ÿWPCª& …# VU:a %› 0(¡w@É4  b , 0c8 0‹› U:& ` 0Jh 0T² 0^ 0hd 0rÌ 0|> 0†º 0@ 1uÐ 0dE B©U *ÆB)ðDC AM\ý©g¦  % D3Av~tvÓò 0@Å$ AO%ÆT% 0D& D/^& B&˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0nLHÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ KNOPDQRDSTUÓ€_DÒ pœz3|x_- ù -(" „$Ô‡XTXXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(;(2ï$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X*ãXXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó@"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ óÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌSeptember€17,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ]Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€"ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóSee€òòBaliles€v.€Cities€Serv.óó,€578€S.W.2d€621€(Tenn.€1979)€and€òòCobble€v.€Langfordóó,€190ÏTenn.€385,€230€S.W.2d€194€(1950)€for€the€rule€with€respect€to€real€property.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€"ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóFor€the€specific€rules€with€respect€to€the€sale€of€goods€see€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„2„201(3).Ì  Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€"ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThese€precedents€supply€sufficient€reasons€for€upholding€the€lower€courtððs€decision.€ÏPerhaps€a€more€fundamental€reason€lies€in€an€interpretation€of€the€statute€itself.€€The€section€of€theÏstatute€of€frauds€on€which€the€appellants€rely€prohibits€an€action€on€ð ðany€agreement€or€contractÏwhich€is€not€to€be€performed€within€the€space€of€one€(1)€year€from€the€making€thereof.ðð€€A€majority€ofÏthe€courts€in€this€country€hold€that€the€statute€applies€only€to€contracts€not€to€be€performed€òòon€eitherÏsideóó€within€the€year.€€òòSeeóó€72€Am.Jur.2d€òòStatute€of€Fraudsóó€ðð€19.€€A€contract€to€be€fully€performed€onÏone€side€within€the€year€is€not€covered€by€the€statutory€language.€€òòId.óó€€This€has€been€called€the€ð ðoneÏside€ruleðð,€òòCity€of€Tyler€v.€St.€Louis€Southwestern€Ry.€Co.€of€Texasóó,€91€S.W.€1€(1906),€and€it€is€theÏinterpretation€the€English€courts€gave€to€the€original€statute€of€frauds.€€òòId.óó€€The€language€of€theÏEnglish€statute€with€respect€to€contracts€not€to€be€performed€within€a€year€is€the€same€as€theÏlanguage€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„2„101(a)(5)(Supp.€1996).€€The€Kentucky€Supreme€Court€statedÏwhat€seems€to€us€to€be€a€sensible€interpretation€of€the€statute:€ð ðIt€seems€to€us€that€the€statute€wasÏintended€and€does€properly€apply€only€to€an€agreement€that€is€not€to€be€performed€by€either€partyÏwithin€a€year,€but€not€to€one€which€is€to€be€or€has€been€performed€by€one€or€either€of€them€withinÏsuch€period.ðð€€òòDant€v.€Headóó,€13€S.W.€1073,€1075€(Ky.€1890).€€òòSee€also€Beacon€Fed.€Sav.€&€LoanÏAssððn€v.€Panoramic€Enter.,€Inc.óó,€8€Wis.2d€550,€99€N.W.2d€696€(1959);€òòPuget€Mill€Co.€v.€Kerryóó,€183ÏWash.€542,€49€P.2d€57€(1935);€òòWood€&€Brooks€Co.€v.€D.E.€Hewitt€Lumber€Co.óó,€89€W.Va.€254,€109ÏS.E.€242€(1921).ÌÌà àIt€could€be€argued€that€the€case€of€òòThompson€v.€Fordóó,€145€Tenn.€335,€236€S.W.€2€(1921),Ïheld€a€contract€to€be€unenforceable€even€though€one€party€to€the€agreement€had€fully€performed.€ÏThat€issue,€however,€was€not€raised€in€that€case€and€we€are€not€persuaded€that€the€case€is€authorityÏfor€a€rule€contrary€to€the€ð ðone€side€rule.ðð€€The€same€argument€could€be€made€with€respect€to€òòTrew€v.