 0 0 0 `& 0N 0 0Ef 0h 0D 0& 0 0 0 0 0c 03 0 0 0 0 0d 0< 0! 0! 0" 0~# 00G$ 0<w$ 0$ 0>q%b% 0v% 0`-& 0`& 0`& 0`M' 0`' 08 ( 0E( 02) 0I) 0:E* 0Y* 0_* 0 7+ 0jA, 0- B*// D/Y/ 0/ D/ 1 0;1 06 2 0?2 0:G3 0^3 0<3U64U >Q4U*4f4a4^ 4w4444 055 m5#6 B77 09 D3,: D-_: 0K: 0D: AS;n; 04< 0D< A=(9 Z(Times New Roman (`$.8dd8    ,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_An^+s j5+Ʀk2 ͧ3|x(|G2$ !.8PEdXXd8         0  UHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0 d  R$      1    _ԀMs._Curren_Ԁdiedpriortotheentryofthefinalorderinthetrialcourt.Nosuggestionofdeathwasinitially  made,buttheproceduralerrorwascorrectedinthetrialcourt,andtherecordinthisCourtsupplementedaccordingly.(|3 T$ !.8PEdXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  (#$  0  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 T$ !.8PEdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8PEdd8     _  PE8 XXdd8  @ ]PEINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#PE] #Ԉ &   March8,2001Session L X XPE #PEXX #STATEOFTENNESSEEDEPARTMENTOFHUMANSERVICESv. J MICHELLESTEWART,PERSONALREPRESENTATIVEOFTHE  ^ ESTATEOFCHARLIEMAE_CURREN_,DECEASEDX XPE  " r @@ ADirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty " r @@No.993130IITheHonorableCarolL.McCoy,Chancellor ^  @@*AV) ` dE<` A "  @@TTNo.M200000633_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober22,_2001_   AV) ` dE<` A     X XXX   TheDepartmentofHumanServices(_DHS_)institutedanactioninchancerycourtpursuant  totheTennesseeAdultProtectionAct,_T.C.A._Ԁ#X XXX #XC+XXX #X XXXC+#X XXX Ԁ716101etseq.(1995)afterreceivingareportof  possibleabuse,neglect,orexploitationoftherespondent.Thecourtappointedcounseltorepresent x therespondentandalsoappointedaguardianadlitemtorepresentrespondent.Subsequently,the d courtalsoappointedatemporaryguardiantorepresenttheinterestoftherespondent.Afteran P evidentiaryhearing,thetrialcourtfoundthat_DHS_Ԁhadnotcarrieditsburdenofproofrequiredby < theapplicablestatuteandhadfailedtoproperlyinvestigatethecasebeforeproceedingwiththe (x action.Thetrialcourtalsoorderedthat_DHS_Ԁproceedwiththefilingofaconservatorshipproceeding d intheprobatecourtwhich_DHS_Ԁdid.Respondentsappointedattorney,guardianadlitem,temporary P guardian,andlatertheconservatorfiledmotionsforassessmentoffeesanddiscretionarycosts < against_DHS_.Thetrialcourtgrantedthemotionsandassessedthefeesanddiscretionarycosts ( against_DHS_._DHS_Ԁhasappealed.Wereverse.  #X XXX ##PEXX #X XPEu _Tenn.R.App.P._Ԁ3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtReversed  !    #PEX #X X.PEW.FrankCrawford,_P.J._,_W.S._,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE._Highers_, `#" J.andHollyKirby_Lillard_,J.,joined. L$# PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,PamelaA.HaydenWood,AssistantAttorney $&t!% General,Nashville,ForAppellant,TennesseeDepartmentofHumanServices '`"& SamuelF.Anderson,Nashville,AttorneyAdLitem,ForAppellee,CharlieMae_Curren_ 'L#' DavidA_Dearolf_,Nashville,GuardianAdLitemforAppellee,CharlieMae_Curren_ (8$(   OPINION #PEXX #X XPE *&*   +&+ _#PEXX K#X XPE    InaproceedinginstitutedbytheTennesseeDepartmentofHumanServices(DHS)against   respondent,CharlieMaeCurrenW \#  1      ,pursuanttoTennesseeAdultProtectionAct,T.C.A.XC+XXX #X XXXC+?#X XXX Ԁ716101  etseq.