ÿWPC  .#†”U: %T 0(Z4‚ B–³Â 0J 0T  0^` 0h¾ 0r& 0|˜w 0†* 0D° 0ô 1u„ÆùU,¿ 0dë AOO 0Dž U,â U$* B)8 0@a DC¡ D3ä AM D/d e“ B” ž± v~O vÓ͘IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0ÙP ÿE ï4·^6·Ô6 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡1#  d3|xµ2 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  Ô  2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ$(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò####7Border 1dd'ÿÿdxd$%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ**'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd ”Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔó óÌò òÔ€"¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ) ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€"XÔÌÌò òCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€"ÂÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€"XÔPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÓ  Óò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€‡ÎXXdædÈ7ÑÙ€ÙßL€'+%;+'h|<â `€€Lßà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌòòà@ à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌBETTY€A.€DOWNING,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà àò ò)€€Sumner€Circuit€No.Ï13378„Có óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌò òVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€Appeal€No.€01A01„9507„CV„00312Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌERIC€L.€BRINKLEY,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà àò ò)ÌÌÌó óà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€SUMNER€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€GALLATIN,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€THOMAS€GOODALL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌò òJAMES€L.€HARRISó óÌNashville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantÌÌÌò òMICHAEL€W.€EDWARDSÌó óHendersonville,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌWILLIAM€H.€WILLIAMS,€SR.€J.ó óà àÌÌÌÌÓÓà àÌà àPlaintiff,€Betty€Ann€Downing,€is€the€sister€of€€Charles€O.€Brinkley€("Decedent"),Ïwho€Ñ#€ Xÿÿd#Ñdied€of€AIDS€on€February€2,€1994,€in€San€Francisco,€California.€€€At€the€time€of€hisÏdeath,€Decedent€had€a€$15,000€life€insurance€policy,€under€which€his€son,€EricÏBrinkley,€€was€named€as€beneficiary.€€€The€crux€of€Plaintiff's€complaint€is€that€she€paidÏDecedent's€burial€expenses€in€reliance€on€Defendant's€statements€indicating€that€heÏintended€to€pay€them€from€the€insurance€proceeds.€€The€Defendant€refused€to€payÏsuch€expenses€after€he€received€the€insurance€funds.€The€action€was€originallyÏbrought€in€the€General€Sessions€court€for€Sumner€County,€where,€following€a€trial€onÏthe€merits,€judgment€was€rendered€in€favor€of€Plaintiff€in€the€amount€of€$5,230.00.€OnÏappeal€to€the€circuit€court,€the€judgment€was€reversed.€The€trial€court€granted€theÏDefendant's€motion€to€dismiss€on€the€basis€of€the€Statute€of€Frauds€and€dismissedÏPlaintiff's€case,€reasoning€that€there€was€nothing€in€writing€that€obligated€Defendant€toÏpay€the€Plaintiff's€debt.€€€For€the€reasons€stated€herein,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court€and€remand€this€case€for€further€proceedings.ÌÌà àThe€pertinent€facts€are€as€follows.€€Shortly€after€her€brother's€death,€Plaintiff€andÏher€husband€met€with€Defendant€and€his€wife€regarding€Decedent's€burial€expenses.€ÏThe€testimony€from€the€record€provided:ÌÓÓà8 àQ:€€During€this€meeting€at€Shoney's€was€there€any€mention€of€what€to€doÏregarding€your€brother's€death?Ìà8 àA:€€Yes,€at€that€time€we€did€not€know€who€the€beneficiary€was€of€hisÏinsurance,€and€I€made€the€remark,€I€said,€"Well,€I€don't€care€who€theÏinsurance€goes€to,€this€burial€has€got€to€be€paid,€it€has€to€be€paid."Ìà8 àQ:€€Okay,€what€was€Eric's€response€to€that?Ìà8 àA:€€He€said€it€will€be€paid.€€ÌÓÓÌà àAt€the€close€of€Plaintiff's€proof,€and€before€Defendant€proceeded€with€his€case,ÏDefendant€moved€to€dismiss€the€case€based€upon€the€Statute€of€Frauds.