Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-1-112 (2026)

Compensation to fiduciary

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Acts 1992, ch. 794, § 13; T.C.A. § 34-11-112.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: In Re Conservatorship of Betty A. Winston (Tenn. Ct. App. 2026).
In Re Conservatorship of Betty A. Winston (Tenn. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 11× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-1-112 (c). After hearing Appellant’s testimony, the trial court ruled that Appellant “breached her fiduciary relationship as to some expenditures because such were not expenditures for the benefit or protection of [Ward], or were compensation without prior…”
In Re: The Conservatorship Of Mary Ruth Davis Hudson, 578 S.W.3d 896 (2018). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-1-112 (a). “When a party having an interest in a disabled person’s estate challenges a conservator’s final accounting, the burden is on the conservator to establish the correctness of the accounting.”
In Re Conservatorship of Patricia L. Capelli (2025). · cites it 2× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-1-112 (a). In support of this filing, Dr.”
In the Matter Of Eugene Burnett Ellis v. Jerry Glenn Ellis & Sarah L. Kerley, Glen C. Shults, Guardian ad Litem (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Shults has appealed and argues that Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-1-112 supports his position.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-1-112(a) — 1 case
In Re Conservatorship of Betty A. Winston (Tenn. Ct. App. 2026). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-1-112 (c). After hearing Appellant’s testimony, the trial court ruled that Appellant “breached her fiduciary relationship as to some expenditures because such were not expenditures for the benefit or protection of [Ward], or were compensation without prior…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-1-112(c) — 1 case
In Re Conservatorship of Betty A. Winston (Tenn. Ct. App. 2026). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-1-112 (c). After hearing Appellant’s testimony, the trial court ruled that Appellant “breached her fiduciary relationship as to some expenditures because such were not expenditures for the benefit or protection of [Ward], or were compensation without prior…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.