[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6151997,"mediaKeyId","5500686-22bd7eb406d8e1a91c89c86db55078f8","parentId",5500686,"title","Court grants attorney withdrawals, removes case from docket and processes name-change steps","audioSeconds",122,"startMs",963000,"endMs",1085000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5500686-22bd7eb406d8e1a91c89c86db55078f8&start=963&end=1085","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5500686-22bd7eb406d8e1a91c89c86db55078f8/thumbnail_963000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6151997/Tennessee/Court-grants-attorney-withdrawals-removes-case-from-docket-and-processes-name-change-steps","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6151997-9255789ae80760b1f851ee2f4ba3c302/orig.mp4?Expires=1770516675&Signature=G69sTzgX4HlgxstqWa2SS~d3Xs8lmvfikOICDBCLMer86X2rA4FqvVIlGZo6eQjhz5EA3kzvk4AxAahDWcRxbYtH0ChVd~~howhDdepe~ylFDM2hpMnZ2B1fIDGSV2c~CFR6JS0jrNLshCYtEk0TIhrEECsD5N5jJRRWKvpCDthNvFTV77mGTNm4kdRcJOKs1L8BGrTwXjI~~Fejvs~49DXB7TuXO~e5pATGMJgircMqGYHhUv2Fi2W-Wi4B4Q07rxJ1PIq3Nf~5edaV0wr8Qrh1m4lcrU4K-UN3JD0GLDXPSnbvL2SmXTH8K4nbo49obNSOyr9rALrc-16r56npQw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-07-30T02:27:30Z","article","The court granted attorney withdrawal motions and removed a case from the docket, and it conducted routine steps in a name-change petition during the docket call.

When the court asked about a motion to withdraw filed by Jennifer Honeycutt, the judge solicited opposition and, receiving none, stated, “Any motion withdrawal granted.” The judge also granted a separate motion filed by Miss Smith regarding an Adelado veil matter after the parties indicated it should be taken off the docket.

In another matter the judge told the petitioner seeking a name change that he is required by law to ask certain questions. The petitioner answered “No” when asked whether the name change was to avoid debts or criminal prosecution. The judge then instructed the petitioner to sign the order reflecting the new name and advised that a certified copy could be obtained from the clerk's office.

The court also discussed a case captioned Ashila/Ashley Bello and instructed that the case be dismissed or removed from the docket. The judge concluded the docket call after addressing these routine administrative requests.

Less-critical details: the transcript referenced case captions including Jessica Lehi Cox v. Terry Edward Cox and Mark Ward Moore v. Christy Diane Moore elsewhere on the docket, but the court's actions in this segment were limited to withdrawals, a docket removal, and processing of the name-change petition.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","7-29-25 Cheatham Chancery","oneSentenceSummary","During the docket call the court granted motions to withdraw for counsel, removed a case from the docket, and conducted preliminary steps in a name-change petition, asking the petitioner to sign and obtain certified copies.","taxTitle","Judge David D. Wolfe State of Tennessee, Judicial, Tennessee","taxId",66321,"location","Tennessee","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6152002,"Court continues Mayo v. Hailey; both sides told to seek counsel, hearing reset to Oct. 27",133,1437000,1570000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5500686-22bd7eb406d8e1a91c89c86db55078f8&start=1437&end=1570","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5500686-22bd7eb406d8e1a91c89c86db55078f8/thumbnail_1437000.jpg","/articles/6152002/Tennessee/Court-continues-Mayo-v-Hailey-both-sides-told-to-seek-counsel-hearing-reset-to-Oct-27","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6152002-f99dccfecb83b1a2987a80ef5288df69/orig.mp4?Expires=1770516675&Signature=o3L-vwroNDpNEbgJ5W1qXYZ1zr7Kf0Qr7zuJqB4i0ScWu464FZX6LmwcLNwAWFqh5IyoaZROdJdHBMaMyFxH-vo1ef5DZZeyI~QTb8Sjvc8vx0~q0TUONzRDkzfrRWuI21DXT3g0660Cj1Tjfq82y8eYLTTphD9TplKTwodla57RxvGzumP9nFohlBI3JZzqHfFF-8C3twzb800BrcJqp95eerlikV6ZDi~8orQMkUexM9WdPTE-aGNYv0pvgSL1oAcGIdLrBBJaR2Cot5rYfa8nITMqGqu0uc6uCVYLzSfuGLYWzJL~de2y~WFWctPkWk-~n9GCLi8AfR0URWdbDw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The court continued the case Douglas Mayo Jr. v. Janice R. Hailey to Oct. 27 after both parties indicated they needed additional time to obtain counsel and the plaintiff reported a medical problem.

Counsel reported that the case had been set for July 3 but was later reset; the attorney representing Mayo said Mayo became ill and could not appear. The attorney told the court he texted with his client and that Mayo \"is sick and can't\" attend. Both sides asked for a continuance to retain counsel, and the court reset the matter to Oct. 27.

The judge asked that the matter be assigned for Oct. 27 and noted time estimates: one attorney estimated his proof would take about 30 minutes and suggested a maximum of three hours if needed. The court emphasized assignment to the Oct. 27 docket so counsel could plan accordingly.