(1995),thetrialcourtfoundthatDHSdidnotcarryitsburdenofproofanddismissedthe ` complaint.Priortodismissingthecomplaint,thecourtsuspendedthehearingtoallowDHStofile 8  aconservatorshipproceedinginprobatecourt.Duringthependencyofthechancerycourtcase,the  ` courtappointedanattorneyfortherespondent,aguardianadlitemfortherespondent,andthen  8  subsequentlyappointedatemporaryguardianforrespondentchargedwiththeresponsibilityof   takingchargeofrespondentsassets,payingherbills,andotherwisebeingresponsibleforher   welfare. p   Byvariousorders,thetrialcourtassesseddiscretionarycostsagainstthestate(which H includedtheguardianadlitemfees)assessedrespondentsattorneysfeesagainstthestate,assessed  p thetemporaryguardianfeesagainstthestate,andassessedtheconservatorsfeesagainstthestate. H Thestatehasappealed,andtheonlyissuesforreviewarewhetherthetrialcourterredinits   assessmentofthesevariouschargestothestate.    Sincethestatehasnotpresentedanissueconcerningdismissalofitscomplaint,itwould  extendthisopiniontoanunreasonablelengthandconsumethetimeofthecourtfornouseful X  purposeforustoreviewthevariouspleadingsandtheevidenceatthehearingleadingtothe 0"  assessmentofthechargesatissue.Wewillthereforedispensewiththatprocedure. $X"   Thefirstissuetoconsideriswhetherthetrialcourterredinassessingrespondentsattorneys %0!$ feestothestateandassessingtheguardianadlitemfeestothestateaspartofdiscretionarycosts. '#&   TheTennesseeAdultProtectionActunderwhichthestateproceededprovidesforthefiling  ofacomplaintbythestatetoremoveasubjectadultfromthechosenplaceofresidenceaftermaking  reasonableeffortstoexhaustallpracticalalternativesforsuchremoval.T.C.A.#X XXX #XC+XXX #X XXXC+#X XXX Ԁ716107 ` (a)(1)(A).Theactfurtherprovides: 8  8  8`   Theadulthasarighttobepresentandrepresentedbycounselatthe  ` hearing.Iftheadultisindigent,orinthedeterminationofthejudge  L  orchancellor,lackscapacitytowaivetherighttocounsel,thenthe  8  courtshallappointcounsel.Iftheadultisindigent,courtcostsand $  thecostofrepresentationshallbebornebythestate;otherwisesuch   costsshallbebornebytheadult. ` x` x T.C.A.#X XXX U#XC+XXX #X XXXC+3 #X XXX Ԁ716107(a)(4)(1995).     TheactfurtherprovidesthatifDHSdeterminesthatthereisaneedforprotectiveservices, \ andrespondentlackscapacitytoconsenttosuchservices,thedepartmentmaythenproceedby 4 complaintsettingforthspecificfactsshowingthattheadultisinneedofprotectiveservicesand  \ lacksthecapacitytoconsent.Theactprovides: 4 8  8`   Iftheadultisindigentor,inthedeterminationofthejudgeor   chancellor,lackscapacitytowaivetherighttocounsel,thenthecourt  shallappointcounsel.Iftheadultisindigent,courtcostsandthecost  ofrepresentationshallbebornebythestate;otherwisesuchcosts  shallbebornebytheadult.l` x` x T.C.A.#X XXX y #XC+XXX #X XXXC+$#X XXX Ԁ716107(b)(2)(1995). D!   Itisconcededthatrespondentwasnotindigent.DHSassertsthatundertheabovestatutes #l! thereisnoauthoritygrantedtoassesscostsandfeesagainstthestate. $D #   AppelleesassertthatguardianadlitemfeesmaybetaxedascostspursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P. &"% 17.03andthatpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.54.04discretionarycostsmaybeassessedbythecourt. (#' AppelleesconcedethatunderTennesseelawattorneysfeesareonlytobeawardedifprovidedfor |*%) bycontract,statute,orarecognizedequitableground.Theyargue,however,thattheawardinthe  instantcaseisarecognizedequitableground.    Wefirstbeginourinquirybyconstruingtheapplicablestatuteconcerningthepaymentof ` costsandfees. 8    Ininterpretinglegislativeprovisions,thecourtistoascertainandgiveeffecttothelegislative  ` intentwithoutundulyrestrictingorexpandingthestatutescoveragebeyonditsintendedscope.  