€€The€trialÏcourt€granted€this€motion.€ÌÌà àPlaintiff€argues€on€appeal€that€the€motion€to€dismiss€was€improperly€grantedÏbecause€she€successfully€established€Defendant's€liability€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€and€because€Plaintiff€presented€enough€facts€to€support€a€defense€thatÏwould€overcome€the€Statute€of€Frauds.€€We€agree€with€Plaintiff€that€Defendant's€motionÏto€dismiss€was€improperly€granted,€but€we€reach€this€conclusion€upon€differentÏgrounds€than€those€urged€by€Plaintiff.ÌÌà àThe€provision€upon€which€the€trial€judge€relied€in€dismissing€this€action€is€T.C.A.Ïðð€29„2„101,€which€provides€in€part:ÌÓÓà8 àWriting€required€€for€action.„„€(a)€€No€action€shall€be€brought:€...€(2)ÏWhereby€to€charge€the€defendant€upon€any€special€promise€to€answerÏfor€the€debt,€default,€or€miscarriage€of€another€person....ÌÌT.C.A.€ðð€29„2„101(a)€(Supp.€1995).ÌÓÓÌà àThe€trial€court's€reliance€upon€the€above€statute€is€misplaced.€€Subsection€2€ofÏT.C.A.€ðð€29„2„101€requires€a€writing€only€where€a€defendant€makes€a€promise€toÏcreditors€to€whom€a€plaintiff€is€then€or€later€becomes€obligated.€€2€CÔ€"ôÔORBINÔ€"XÔ€Ô€"ôÔONÔ€"XÔÏCÔ€"ôÔONTRACTSÔ€"XÔ€ðð€357,€at€241€(1950).€€à à€According€to€CÔ€"ôÔORBINÔ€"XÔ€Ô€"ôÔONÔ€"XÔ€CÔ€"ôÔONTRACTSÔ€"XÔ:ÌÓÓà8 àTo€fall€within€the€statute,€a€promise€must€be€made€to€a€creditor€or€obligeeÏto€whom€the€third€person€is€then€or€later€becomes€under€obligation.€€AÏpromise€to€a€debtor€to€pay€or€otherwise€answer€for€his€debt€or€default€to€aÏthird€person€is€not€within€the€statute.ÌÌ2€CÔ€"ôÔORBIN€ONÔ€"XÔ€CÔ€"ôÔONTRACTSÔ€"XÔ€ðð€357,€at€241€(1950).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àFÔ€"ôÔARNSWORTH€ONÔ€"XÔ€CÔ€"ôÔONTRACTSÔ€"XÔ€provides€an€example€of€this€principle,€whichÏmirrors€the€facts€in€the€case€at€bar:ÌÓÓà8 à[I]f€A€owes€a€debt€to€C€and€B€orally€promises€A€that€B€will€pay€that€debt€toÏC,€B's€promise€is€not€within€the€[Statute€of€Frauds]€even€though€C€canÏenforce€B's€promise€as€an€intended€beneficiary.ÌÌ2€FÔ€"ôÔARNSWORTH€ONÔ€"XÔ€CÔ€"ôÔONTRACTSÔ€"XÔ€ðð€6.3€at€102€(1990).ÌÌÌÓÓà àAn€unreported€decision€by€this€Court€supports€this€proposition.€€In€òòBrownlee„Kesterson,€Inc.€v.€Continental€Casualty€Co.óó,€No.€631,€1985€WL€4135€(Tenn.€App.€Dec.Ï6,€1985),€the€plaintiff€alleged€that€the€defendant,€though€its€agent,€orally€promised€theÏplaintiff€that€it€would€furnish€a€construction€performance€bond€to€a€third€party€obligee€ofÏplaintiff.€€The€€court€held€that€the€Statute€of€Frauds€was€inapplicable€because€"[a]Ïpromise€made€to€pay...for€his€debt...to€a€third€person€is€not€within€the€statute."€€òòId.óó€at€*3Ï(citing€2€CÔ€"ôÔORBIN€ONÔ€"XÔ€CÔ€"ôÔONTRACTSÔ€"XÔ€ðð€357,€at€241€(1950)).ÌÌà àSimply€stated,€the€rule€is€that€"an€oral€promise€to€discharge€a€debt€made€to€theÏdebtor€himself€is€not€within€the€Statute€of€Frauds."€€37€C.J.S.€òòStatute€of€Fraudsóó€ðð€19.ÌÌà àIt€is€therefore€unnecessary€to€delve€into€the€merits€of€any€potential€defenses€toÏthe€Statute€of€Frauds,€such€as€ratification€or€equitable€estoppel.€Furthermore,€thereÏexist€no€other€grounds€upon€which€the€Statute€of€Frauds€may€be€properly€invoked.Ìà àÌà àIn€the€present€case,€Plaintiff€alleges€that€Defendant€promised€her,€the€debtor,Ïthat€he€would€pay€the€funeral€expenses.€€Plaintiff€did€not,€however,€allege€thatÏDefendant€promised€the€funeral€home€that€he€would€pay€these€expenses.€ÏConsequently,€the€present€case€falls€squarely€within€the€rule€that€a€promise€to€a€debtorÏto€answer€for€his€or€her€debt€to€a€third€person€is€not€within€the€Statute€of€Frauds€andÏthus,€no€writing€is€required€to€support€such€a€promise.€ÌÌà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€this€case€is€reversed€and€remanded€for€furtherÏproceedings.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€Defendant.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌWILLIAMS,€SR.€J.Ìà àÌÌÌ