WPC'= {Y36t#t RM' UE#=0F\yj ([t:҆kW™?rt$mpg) :|܅H,uCF8$9@ToAI[KzC1,09 RBƙ`Z | ZCsv5чJ4`}V.eL,|f;y՝N!p4T~[$bwG@;OֽE;2A+JdI^p(wH\G=TAh"ŻDh鋯MQ ~*SRl@JN'UO?XHߟ_E, hUiq>l\L@+Ɋb3TgF'c$3ShP 58Cvҽ g)L]DW/2-N5b %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ kkk mm# 0UM  h .  0N 0 0dE# 0# 0 0 0< 0 0 0I 0 0 0z 0! 0 0] 0 0 0A 0 0 0i 0  0 0C 0b_ 0g 0! 0! 0>" 0" 0# 0$ 0% 0q& 0S' 05( 0( 02) 0) 0:* 0Y)+ 0_+ 0 + 0, 0m. B*s0 D/0 D+0 00 D/2 0,3 063 004 0:85 0^r5 0<5 1e 6U6q6U>6U*6 0777 1u9 B;: 72X: 0: D.; D.; 0K.;.; Ay;y; 0?< 0D< A'=+3, (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular thedecedentsdeath,theclaimantfiledaclaimagainstthedecedentsestate,basedonalleged *z promisesoffinancialsupportbythedecedentinthecourseoftheirrelationship.Theestatemoved f forsummaryjudgment.Thetrialcourtgrantedthemotion,rulingthattheclaimantcouldnot R establishtheexistenceofanenforceablecontractoravalidgift.Weaffirm. >  Tenn.R.App.P.3Appeal;JudgmentoftheProbateCourtAffirmed     HollyM.Kirby,J.,deliveredtheopinionoftheCourt,inwhichFrankP.Crawford,P.J.,W.S.,  andDavidR.Farmer,J.,joined.  WilliamM.Monroe,MarkA._Renken_,Memphis,Tennessee,forclaimant/appellantPatriciaLevine. b EugeneJ.Podesta,Jr.,LeeHarris,Memphis,Tennessee,forappelleeEstateofFrankG.Barton,Jr. :!  OPINION  #b!       InNovember1980,FrankG.Barton,Jr.( Barton)andClaimant/AppellantPatriciaLevine $: # ( Levine)metthroughamutualfriendinMemphis,Tennessee.Atthetime,Bartonwasmarried %&!$ withthreechildren.Despitethisfact,theybeganaromanticrelationship.Theonagain,offagain &"% relationshipcontinueduntilBartonsdeathin2003.Overthecourseoftheirtwentythreeyear '"& relationship,Bartonremainedmarried,butneverthelessprovidedLevinewithfinancialsupportand (#' numerousgifts. )$(   InJune1988,LevineleftMemphis,Tennessee,andmovedtoCaliforniatobeclosetoher ^+&*  daughter.Duringthistime,shecontinuedtosupportherself.However,Bartonapparentlywanted J,'+ LevinetoreturntoMemphis,andsentheranundatedletterwhileshewaslivinginCalifornia.The  letterdeclared:   8  IfyourdesireistomovebacktoMemphisoranyotherpartofthecountry,pleasedo  nothesitatebecauseoffinancialconcerns.Knowingthiswouldbeextremelyhard t foryoutodo,itwouldgivemeagreatdealofpleasuretoknowIhelpedinsome ` smallway.Imnottalkingabouttheshorttermbutthelongterm,untilto(sic)are L  settledcomfortablyfinancially.(Howeverlongthattakes.)8    ThenotewaswrittenonBartonspersonalstationary,anditisundisputedthatitisinhis  ` handwriting.  L    In1993,afterLevinereceivedtheabovenotedletterfromBarton,shereturnedtoMemphis. $  AfterLevinereturnedtoMemphis,Bartonprovidedsubstantialfinancialsupporttoher,although   shemaintainedaseparatebankaccountforincidentalitems.BartonpaidLevinesmonthlybills,   providedhealthinsuranceforher,boughthertwocars,gaveherbetween$8,000and$12,000per   month,andboughtheracondominiuminGermantownaswellasanadditionalhouseinMemphis.   Ѐ  In2002,BartongaveLevine$250,000toinvestinaninvestmentopportunityinArkansas \ ( ArkansasInvestment).BartoninvestedasubstantialsumintheArkansasInvestment.The H investmentrequiredLevinetolendthemoneytoDavidHowell,whichwouldthenberepaidata 4 substantialinterestrate.However,Mr.Howellunexpectedlydied,anddefaultedonhisobligations.  p Levinelostthe$250,000Bartonhadgiventohertoinvest.Aclassactionsuitwasinitiatedby  \ variousinvestorsintheArkansasInvestmenttorecovertheirlostinvestments.Levinemaintainsthat H shewasencouragedtowithdrawfromtheclassactionbecauseBartonbecameafraidthattheir 4 relationshipwouldbecomepublic.     BartondiedonMay11,2003,leavinghiswifeoffortyeightyearsandhisthreechildren.  