Less-critical details: the judge noted the July 3 order had not been entered on the record and stated he would submit one for the file to “clean up the record.”","The court granted a continuance in Douglas Mayo Jr. v. Janice R. Hailey after the plaintiff reported a medical issue and both sides asked for time to obtain counsel; the matter was reset to Oct. 27.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":42,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6152006,"Judge sets trial for Wood divorce; custody of 17-year-old remains sole contested issue",837000,959000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5500686-22bd7eb406d8e1a91c89c86db55078f8&start=837&end=959","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5500686-22bd7eb406d8e1a91c89c86db55078f8/thumbnail_837000.jpg","/articles/6152006/Tennessee/Judge-sets-trial-for-Wood-divorce-custody-of-17-year-old-remains-sole-contested-issue","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6152006-e4e65199c101be70f20e4bc73cf7fe00/orig.mp4?Expires=1770516675&Signature=n14oFjFyEX6jvWUmYA037dbq7w6n7spOb3i4YqzvB6n1l8lvUMFOwPp0cZwWyjwUxqofJ1ao1tjbWZ9EI3kyaPsezCMc0PW~cXTpItxf5RuqVd7l3rO-nlrl-e9NvetzowqrkgVawo1WEHOfPCj15jwCld4vyh8Ld6IY8wAPO25hHaNVteLIeOXIiCqlt5v2Kq1kd50nqxCqnwfPq33VwDP9UHy3Z7l~0IZ84XNQcpcoGVKjQOp3AR602S7~Vv3YuAOcNrpkAbNOZB6LpGUKW8RjiDhLU8UmJNY8mnL6adytFBLJntX-FVCimoUdu3IkAlV2HawBy~GWMDIAXI0~tw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The court set trial in the divorce case Steven M. Wood v. Heather Michelle Wood for Nov. 24, with custody of a 17-year-old identified as the only remaining contested issue.

An attorney on the record described this as “a motion to set this case for trial,” noting the parties had previously been before Judge Yonner and that the final decree was set aside. The court noted discovery remained outstanding; one attorney said, “I sent discovery at that date. I have not received the responses,” and that responses were received from Mister McNabb only the day before.

The judge, who had earlier set aside the final decree, said he had no docket until November and told the parties they \"will have plenty of time to complete everything like that. If you wanna get with the clerk after you've completed discovery and your mediation is complete, then she can assign a date in November.\" The court later confirmed the trial date as Nov. 24.

The court did not resolve custody at today's docket call; it set the case for trial and advised counsel to finish outstanding discovery and mediation before the clerk assigns a specific November date if necessary.

Less-critical details: the transcript identifies the case number as CV 17941 and references prior proceedings before Judge Yonner; counsel discussion focused on discovery timing and readiness for trial.","After a prior order was set aside, the court scheduled trial in Steven M. Wood v. Heather Michelle Wood for Nov. 24 and advised the parties to finish discovery and mediation before the clerk assigns a date in November.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6152011,"Judge appoints guardian ad litem, resets emergency conservatorship for hearing Sept. 4",331,1032000,1363000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5500686-22bd7eb406d8e1a91c89c86db55078f8&start=1032&end=1363","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5500686-22bd7eb406d8e1a91c89c86db55078f8/thumbnail_1032000.jpg","/articles/6152011/Tennessee/Judge-appoints-guardian-ad-litem-resets-emergency-conservatorship-for-hearing-Sept-4","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6152011-32b7cb83d23ec71abb487f6ace9873a5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770516675&Signature=IXV7ZI5KI-PxKijf1j3bDcHrazBCMDR34TW12wTKkoEAQ7tWe8FOCxlnCOgQr42emyHIUC1vgxnVy~md7YLrFnSv9QvAZ9k4LtB8f50t35p6v9Nek2Bw91Ns37NnF~f-8iQ3QCUXMRccF2M7gK~dS-rl4jhfIcull6GlX68q~58LM9JEw4aKo6hBTJWRQT~QVq-yc8Pb~orsTF~DzU~XctKxKkYbhtxooHoa8ooGzoVbBPZTgcItqtOh442IBFOBosYe~pTRacGu3yrQMW8O615R7JbAY6fv2iW3xCu61BEzhwldzl1fIm31lDC53gspdeIVSOoEmqcWOEfCBlWC2Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The presiding judge appointed an independent guardian ad litem for respondent Ray Robert Lamar Williams and set a follow-up hearing for Sept. 4 at 9 a.m. after denying an immediate appointment of an emergency conservator.

The judge said, “I'm not going to appoint a conservator this morning because of that. I'm going to appoint a guardian ad litem for your father,” and named Leslie Oliver Wright as the attorney to represent the respondent's interests while the court considers whether a conservatorship is required.

The nut of the order is that the guardian ad litem will investigate and report back to the court, giving the judge an independent account of the respondent's capacity before the court decides whether to appoint a conservator. The judge explained the purpose: “It's just to have an independent person come in and act on behalf of the respondent.”

Family members in the courtroom were told they may still consult privately with counsel; the judge noted they do not have the right to choose who the court appoints to represent the respondent. The judge also directed the clerk to reset the matter for a later hearing so the guardian ad litem can complete her investigation.

The court did not enter an emergency conservatorship today; instead, the guardian ad litem appointment will be followed by a status hearing on Sept. 4 at 9 a.m. for further proceedings.

Less-critical details: the judge suggested family members may consult attorneys named in the hearing—Mister Hamlin and Mister Locker were mentioned as attorneys the family could retain for their own representation—but the guardian ad litem will represent the respondent independently.","A judge declined to appoint an emergency conservator and instead named an attorney to serve as guardian ad litem for Ray Robert Lamar Williams, scheduling a follow-up hearing for Sept. 4 at 9 a.m. so the attorney can investigate.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Court grants attorney withdrawals, removes case from docket and processes name-change steps

Court continues Mayo v. Hailey; both sides told to seek counsel, hearing reset to Oct. 27

Judge sets trial for Wood divorce; custody of 17-year-old remains sole contested issue

Judge appoints guardian ad litem, resets emergency conservatorship for hearing Sept. 4