ÏOgleóó,€767€S.W.2d€662€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€€We€do€not€adopt€the€ð ðone€side€ruleðð€in€this€caseÏbecause€it€was€not€raised€by€the€parties€and€the€precedents€cited€are€sufficient€to€sustain€theÏdecision€below.Ì'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€*ãXXdêdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÞ ÞÌCLELLAND€DAVID€COLLINS,€JR.,à à)Ìand€wife,€CAROL€V.€COLLINS,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9702„CH„00108ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSmith€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€5992ÌÙ€€ÙßR€%&$A1-j|€` ç `€€@ÿRßROGER€V.€WELLBROOK€and€wife,à à)ÌCAROLE€I.€WELLBROOK,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellants.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€SMITH€COUNTYÌAT€CARTHAGE,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€C.€K.€SMITH,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌJACKY€O.€BELLARÌ212€Main€StreetÌP.€O.€Box€332ÌCarthage,€Tennessee€37030Ìà àAttorney€for€Plaintiffs/AppelleesÌÌJAMES€B.€DANCEÌ216€N.€Main€StreetÌP.€O.€Box€278ÌCarthage,€Tennessee€37030Ìà àAttorney€for€Defendants/AppellantsÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌKOCH,€J.ÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà@ àò òòòÔ€"„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€"XÔÌÌÑ7€ *ã XXdêXXdê7Ñà à›à àAppellants€present€one€issue€for€our€review:€€Whether€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€finding€that€the€statute€of€frauds€did€not€bar€œappellees'›€recovery€ofÏ$10,000€plus€interest€loaned€to€œappellants›€pursuant€to€an€oral€contract.€€ThoughÏthis€contract€falls€within€the€statute€of€frauds,€we€find€that,€under€the€circumstancesÏof€this€case,€œappellants›€are€equitably€estopped€from€relying€on€the€statute€to€avoidÏrepayment€of€the€loan€under€the€terms€of€the€contract.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€theÏdecision€of€the€trial€court.€€ÌœÌà@ àò òI.ó ớ̜à à›à àDavid€Collins€and€Roger€œWellbrook›€befriended€one€another€duringÏtheir€years€together€serving€in€the€armed€forces.€€Along€with€their€wives,€CarolÏCollins€and€Carole€Wellbrook,€the€men€made€retirement€plans€to€purchase€and€toÏoperate€a€farm€in€Smith€County,€Tennessee.€€With€no€written€agreement,€theÏCollinses€and€the€Wellbrooks€formed€a€partnership€and€commenced€a€farmingÏoperation€known€as€Collinbrook€Farm€which€was€in€the€business€of€raising€cattleÏand€growing€apples.€€Subsequent€to€and€independent€of€a€fifty„fifty€percentÏpurchase€of€the€farm€land€in€1984,€each€of€the€couples€was€to€contribute€$35,000Ïto€the€partnership.€€However,€because€the€Wellbrooks€were€not€able€to€payÏ$10,000€of€their€half€of€the€investment,€œsometime€in€1989€the›€Collinses€agreed€toÏloan€them€this€money€at€ten€percent€œinterest.›€€Later,€Carol€Collins€put€anÏadditional€$17,500€into€the€partnership€at€which€time€the€parties€agreed€toÏbecome€sixty„forty€percent€partners€with€the€Collinses€having€the€greater€interest.ÌÌà àœà àThere›€is€no€dispute€that€the€$10,000€loan€was€made€to€theÏWellbrooks.€€In€his€testimony,€Mr.€Wellbrook€readily€admits€that€he€did€borrow€theÏœmoney€and€that€the€loan€was€to€carry€interest€at€ten€percent€per€year.›€€He€said€thatÏthe€parties€orally€agreed€that€the€loan€was€not€to€be€repaid€for€five€years.€€Mr.ÏCollins'€testimony€regarding€the€loan€differed€only€in€that€he€said€that€the€termÏwas€originally€three€years€with€an€option€for€the€Wellbrooks€to€extend€it€to€fiveÏyears€which€they€did€take.€€In€accord€with€Mr.€Wellbrook's€testimony,€Mr.