MANDI GREGORY, ACTING THROUGH MELISSA STEWART, CONSERVATOR v. PEACHTREE SETTLEMENT, a/k/a SETTLEMENT FUNDING, LLC ET AL - Articles

All Content

MANDI GREGORY, ACTING THROUGH MELISSA STEWART, CONSERVATOR v. PEACHTREE SETTLEMENT, a/k/a SETTLEMENT FUNDING, LLC ET AL

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Mar 26, 2025

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1: Irma W. Merrill, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Mandi Gregory.

Attorneys 2: R. Campbell Hillyer and Andrew B. Schrack, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Peachtree Settlement a/k/a Settlement Funding, LLC.

Judge(s): ARMSTRONG

In this conservatorship action, we address whether subject-matter jurisdiction over the ward’s assets remains with the court appointing the conservator. Here, the conservatorship was opened in Madison County. Appellee and the ward’s conservator agreed to transfer some of the ward’s rights to payments from a structured settlement, the ward’s sole asset, to Appellee. Appellee filed a petition for approval of the transfer in Anderson County, where none of the parties resided, and the Anderson County court approved the transfer. A second conservator was appointed for the limited purpose of challenging the Anderson County order, and the instant lawsuit was filed to set aside the Anderson County order for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The trial court initially held that Anderson County lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, but on Appellee’s motion to alter or amend, reversed itself. Appellant appeals. Because subject-matter jurisdiction over the ward and her property remained with the conservatorship court, Anderson County lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and its order allowing the transfer of the asset was void ab initio. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s orders finding otherwise and affirm and reinstate its initial order finding no subject-jurisdiction in Anderson County.

Attachments: