ÿWPC % …# VUNa %¯ 0 (µUPÝw@- 4m  0l 0Dü 0J@ 0TŠ 0^Þ 0h< 0r¤ 0| 0†’ 0 1u¨ 0dU>U6¿B)õDC AMaU*® ØvãYPè”8 D3Ì Bÿ¢ 0@¾þv~vÓ” AOg#ƶ# 0D|$ D/À$ Bï$˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡&@FÐZ ‹8CaslonOpnface BT Regular D Ó€,R¦"ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ3|x.((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òMAY€29,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó lÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ôÔThis€action€was€originally€filed€by€Sovran›€Bank/Tennessee.€€That€entityÏsubsequently€merged€with€NationsBank€of€Tennessee.€€The€latter€was€thenÏsubstituted€as€party€plaintiff.Ì …Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ôÔNumerous€other€entities€and€individuals€were€named€as€defendants€in€anÏeffort€to€clear€the€title€to€this€condominium€project.€€Their€identity€and€theÏsuits€against€them€are€not€material€to€this€appeal.Ì FÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ôÔThe€notice€of€appeal€recites€that€the€appellants€appeal€ð ðas€to€theÏdismissal€of€their€[counterclaim]€òòonlyóó.ðð€€(Emphasis€added).Ì ŠÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ôÔThe€deponent€Hayes€identified€the€document€as€a€ð ðone„page€cover€sheet.ðð€ÏHowever,€when€filed€with€the€trial€court€on€November€2,€1995,€the€ð ðone„pageððÏdocument€had€òòtwoóó€pages€that€were€stapled€together„„the€Commercial€LoanÏMemorandum€and€the€New€Loan€Summary.€€In€view€of€the€fact€that€the€two€pagesÏhave€different€dates€reflecting€a€significant€lapse€of€time,€i.e.,€January€4,Ï1988,€and€October€19,€1988,€they€appear€to€be€independent€documents.Ì++++'ÿÿdxd d ˜Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ôÔInterestingly€enough,€Armstrong€identified€both€of€these€bank€officialsÏas€the€ones€who€made€the€subject€commitment.€€Apparently,€he€identified€themÏbefore€he€was€aware€of€the€existence€of€the€Commercial€Loan€Memorandum.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ôÔWhile€the€parol€evidence€rule€typically€involves€an€attempt€toÏintroduce€evidence€of€an€oral€promise€or€commitment,€the€Bank€argues€that€itÏapplies€to€the€written€Commercial€Loan€Memorandum.€€In€view€of€our€dispositionÏof€this€case,€we€do€not€find€it€necessary€to€decide€whether€the€parol€evidenceÏrule€applies€to€these€written€documents.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ P ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€¬ÕXdðdÈ7ÑÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙßR€#%"A1-j|>¾` Å `€€@ÿRßÌÌÌÌNATIONSBANK€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9607„CH„00226Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)€APPEAL€AS€OF€RIGHT€FROM€THEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)€KNOX€COUNTY€CHANCERY€COURTÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌJDRC€CORPORATION,€a/k/a€JDRCà àà à)ÌDEVELOPMENT€CORPORATION€andà àà à)ÌBERNARD€ARMSTRONG,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)€HONORABLE€SHARON€BELL,Ìà àà àDefendants„Appellants.à à)€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌFor€Appellants:à àà àà àà àà àFor€Appellee:ÌÌDAVID€L.€BACONà àà àà àà àà àà àDEAN€B.€FARMERÌKnoxville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àW.€TYLER€CHASTAINÌÒ ° ÒÒ X Òà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHodges,€Doughty€&€Carson,€PLLCÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€ÔÔ€ ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€ ÔÔ€ XÔÌÌÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÌÌÌÌÌVACATED€AND€REMANDEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSusano,€J.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓRøÓà àà àNationsBank€of€Tennessee€(ð ðthe€Bankðð)× ƒ& ××  ×€sued€theÏdefendants× ƒ' ××  ×€JDRC€Corporation€(JDRC)€and€Bernard€ArmstrongÏ(Armstrong)€to€recover€on€two€notes€executed€by€JDRC€andÏpersonally€guaranteed€by€Armstrong,€JDRCððs€president.