€CollinsÏtestified€that€the€loan€was€to€be€repaid€by€one€lump€sum€payment€at€the€end€of€theÍloan€term€rather€than€by€monthly€installments.€€It€was€Mr.€Collins'€position€that€theÏloan€was€a€personal€loan€from€his€personal€assets€which€the€Wellbrooks€investedÏinto€the€€partnership.€€He€said€that€there€was€only€one€transaction€which€was€inÏthe€form€of€a€capital€contribution€made€to€the€business€by€the€Collinses.Ìà àÌœà à›à àIn€June€of€1992,€Mr.€Wellbrook€experienced€medical€problemsÏwhich€disabled€œhim›€from€further€work€on€the€farm.€€Apparently,€after€stoppingÏwork,€he€agreed€to€the€Collinses'€continued€efforts€on€the€farm€while€heÏmaintained€ownership€of€forty€percent€of€the€farm's€assets€including€orchards,Ïequipment,€and€cattle.€€When€the€Collinses€finally€decided€to€quit€the€operation,Ïthey€sold€some€of€the€œitems€owned€by€the€farming€operation›€keeping€the€moneyÏfor€themselves€in€order€to€partially€satisfy€the€debt€owed€them€by€the€Wellbrooks.€ÏWhen€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Collins€filed€the€instant€lawsuit€for€partition€and€sale€of€theÏfarm€as€well€as€the€division€of€all€other€partnership€assets,€the€CollinsesÏrequested€that€the€balance€of€the€debt€due€them€be€deducted€from€theÏWellbrooks'€share€of€money€from€the€division.€€Before€the€case€came€to€trial€onÏJune€3,€1996,€the€real€property€had€been€sold€and€the€proceeds€distributed€to€theÏsatisfaction€of€the€parties.€€In€addition,€the€personal€property€had€been€sold€andÏthe€only€issue€remaining€was€the€equitable€division€of€the€proceeds€received€fromÏthe€sale€of€these€personal€assets.€€€€ÌÌœà à›à àIn€the€trial€court€below,€the€judge€first€found€that€the€Wellbrooks€wereÏindebted€to€the€Collinses€in€the€amount€of€$19,610€which€was€the€amount€of€theÏ$10,000€loan€plus€the€ten€percent€interest€which€had€accumulated€by€the€time€ofÏthe€trial.€€As€for€the€money€owed€to€the€Wellbrooks,€the€court€accepted€theÏundisputed€proof€presented€by€the€Collinses€that€they€had€received€$23,166.48Ïfor€the€œequipment€and€other€personal€assets€of€the€farm€that€were€sold€between›Ï1992€and€1994.€€The€court€found€that€the€Wellbrooks'€forty€percent€of€thisÏœ$23,166.48›€sum€computed€to€$9,266.59.€€€Because€the€Collinses€actuallyÏreceived€œthis›€œ$9,266.59›€of€the€Wellbrooks'€money€early,€the€court€did€not€think€itÏfair€that€the€Wellbrooks€continue€to€be€charged€ten€percent€interest€on€this€portionÏonce€it€was€"paid€back."€€The€œcourt›€then€determined€that,€due€to€the€fact€that€theÏCollinses€had€this€$9,266.59€early,€$2,658.08€worth€of€interest€never€accrued€onÏthe€loan€thus€œnecessitating›€that€the€Wellbrooks€be€credited€œnot›€only€the€$9,266.59Ïkept€by€the€Collinses€upon€the€sale€of€the€property€but€an€additional€œ$2,658.08›Ïtotaling€œ$11,924.67.›€€The€court€thus€set€off€the€œ$19,610›€owed€to€the€Collinses€byÏthe€Wellbrooks€on€the€loan€by€the€œ$11,924.67›€owed€to€the€Wellbrooks€by€theÏCollinses€from€the€property€sold€and€interest€which€never€accrued.€€Therefore,€theÏfinal€judgment€was€œ$19,610›€minus€$11,924.67€equaling€œ$7,685.33›€owed€by€theÏWellbrooks€to€the€Collinses.€€Ì€Ìœà à›à àOn€appeal,€the€Wellbrooks€dispute€only€one€aspect€of€the€lowerÏcourt's€œholding€„„›€they€argue€that€€the€statute€of€frauds€prohibits€recovery€of€theÍ$19,610.00€amount€due€on€the€oral€loan€made€to€them€by€the€Collinses.€€TheyÏtherefore€request€that€this€court€reverse€the€trial€court's€award€with€respect€to€theÏloan€and€enter€a€judgment€for€them€in€the€amount€of€œ$11,924.67.