BartonsfamilywasapparentlyunawareofhisliaisonwithLevine.Threeyearsbeforehisdeath,  Bartonexecutedalastwillandtestament.LevinewasnotincludedinBartonswill.    ShortlyafterBartonswillwasofferedtoprobatein2003,Levinefiledaverifiedclaim X  againstBartonsestateforanamount tobedetermined,butnolessthan$250,000.Theclaim D! statedthatitwasbasedupon promisesofpaymentsandreimbursement,butdidnotelaborateon 0"  thesubstanceoftheallegedpromises.TheverifiedclaimformrequiredLevinetospecifythedate #l! ofthe itemsandnatureofclaim.Levineentered 1101andlater.Thisclaimwasapparently $X" thefirstnoticetoBartonsfamilyofhistwentythreeyearrelationshipwithLevine. $D #   OnOctober28,2003,coexecutorKeithleyBarton,onbehalfofRespondent/AppelleeEstate &"% ofFrankG.Barton,Jr.( Estate),filedanexceptiontoLevinesclaimintheShelbyCountyProbate '#& Court.HearguedthattheEstatewasnotindebtedtoLevinebecauseshefailedtocomplywiththe (#' requirementsofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection302307(b),whichrequiresthattheclaimant )$( provideanitemizedstatementoftheaccount. |*%)  h+&*   InthemonthsfollowingthefilingofLevinesclaimagainsttheEstate,severalwitnesses  weredeposedregardingthenatureofLevinesrelationshipwithBarton,aswellastheextentofany  promisesorobligationsmadebyBartontofinanciallysupportherorreimburseherforthemoney  lostinthefailedArkansasInvestment. t   LevinetestifiedatlengthaboutherrelationshipwithBarton.Shemaintainedthatshe L  supportedherselfuntilshereturnedtoMemphisfromCaliforniain1993.Atthattime,Bartonbegan 8  tofinanciallysupporther,andsheassertedthatshewouldnothavecomebacktoMemphisfrom $ t Californiawithouthispromisetotakecareofher.Levinetestifiedindetailaboutthemanygifts  ` Bartongavetoherbetween1993and2003,andsheacknowledgedthattheywereunconditional:  L  8  Q:Andthattransfer[oneofthehousesBartonprovidedLevine]wasjustasithas $  beendescribed,agift,wasitnot?    8  A:Yes,sir.    8  Q:Itwasmadeoutof...detachedanddisinterestedgenerosity;isthatright?    8  A:Yes,sir.    8  Q:...Andtherewerenostringsattachedtothatgift,werethere?p   8  A:No,sir.\   8  Q:Therewasnothingthatyouweresupposedtodoorrefrainfromdoinginorderto H receivethatgift.4   8  A:No,sir. p   8  Q:Noconditionswereimposed? \   8  A:No,sir.H   8  Q:Andthatstrueofeverything[Barton]didforyou,isntit?4   8  A:Yes,sir.      MostofLevinestestimony,however,concernedallegedpromisesmadebyBartonto  financiallysupporther.Sheexplainedthatthe promisesofpaymentsandreimbursementsshe  referredtointheclaimshefiledagainsttheEstateincludedapromisebyBartontoreimburseher  forthefailedArkansasInvestmentandaseparateassurance,beforehediedofcancerin2003,that l heintendedtotakecareofherfinancialneeds.Levinetestifiedthatsheneverexpectedtobeapart X  ofBartonswill,butthatshedid,however,expecttobereimbursedforherlossandtobefinancially D! providedforafterhisdeath.LevinehadnoevidenceofBartonspromisesotherthanhertestimony 0"  andthenotewrittentoherinCalifornia.  #l!   Severalotherwitnessestestifiedaswell.BruceThompson,afriendofBartons,recalledthat $D # BartonmadeunspecificstatementsthatheintendedtoreimburseLevineforherlossesinthe %0!$ ArkansasInvestment.Mr.ThompsonadmittedthatBarton wasnotexplicitintermsofwhathe &"% meant.JaneMazer,alongtimefriendofLevine,testifiedthatBartontoldMs.Mazerthathewould '#& takecareofLevineaslongassheneededit.Ms.MazersaidthatBartondidnotelaborateonwhat (#' hemeantby takecare. )$(     |*%)   Levinesdaughter,KimberlyLoper,testifiedthatBartondiscussedwithMs.Loper his   [Bartons]intentionstomakesuremymother[Levine]wasfinanciallysecureandthatitwouldnot  beanythingformetoworryabout.MuchlikeMs.Mazer,however,Ms.Loperwasunableto  provideanymoredetailregardingBartonsintentions. t   