8   Hathawayv.FirstFamilyFinancialServices,Inc. ,1S.W.3d634(Tenn.1999).Thelegislative   intentmustbeascertainedfromthenaturalandordinarymeaningofthestatutorylanguagereadin   thecontextoftheentirestatutewithoutanyforcedorsubtleconstructionwhichwouldextendor p limititsmeaning. Statev.Butler ,980S.W.2d359(Tenn.1998); Chrismanv.HillHome H Development,Inc. ,978S.W.2d535(Tenn.1998).  p   Theabovequotedprovisionsoftheapplicablestatutesindicateinplainlanguagethatthe H legislatureintendedthatanadultrespondentwhoisnotindigentshouldberesponsibleforthecosts   andfeesassociatedwithaproceedinginstitutedforrespondentsownprotection.Moreover,theact  furtherprovides:  8  8`   S X  S#X XXX $#JX XXX (7)Ifthedepartmentrefusestoexercisethepowersgrantedtoitby   subdivision(a)(1),anyprivatenonprofitagencyrepresenting s! disabledadultsmayproceedundersubdivision(1),aftergivingnotice ;"  tothedepartmentofintenttodoso.Ifanorderauthorizingthe #S! provisionofprotectiveservicesresults,thedepartment's #" responsibilitiesarethesameastheywouldhavebeenifthe $# departmenthadsoughttheorder.Ifthecourtfindsthatanorder [% $ authorizingtheprovisionofprotectedservicesisnotwarranted,any #&s!% agencyproceedingunderthissubdivisionwillberesponsibleforthe &;"& costofthecourtappointedattorneyrepresentingtheindividualfor '#' whomprotectiveservicesweresoughtaswellascourtcosts. S#X XXJX .#X XXX {(#(` x` x T.C.A.#X XXX .2#XC+XXX #X XXXC+2#X XXX Ԁ716107(a)(7)(1995)(emphasisadded). S*%*   ?+&+   Inthelatterquotedprovision,thelegislaturespecificallyprovidedforassessmentofcosts   againstagenciesotherthanthestateactingpursuanttothestatute.Thestatutoryprovisions  concerningattorney'sfeesandcostsuniformlyprovideforassessmenttorespondentunlessthe ` respondentisindigent,exceptinonlyoneinstance,i.e.,whenthestaterefusestoproceed,anda 8  private,nonprofitagencyproceedsonitsown.Thereisnothinginthestatutetoindicateany  ` intentionthatthestateistoberesponsibleforcostsandfeesifitfailstoprevailonitscomplaint.  8  However,itisquiteclearthatanyotheragencywillbesoresponsible.Thefundamentalruleof   statutoryconstructionisthatthementionofonesubjectinastatutemeanstheexclusionofother   subjectsthatarenotmentioned. Phillipsv.TennesseeTechnologicalUniversity ,984S.W.2d217 p (Tenn.1998).Givingthelanguageofthestatuteitsnaturalandordinarymeaning,thelegislaturedid H notprovideforfeestobeawardedagainstthestateifthestatewasunsuccessfulinitscomplaint.  p   Appelleesassertthatattorneysfeesshouldbeawardedasarecognizedequitableground. H Wedonotagree.Althoughthestatesactionwasdismissedbecauseoflackofproofofabuse,   neglect,orexploitation,thetrialcourtrecognizedthattherespondentwasinneedofcareand  protectionandinstructedDHStoinstituteconservatorshipproceedings.Theproofisclearand  virtuallyundisputedthatrespondentwasincapableofhandlingherownaffairsandbyvirtueof X  DHSsaction,shereceivedtheprotectionofanappointedguardianafterherconditionwasmade 0"  knowntothecourt. $X"   AppelleesalsoassertthattheyshouldbeawardedfeesbyvirtueofT.C.A.#X XXX 2#XC+XXX #X XXXC+<#X XXX Ԁ2012134 %0!$ (1994)whichprovides: '#& S)3%)$ S#X XXX ]<#JX XXX 8  8`   Inallcaseswhereanycivilactionisbroughtonbehalfofthestate,in )3%( laworequity,andthestateshallbeadjudgedtopayallcosts,such *%) costsshallbepaidoutofthetreasury,uponthesamebeingproperly s+&* certified.;,'+` x` x Ї  ThisassertioniscontrolledbythedecisionofourSupremeCourtin IntheMatterofHarris ,  849S.W.2d334(Tenn.1993).In Harris ,DHSfiledapetitiontoterminateparentalrightsofthe @ motherandfatherafterthechildhadbeenfoundtobedependentandneglected.Anattorneywas   appointedasguardianadlitemforthemotherandanotherwasappointedguardianadlitemforthe `  father.Subsequently,theguardiansadlitemwereawardedsubstantialfeesbythetrialcourt,DHS  @ appealed.DHScontendedthatifthefeesmustbepaid,itwastheobligationofthecounty.The    courtdealtwiththespecificprovisionsconcerningterminationofparentrightsandpaymentoffees `  insuchproceedings,includingtheobligationofthecountyforthefees.TheCourtnotedthat   Tenn.R.Civ.P.17.03providesfortheappointmentofaguardianadlitemforchildrenand 0  incompetentpersonsandprovidesthatthecourthasthediscretiontoallowfeesforsuchguardian  adlitemtobetaxedascosts.TheCourtalsonotedthatTenn.R.Civ.P.54.04(1)providesthatcourt P costsmaybetaxedagainstthestateonlywhenspecificallyauthorized.Thecourtrejectedthe 0 argumentthatT.C.A.#X XXJX =#XC+XXX #X XXXC+D#JX XXX Ԁ2012134allowsassessmentofcostslimitedonlybythetrialcourts p determination.TheCourtstated: P 8  8`    Thefirstconsiderationindeterminingifthefeescanbe 3 chargedagainstastateagencyisthatthestatutorypowertoassess  costsagainstthestateisinderogationofthestatessovereigntyand s mustbestrictlyconstrued. Stateexrel.Chanaberryv.Stooksbury , ; 176Tenn.687,689,145S.W.2d775,776(1940).S ` x` x  Id. at336. 9 "   Inholdingthattheobviousintentofthelegislationwastoallowalimitedawardofguardian o"$ adlitemfeesagainstthestateonlyinspecificinstances,theCourtnotedthatitsstatutory #O& construction isalsoconsistentwiththeruleofconstructionthatwherethereisaconflictbetween % ( aspecialstatuteandageneralstatute,thespecialstatutewillbegiveneffect.(citationsomitted). 'o"* Ѐ Id. at337. (#,   Intheinstantcase,thespecialstatutequiteclearlyprovidesforfeesorcostsagainstthestate *%. onlyiftherespondentisindigent,andthespecialstatutemustbegiveneffect. ",r'0   Wewillnowconsidertheissueofwhetherthetrialcourterredingrantingfeestothe  temporaryguardianandtheconservator. @   Theappointmentofthetemporaryguardianbythecourtwasobviouslytoprotectthat #s respondentsestateandinessencetoperformthedutiesofaconservator.Thepurposeofappointing   aconservatoristopreservetheestateofanincompetentordisabledperson.T.C.A.#X XXJX D#XC+XXX #X XXXC+L#JX XXX Ԁ344202 C  (1991Repl.)Foradetaileddescriptionofthedutiesandresponsibilitiesofaconservator, seeGrahl  #  v.David ,971S.W.2d373(Tenn.1998).Withoutgoingintogreatdetail,sufficeittosaythata c  conservatorischargedwiththedutyofactinginthebestinterestoftheconservatee,and,assuch, C  isrenderingservicetotheconservatee.Thus,thetrialcourtshouldnothaveawardedtemporary   guardianfeesnorconservatorfeesagainstthestatebutshouldhavechargedthefeestothe c respondentwhoreceivedthebenefittherefor.T.C.A.3411112(1996Repl.)allowsreasonable  compensationtobepaidtoafiduciaryforservicesrenderedinthecaseofaminorordisabledperson 3 wherethereispriorcourtapproval.Inaddition,T.C.A.3411113(1996Repl.)providesfor  paymentbyafiduciaryofcostsdeemednecessarybythecourtfromthepropertyofaminoror S disabledperson.Moreover,astotheconservatorsfees,thetrialcourtdidnotappointthe 3 conservator,andtheconservatorshipwasnotinthetrialcourt.Thebenefittotheestateaccruedin s theprobatecourtwheretheconservatorwasappointed,andanyfeesfortheconservatorshouldbe S  awardedbythatcourtoutoftherespondentsestate. "   Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtassessingfeesandcoststothestateisreversed. v!$  S#X XXJX EM#X XXX Thecaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybenecessary.Costsof #V& theappealareassessedagainsttheappellee. $. ( *LM ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,,t+  1'&"*&" 1 '&"+ '-#!&",  -Ѐ#X XXX ;T##PEXX #X XPE '",    `     h   __________________________________________ z)$.    `     h   W.FRANKCRAWFORD,PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.