Petition, notice, and ex parte order

How the Conservatorship Case Began

The opening record consists of a verified petition filed February 11, 2025, an email sent to Phillip Olea at 5:41 p.m., and an ex parte order filed the next morning at 8:57 a.m.

Descriptions below state what each document says. A petition allegation is not converted into a fact merely because it was sworn, and a court finding is identified as a finding rather than as independent proof of every underlying allegation.

February 11, 2025

The verified petition

Filed record — SR-001

What the petition alleged and requested

  • Donald Olea asked to be appointed immediately as temporary emergency conservator over Virginia Olea's person and property and, later, as traditional conservator.
  • The petition alleged cognitive impairment, dementia-like symptoms, unsafe conduct, inadequate care, and financial exploitation by Phillip Olea.
  • It asked the court to transfer fifteen lettered categories of rights and authority, A through O.
  • It was verified by Donald Olea as true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief.

Internal record issue: Paragraph 3 says “December 7, 2025,” a date after the petition. This site does not silently change the filed text; the context suggests a date issue that requires confirmation.

Case-period law

What a conservatorship petition was expected to contain

T.C.A. § 34-3-104 called for a sworn petition containing, among other matters, a description of the alleged disability, the facts supporting the need for a conservator, specified information about an examination report, the rights requested for transfer, and financial information or a request to investigate property.

Public text: T.C.A. § 34-3-104 (2024). The official current Tennessee Code should be checked before legal reliance.

Filed record — SR-001

The petition did not include a physician's report

The petition stated that a doctor at a geriatric psychiatric ward refused to provide the requested report. It also stated that Dr. Keith Caruso had reserved February 12 and February 14 to examine Virginia Olea.

The supplied 24-page petition includes the petition, verification, service certificate, and a 2018 healthcare power of attorney. It does not include a treating-physician report, bank statement, transaction ledger, or proof supporting the alleged 2021–2023 transfers.

Case-period law

Examination and report provisions

T.C.A. § 34-3-105 addressed a pertinent examination within ninety days, court-ordered examination when a respondent could not or would not be examined voluntarily, required contents of the sworn report, and confidentiality.

Public text: T.C.A. § 34-3-105 (2024). Whether the petition satisfied every legal requirement is a legal determination this site does not make.

February 11–12, 2025

Notice available in this source set and the ex parte order

Communication — SR-002

Petition emailed to Phillip at 5:41 p.m.

An email from Complete Wealth Preservation states: “Please see the attached petition filed in Sumner County today.” The timestamp is Tuesday, February 11, 2025, at 5:41 p.m.

Limit: This proves transmission to Phillip Olea. It does not establish when Virginia Olea or every other relative received the petition, nor does it establish legal service.

Emergency statute

When an ex parte appointment was permitted

T.C.A. § 34-1-132(b) permitted appointment without notice to the respondent and attorney ad litem only upon a sworn-petition finding that the respondent would be substantially harmed before a hearing could be held.

The statute required notice of the appointment within forty-eight hours and a hearing on appropriateness within five days. Subsection (c) stated that an emergency appointment was not a determination of incapacity.

Public text: T.C.A. § 34-1-132 (2024).

Court order — SR-003

Order filed February 12 at 8:57 a.m.

The filed stamp reads February 12, 2025, at 8:57 a.m. The order says the matter was heard ex parte and that its findings were based on the verified petition and the entire record.

  • Donald Olea was appointed emergency conservator for a maximum of sixty days pending a hearing.
  • Sixteen enumerated categories of authority, a through p, were transferred.
  • The order expressly authorized access to and control over bank accounts and public and private benefits.
  • An attorney ad litem was appointed and a hearing was directed.

Document anomalies: The order states Virginia was “ninety-two (82)” and its finding numbers skip from 5 to 8 to 12. The date of birth stated in the order makes her 82 on the order date; the full birth date is omitted here.

Rights and scope

Rights not removed were retained

T.C.A. § 34-3-107 required a conservatorship order to enumerate powers removed and vested in the conservator. Powers not specifically removed remained with the respondent.

The statute listed sixteen possible categories, A through P. The emergency order transferred categories corresponding to A through O and added authority concerning disposition of bodily remains; it did not transfer the statute's category P concerning communication, visitation, and interaction.

Public text: T.C.A. § 34-3-107 (2024).

What this opening record establishes—and what it does not

Established: filing date, allegations made, material included with the supplied petition, email timestamp to Phillip, ex parte character of the order, filing timestamp, authority transferred, and the court's written findings.

Not established by these documents alone: whether each allegation was factually correct, what evidence outside the supplied petition the court reviewed, when Virginia received notice, or the legal validity of any procedural difference.

See the Source Register for document identities and integrity hashes.