OnJune8,2004,theEstatefiledamotionforsummaryjudgment.TheEstatearguedthat L  itwasentitledtoajudgment,asamatteroflaw,forthreereasons:(1)Bartondidnotmakealegally 8  cognizablegifttoLevine;(2)noenforceablecontractwasevercreatedbetweenBartonandLevine; $ t and(3)anypromisebyBartontoguaranteeLevinesinvestmentintheArkansasInvestment,under  ` eitheragiftorcontracttheory,violatedtheStatuteofFrauds.TheEstatearguedaswellthatany  L  testimonybyLevineaboutBartonsallegedoralpromisetorepaytheamountlostintheinvestment  8  wasinadmissibleunderTennesseesDeadMansStatute. $    OnOctober18,2004,thetrialcourtenteredanordergrantingtheEstatesmotionfor   summaryjudgment.ThetrialcourtsmemorandumopinionanalyzedindetailBartonsalleged   promisetorepaythelostinvestmentandhisallegedpromisestotakecareofLevinesfinancial   needs. p   ThetrialcourtfirstaddressedtheallegedpromisetorepayLevineslossesintheArkansas H Investment.Underagifttheory,thetrialcourtconcludedthatLevinecouldproveneither(1) 4 Bartonsintent,becausetheonlyevidenceavailabletoherwouldbeprecludedunderTennessees  p DeadMansStatute,T.C.A.241203,nor(2)anyvaliddeliveryoftheallegedintervivosgift.  \ Underacontracttheory,thetrialcourtconcludedthatLevinefailedtoestablishtheexistenceofa H validofferoranyconsiderationforthepurportedcontract. 4   ThetrialcourtthenaddressedBartonsallegedpromisetotakecareofLevinesfinancial   needs.Itnotedthreepossibletheoriesofrecovery"contractimpliedinfact,partialperformance,  anddetrimentalreliance/promissoryestoppel.Underthecontractimpliedinfacttheory,thetrial  courtnotedthatBartonsvaguepromisetotakecareofLevinewas ambiguousatbest,and  observedthat itisunclearhow[Levine]couldquantifyherdamages.Thetrialcourtconcluded l thatanyamountofdamages,otherthanthe$250,000representingtheArkansasInvestment,would X  bebasedonpurespeculation. D! Ѐ 0"    Addressingpromissoryestoppel,thetrialcourtnotedthat thepromisehereis #l! unquestionablyambiguous,itstermsarevague,andanydamageswouldbepurelyspeculative. $X" Finally,onpartialperformance,thetrialcourtcharacterizedLevinesargumentas misplaced, $D # becausetheEstateonlyassertedtheStatuteofFraudsdefensetotheallegedpromisetoguarantee %0!$ theArkansasInvestment,andneverarguedthattheclaimtoprovidecontinuedfinancialsupport &"% violatedtheStatuteofFrauds.ItwasthereforeinappropriateforLevinetoargueforanexception '#& totheStatuteofFraudsbasedonpartialperformance,inordertorecoverfortheallegedpromises (#' offinancialsupport.Forthesereasons,thetrialcourtdismissedLevinesclaims.Levinenow )$( appeals. |*%)  h+&*   Onappeal,LevinearguesonlythatthetrialcourterredingrantingtheEstatesmotionfor  summaryjudgmentbecausetherewere contestedgenuineissuesofmaterialfactand[]avalidand  enforceablecontractexistedbetweenPatriciaLevineandFrankG.Barton,Jr.     Summaryjudgmentisonlyproperwhenthemovingpartydemonstratesthatthereareno ` genuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatsheisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw. Byrdv.Hall , L  847S.W.2d208,210(Tenn.1993). Thesummaryjudgmentprocessisdesignedtoprovideaquick, 8  inexpensivemeansofconcludingcases,butisnotintendedto substituteforthetrialofgenuine $ t andmaterialfactualmatters. Id .Todeterminewhetheragenuineissueofmaterialfactexists,the  ` trialcourtmusttakethestrongestviewoftheevidencefavoringthenonmovingparty,drawall  L  reasonableinferencesinfavorofthatparty,anddiscardcountervailingevidence. Id. at21011.  8    Onappeal,thisCourtreviewsthegrantofsummaryjudgmentasaquestionoflaw. Doev.   HCAHealthServicesofTennessee,Inc. ,46S.W.3d191,196(Tenn.2001).Consequently,we   reviewtherecorddenovo,withnopresumptionofcorrectnessastothetrialcourtsfindingsoffact   orconclusionsoflaw. Id .