€€JDRC€andÏArmstrong€filed€a€counterclaim€for€damages€alleging€that€the€BankÏhad€ð ðbreach[ed]...€the€financing€agreement€between€the€partiesÏand...€the€implied€obligation€of€good€faith.ðð€€The€trial€courtÏgranted€the€Bank€summary€judgment€on€its€original€complaint.€€TheÍissue€of€liability€having€been€found€adverse€to€the€defendants,Ïthe€parties€agreed€that€the€amount€due€on€the€notes€wasÏ$1,000,000.€€The€trial€court€also€found€that€the€Bank€was€entitledÏto€summary€judgment€on€the€counterclaim,€and€accordingly€dismissedÏthat€action.€€JDRC€and€Armstrong€appealed× ƒ( ××  ×€the€dismissal€of€theirÏcounterclaim.€€The€only€issue€before€us€is€whether€there€areÏdisputed€facts€that€render€summary€judgment€on€the€counterclaimÏinappropriate.ÌÌà@ àI.€€òòFactsóóÌÌà àà àThe€facts,€when€construed€in€favor€of€the€defendants,Ïare€as€follows.€€In€order€to€finance€the€development€andÏconstruction€of€a€216„unit€condominium€project€called€Marble€HillÏCondominiums,€JDRC€obtained€two€$500,000€loans€from€the€Bank.€€TheÏproceeds€of€the€first€loan€were€to€be€used€for€the€initialÇdevelopment€of€the€project€site,€while€the€proceeds€of€the€secondÏloan€were€to€be€utilized€for€construction€of€the€condominiumÏunits.€€As€consideration€for€the€loans,€JDRC€executed€two€$500,000Ïpromissory€notes.€€The€first€note€was€executed€on€January€29,Ï1988,€and€renewed€for€one€year€on€January€29,€1989;€the€second€wasÏexecuted€on€October€19,€1988,€and€renewed€for€an€additional€yearÏon€October€27,€1989.€€Each€obligation€was€secured€by€a€separateÏdeed€of€trust€on€the€condominium€property.€€Interest€was€dueÏquarterly.€Armstrong€personally€guaranteed€both€obligations.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€deposition,€Armstrong€testified€that€he€reachedÏan€oral€agreement€with€Richard€Hayes€and€T.K.€Wright€of€the€BankÏregarding€lot€releases,€whereby€the€Bank€would€receive€$30,000Ïupon€the€closing€of€the€sale€of€each€condominium€unit.€€From€thatÏamount,€$10,000€was€to€be€applied€toward€the€first€loan,€andÏ$20,000€toward€the€second€loan.€€When€a€lot/unit€was€sold€andÏclosed,€the€Bank€agreed€to€release€the€deed€of€trust€as€to€thatÏlot€in€return€for€the€agreed„upon€payment.€€JDRC€was€thus€entitledÏto€any€amount€over€$30,000€from€each€sale.€€Generally€speaking,Ïthe€purchase€price€of€the€units€was€between€$40,000€and€$60,000.€ÏJDRC€depended€on€this€income€for€working€capital€to€finish€out€theÏunits€being€sold€and€to€build€more€units.€ÌÌà àà àAccording€to€Armstrong,€the€parties€operated€under€thisÏarrangement€until€late€1989,€when€John€Burke€of€the€Bank€informedÏhim€that€JDRC€would€henceforth€be€required€to€pay€the€Bank€100%€ofÏthe€proceeds€from€future€closings.€€Burke€gave€no€reason€for€theÏchange€but€stated€that€the€decision€was€final.€€ArmstrongððsÏsubsequent€efforts€to€discuss€the€matter€with€officials€of€theÏBankÇwere€unsuccessful.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€time€the€Bank€demanded€full€payment€of€all€netÏsale€proceeds,€JDRC€was€preparing€to€close€the€sale€of€three€ofÏthe€newly„constructed€condominiums.€€According€to€Armstrong,€thisÏchange€in€repayment€policy€left€JDRC€with€no€working€capital.€ÏJDRC€was€thus€unable€to€close€the€three€sales„„or€any€subsequentÏsales„„and€was€forced€to€abandon€the€project€and€cease€doingÏbusiness.€€The€Bank€declared€JDRC€in€default€in€March,€1990,€andÏfiled€its€complaint€on€the€notes€in€June€of€the€following€year.ÌÌà àà àIn€its€counterclaim,€JDRC€alleges€that€the€Bank€breachedÏthe€financing€agreement€between€the€parties€and€its€impliedÏobligation€of€good€faith.€€JDRC€contends€that€such€actsÏproximately€caused€the€loss€of€condominium€sales,€lost€profits,Ïand€other€damages.