›€€ÌÌœÌÌÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà à›à àThe€pertinent€portion€of€the€statute€of€frauds€provides€that€"[n]oÏaction€shall€be€brought€.€.€.€[u]pon€any€agreement€or€contract€which€is€not€to€beÏperformed€within€the€space€of€one€(1)€year€from€the€making€thereof;€unless€theÏpromise€or€agreement,€upon€which€such€action€shall€be€brought,€or€someÏmemorandum€or€note€thereof,€shall€be€in€writing,€and€signed€by€the€party€to€beÏcharged€therewith,€or€some€other€person€by€him€thereunto€lawfully€œauthorized."›€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€29„2„101(a)(5)€(Supp.€1996).€€€The€Wellbrooks€assert€that€theÏevidence€clearly€shows€that€the€loan€agreement€at€issue€was€an€oral€agreementÏwhich€was€not€to€be€repaid€within€the€space€of€one€year.€€The€Collinses€counterÏwith€a€looser€interpretation€of€the€statue€of€frauds€arguing€that€because€theÏpartnership€could€have€dissolved€within€a€year€and€the€loan€could€have€beenÏrepaid€within€a€year,€this€loan€is€outside€of€the€statute.€€In€the€alternative,€theyÍcontend€that€the€doctrine€of€equitable€estoppel€prohibits€the€Wellbrooks€fromÏrelying€on€the€statute€of€frauds€to€avoid€repayment€of€the€loan.€€ÌÌœà àà àThere€is€no€question€that€the€defendants€should€repay€theÏ$10,000.00.€€The€only€question€is€whether€the€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€collect€theÏinterest€the€defendants€orally€promised€to€pay.€€We€do€not€think€any€court€in€thisÏstate€would€allow€a€borrower,€who€admits€he€borrowed€a€specific€sum€of€money,Ïto€keep€the€money€he€received€because€the€statute€of€frauds€barred€an€action€onÏthe€promise€to€repay€it.€€In€such€cases€the€lender€clearly€has€an€action€for€moneyÏhad€and€received.€€òòSteelman€v.€Ford€Motor€Credit€Co.óó,€911€S.W.2d€720€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1995).€€The€action€is€not€on€the€contract€but€on€the€proposition€that€in€justiceÏand€fairness€the€money€belongs€to€the€lender.€€òòId.óó€€ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€however,€the€chancellor€allowed€an€action€on€the€oralÏpromise€to€repay€the€money€with€interest.€€For€a€number€of€reasons€we€think€theÏchancellor€correctly€held€that€the€promise€was€enforceable,€despite€the€provisionsÏof€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„2„101(a)(5)(Supp.€1996).ÌÌà àà àIn€this€state€the€doctrine€of€part€performance€ð ðremoves€thisÏagreement€from€the€mandate€of€the€statute€of€frauds.ðð€€òòTrew€v.€Ogleóó,€767€S.W.2dÍ662€at€665€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€€In€contracts€not€involving€real€estate× ƒ' ××  ×€partÏperformance€by€the€plaintiff€turns€an€otherwise€unenforceable€agreement€into€oneÏthat€may€be€enforced.€òòBuice€v.€Scruggs€Equipment€Co.óó,€194€Tenn.€129,€250ÏS.W.2d€44€(1952).× ƒ( ××  ×€€This€doctrine€is€related€to€equitable€estoppel€where€one€partyÏhas€induced€the€other€to€change€his€position€so€as€to€incur€an€ð ðunjust€andÏunconscious€injury€and€loss,€in€case€the€defendant€is€permitted€after€all€to€relyÏupon€the€statutory€defense.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€48.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòGRW€Enter.,€Inc.€v.€Davisóó,€797ÏS.W.2d€606€(Tenn.€App.€1990);€òòBaliles€v.€Cities€Serv.€Co.óó,€578€S.W.2d€621€(Tenn.Í1979).× ƒ) ××  ×€€ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€court€below€is€affirmed€and€the€cause€isÏremanded€to€the€Chancery€Court€of€Smith€County€for€any€further€necessaryÏproceedings.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellants.ÌÌÌ›à àœÓÓà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÇÑ Ü ÑÑ „ ÑÑ  Ñà@ à