(citing Griffinv.ShelterMut.Ins.Co. ,18S.W.3d195,19798(Tenn.   2000)).Moreover,theinterpretationofacontractisaquestionoflaw,notaquestionoffact. p  Guilianov._Cleo_,Inc. ,995S.W.2d88,95(Tenn.1999); Doe ,46S.W.3dat196(citing Hamblen \ Countyv.CityofMorristown ,656S.W.2d331,33536(Tenn.1983)).Therefore,wereviewthe H trialcourtsinterpretationofthecontractdenovo,withoutapresumptionofcorrectness.  Guiliano , 4 995S.W.2dat95.  p    Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourtheldthattherewerenoissuesofmaterialfact.Weagree. H Essentially,neitherpartydisputedthecontentsofBartonslettertoLevine,orthatBartonmade 4 numerousgiftstoLevinebetween1993and2003,orthatBartonstatedthathewouldtakecareof   Levine.ReviewingtherecordinthiscaseinalightmostfavorabletoLevineanddrawingall   reasonableinferencesinherfavor,wemustconcludethattherewerenogenuineissuesofmaterial  fact.    WelooknowatwhethertheEstatewasentitledtoreliefasamatteroflaw. Byrd ,847 l S.W.2dat210.Consequently,wemustdeterminewhetheralegallybindingobligationarosefrom X  Bartonsletter,actions,orstatementstoLevine.TherearetwobasesforLevinesclaimagainstthe D! Estate:theallegedpromisetorepaythe$250,000lostintheArkansasInvestment,andBartons 0"  undatedletter. #l!     LevinenotesthattheevidenceindicatesthatBartonmadeanumberofpromisestorepay $D # Levineforthe$250,000thatshelostinthefailedArkansasInvestment.Shereliesontwopossible %0!$ theoriesforrecoveryofthe$250,000,giftandcontract. &"%   Torecoverunderagifttheory,Levinebearstheburdenofprovingthatanintervivosgiftwas (#' made. Figuersv.Sherrell ,178S.W.2d629,632(Tenn.1944); Blighv.Snider(InreEstateof )$( Bligh) ,30S.W.3d319,321!22(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).Essentially,toestablishthatagifthasbeen |*%) made,thedoneemustshowthatthedonorintendedtomakeapresentgiftandthattherewasdelivery h+&* ofthegift. Figuers ,178S.W.2dat632; Hanselv.Hansel ,939S.W.2d110,112(Tenn.Ct.App.  1996).TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasexplainedthatintentanddeliverymustbeclearlyproved,  andthat [d]oubtsmustberesolvedagainstthegift. Figuers ,178S.W.2dat632.    Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourtruledthatLevinewasunabletoproveeitherdonativeintent ` ordeliveryoftheallegedgift.Weagree.Theevidenceestablishesatmostanintenttorepayherat L  somepointinthefuture,andthereisnoevidenceofintenttomakeapresentgift.Moreover,there 8  isabsolutelynoevidenceofdelivery.Thistheorymustfail. $ t   Underacontracttheory,thetrialcourtheldthatLevinecouldnotrecover,evenassuming  L  thattherewasavalidoffer,becauseofalackofconsideration.Weagree.  Therecordisdevoidof  8  anyevidenceofconsideration.Consequently,thetrialcourtcorrectlyruledthatLevinewasunable $  torecoverunderacontracttheory.     ThesecondaspectofLevinesclaimagainstBartonsestateisbasedonBartonsundated   lettertoherwhileshewaslivinginCalifornia,discussedsupra,andhissubsequentalleged   assurancesoffinancialsupport. p   LevineallegesthattheletterandBartonspersonalassurances,together,createdacontract H impliedinfact.AccordingtoLevine,onceshemovedfromCaliforniatoMemphis,astheletter 4 suggested,Bartonbecameobligatedtocontinueprovidingforherfinancialneeds.  