Campbell v. Conservatorship of Campbell
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00906-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-07-2008 Opinion Author: BARNES, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Conservatorship - Competency to handle own affairs Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Ishee, Roberts, and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-01-2007 Appealed from: Lamar County Chancery Court Judge: Johnny Lee Williams Disposition: TERMINATION OF CONSERVATORSHIP DENIED Case Number: 37-11994-PR-W |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | THOMAS DORSEY CAMPBELL |
RICHARD V. DYMOND |
||
| Appellee: | CONSERVATORSHIP OF THOMAS DORSEY CAMPBELL AND AMSOUTH BANK | NO ATTORNEY OF RECORD |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Conservatorship - Competency to handle own affairs |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 1985, Thomas Campbell suffered a serious brain injury from an on-the-job accident. He was declared mentally incompetent, and his father established a conservatorship for him in 1986. In 1988, Campbell received a settlement of over $2,000,000 for the accident. AmSouth Bank, then operating as Deposit Guaranty National Bank, was appointed the conservator of Campbell’s estate. In 2002, the chancery court terminated the conservatorship over Campbell’s “person,” but not over his estate. Campbell filed a petition to terminate the conservatorship over his estate in February 2005. Three months after Campbell filed his petition to terminate in May 2005, the chancery court approved the withdrawal of $10,000 from Campbell’s estate, as he had been charged with possession of a controlled substance, and it was necessary for him to retain legal counsel for his criminal defense. The chancellor entered an order denying Campbell’s petition to terminate his guardianship. Campbell appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Campbell argues that there was no evidence introduced at the hearing supporting the position that he remains incompetent to handle his own affairs. He points out that all three consultants and the guardian ad litem took the position that he is competent to handle his financial affairs without a conservatorship. In determining whether a conservator should be appointed, factors to consider are ability to manage, or improvident disposition, or dissipation of property, or susceptibility to influence or deception by others, or other similar factors. Chancellors are the superior guardians over persons with disabilities and must take all necessary steps to conserve and protect the best interest of the wards of the court. In Campbell’s case, while there is evidence in the record that Campbell may be competent to handle his financial affairs, there are certain red flags regarding Campbell’s behavior that may indicate he does not have the mental fortitude to act within discretion in the ordinary affairs of life. The chancellor apparently took these into account and did not err in doing so. Of foremost concern are Campbell’s criminal legal issues after he filed his petition. Even though the drug charge was “nonadjudicated” and Campbell claims the drugs were not his, this incident, at the very least, shows his ability to be influenced by others, because the drugs were in the toolbox of his truck. At the most, it may also be indicative of a more serious drug problem. Apparently, this was not the first time Campbell had been involved with drugs or alcohol, as Campbell had completed an AA program twice. Moreover, the three doctors’ reports, while ultimately concluding that Campbell was competent, were not free from evidence justifying continuation of the conservatorship. The chancellor also noted in his order that Campbell has a history of dissipating his estate and the monies allotted to him for monthly living expenses. Finally, there is a lack of evidence presented from any family member or friend who might know Campbell well that he has the ability to manage his property and assets. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