p   Thetrialcourtaddressedthistheory: Theissuehereiswhether[theletterandsubsequent H financialsupport]createdanobligationonbehalfof[Barton]tocontinuesupporting[Levine],even 4 afterhisdeath.Itnotedthatitwasunclearwhatconsiderationexistedtosupportthecontinued   obligationofeitherparty.Additionally,thetrialcourtdescribedBartonspromisetotakecareof   Levineas ambiguousatbest.Weagree.Byitsownterms,Bartonsletterlackstherequisite  definitenesstogiverisetoacontractualobligation.Theofferto help[]insomesmallwayuntil  Levinewas settledcomfortablyfinanciallyissimplytoovagueandambiguoustosupportanaward  toLevineofmoneydamagesonthebasisofcontractualliability.See Cottonv.RobertsEstate , l 337S.W.2d776,779(Tenn.Ct.App.1960)(declaringthatadecedentsallegedassurancesthatshe X  wouldtakecareofaclaimantwereinsufficienttocreateacontractualrelationshipbecausethe D! assurancesweretoo ambiguous,vague,andindefinitetoprovetheexistenceofacontract.).  Any 0"  awardofdamagesbasedonBartonsletterwouldbearbitrary;itwouldnotbebasedontheterms #l! ofanyagreementbetweentheparties. $X"   Levinealsoarguesthatsheisentitledtorecoverunderapromissoryestoppeltheory.The %0!$ TennesseeSupremeCourthasadoptedthefollowingdefinitionofpromissoryestoppelfromthe &"% RestatementofContracts,section90: '#& 8  Apromisewhichthepromisorshouldreasonablyexpecttoinduceactionor )$(  forbearanceofadefiniteandsubstantialcharacteronthepartofthepromiseeand |*%) whichdoesinducesuchactionorforbearanceisbindingifinjusticecanbeavoided  onlybyenforcementofthepromise.     Aldenv.Presley ,637S.W.2d862,864(Tenn.1982).Thepromiseesdetrimentalrelianceonthe t promiseeithersubstitutesforconsiderationor,quitesimply,justifiesjudicialenforcementofthe ` promiseinordertoavoidinjustice. Id .Thedoctrinehasclearlydefinedlimits:(1)thedetrimentthe L  promiseesufferedinreliancemustbeeconomicallysubstantial;(2)thedetrimenttothepromisee 8  musthavebeenforeseeablebythepromisor;and(3)thepromiseemusthavereasonablyreliedon $ t thepromise. Id .(citingLawofContracts61(2ded.1965)).Finally, thepromiseuponwhichthe  ` promiseereliedmustbeunambiguousandnotunenforceablyvague. Calabrov.Calabro ,15  L  S.W.3d873,879(Tenn.Ct.App.1999).  8    Intheinstantcase,thepromisethatLevinereliedupon"thatBartonwill help[]insome   smallwayuntilshewas settledcomfortablyfinancially"canonlybecharacterizedas    unenforceablyvague. SeeId. Bartonsletterisclearlyinsufficienttocreatealegalobligationon   thepartofBartontocontinuetocareforLevineafterhisdeath.     Finally,LevineassertsatheoryofpartialperformancetorecoveragainsttheEstateforthe \ allegedpromisesmadeinBartonslettertoLevine.Thetrialcourtexplainedthatthisargumentwas H misplaced: 4 8  ThisequitabledoctrineexistsasanexceptiontotheStatuteofFrauds.See Buicev.  \ ScruggsEquipmentCo. ,250S.W.2d44,48(Tenn.1952).The[Estate]arguesthat H anyoralpromisetoguaranteeaninvestmentviolatestheStatuteofFrauds.SeeTenn. 4 CodeAnn.292101(Noactionshallbebrought...[t]ochargethedefendant   uponanyspecialpromisetoanswerforthedebt,defaultormiscarriageofanother   person...unlessthepromiseoragreement,uponwhichsuchactionshallbebrought  ...shallbeinwriting,andsignedbythepartytobechargedtherewith...).The  ClaimantarguesthatbecausetheDecedenthascontinuedtoprovidefortheClaimant  sinceshemovedtoMemphis,hehaspartiallyperformedonhiscontract.Therefore, l theClaimantarguesthatthisfallsintotheexceptiontotheStatuteofFrauds.X    8   ` IftheClaimantwerearguingthattheDecedenthadpartiallyperformedonhis D! promisetoreimbursethelostinvestmentmoney,thismightbeapersuasive 0"  argument.But,becausethereisnoargumentonbehalfoftheEstatethattheclaim #l! toprovidefortheClaimantsfinancialneedsviolatestheStatuteofFrauds,thereis $X" noneedtoargueforanexceptionbasedonpartialperformance.$D #   Weagree. &"%   (#'   Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.CostsofthisappealaretaxedtotheAppellant  PatriciaLevine,andhersurety,forwhichexecutionmayissue,ifnecessary.     `     h     ___________________________________ 8     `     h     HOLLYM.KIRBY,JUDGE $ t