ÌÌÓ: Óà@ àII.€€òòSummary€JudgmentóóÌÌÌÓrÓà àà àThe€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€causes€us€toÏfocus€on€the€rules€that€are€applicable€when€a€defendant,€counter„defendant,€or€other€defending€party,€seeks€to€avoid€a€plenaryÏproceeding€by€moving€for€summary€judgment.ÌÌà àà àWhen€a€party€responds€to€a€claim€against€it€by€filing€aÏsummary€judgment€motion,€it€is€incumbent€upon€that€party€toÏsupport€its€motion€with€facts€that€establish€an€affirmativeÏdefense,€negate€at€least€one€of€the€essential€elements€of€theÏclaim,€or€otherwise€show€that€the€claimant€is€not€entitled€toÏrelief.€€òòò òByrd€v.€Halló óóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€213„14,€215€n.5€(Tenn.Ï1993).€€Typically,€these€facts€are€presented€in€the€form€ofÏaffidavits,€authenticated€documents,€depositions,€and€otherÏproperly„verified€factual€matters€developed€through€the€discoveryÏprocess.€€òòSeeóó€Rule€56.03,€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€€The€proffered€sworn„toÏtestimony€and/or€properly„authenticated€documents€must€beÏadmissible€at€trial€before€they€can€be€considered€by€the€trialÏcourt€on€summary€judgment.€€òòò òByrdó óóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€215.€€However,Ïthey€need€not€be€in€admissible€form;€hence,€an€affidavit,€whileÏnot€admissible€at€trial€in€that€form,€can€be€considered€by€theÏcourt€if€the€testimony€itself€is€otherwise€admissible.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€atÏ215„16.ÌÌà àà àIf€the€material€relied€upon€by€the€defending€partyÏunwittingly€or€otherwise€demonstrates€òòdisputedóó€material€facts;€orÍreflects€undisputed€material€facts,€but€fails€to€show€that€theÏmovant€is€entitled€to€a€judgment,€then,€in€either€event,€theÏnonmovant€is€not€required€to€do€anything€to€defeat€summaryÏjudgment.€€ò òòòIdóóó ó.€at€211.€€The€burden€to€satisfy€the€requirements€ofÏRule€56.03,€Tenn.R.Civ.P.,€is€clearly€on€the€defending€party.€€òòò òIdó óóó.Ïat€215.€€That€party€does€not€satisfy€its€burden€by€makingÏòòconclusoryóó€assertions€that€the€claimant€cannot€prove€its€claim.€Ïòòò òIdóóó ó.€€If,€on€the€other€hand,€the€material€relied€upon€by€theÏdefending€party€demonstrates€undisputed€material€facts€supportingÏa€judgment€for€that€party,€the€nonmoving€party€must€respond€byÏputting€admissible€facts€before€the€trial€court€to€show€a€disputeÏas€to€those€material€facts€in€order€to€defeat€summary€judgment.€Ïò òòòIdóóó ó.€€The€nonmovant€cannot,€in€that€case,€simply€rely€upon€theÏallegations€of€its€claim.€€òòSeeóó€Rule€56.05,€Tenn.R.Civ.P.ÌÌà àà àThe€nonmovant€is€entitled€to€the€benefit€of€any€doubt.€Ïò òòòByrd,óóó ó€847€S.W.2d€at€211.€€The€trial€court€must€ð ðtake€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,Ïallow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€that€party,€andÏdiscard€all€countervailing€evidence.ðð€€ò òòòIdóóó ó.€at€210„11.€€All€factsÏsupporting€the€position€of€the€nonmovant€must€be€accepted€as€trueÍby€the€trial€court.€€òòò òIdó óóó.€at€212.€€It€is€only€when€the€materialÏfacts€are€not€in€dispute€and€conclusively€show€that€the€movant€isÏentitled€to€a€judgment,€that€a€trial€court€is€justified€inÏdepriving€a€claimant€of€its€right€to€a€plenary€trial.€€In€allÏother€instances,€a€trial€on€the€merits€is€necessary.€€SummaryÏjudgment€ð ðis€clearly€not€designed€to€serve€as€a€substitute€for€theÏtrial€of€genuine€and€material€factual€matters.ðð€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€at€210.ÌÌà àà àA€request€for€summary€judgment€raises€a€question€of€law.€Ïò òòòGonzales€v.€Alman€Const.€Coó óóó.,€857€S.W.2d€42,€44€(Tenn.App.Ï1993).€€Our€perspective€is€the€same€as€that€of€the€trial€court.€Ïò òòòIdóóó ó.€at€44„45.€€Therefore,€we€must€decide€anew€if€the€movant€isÏentitled€to€summary€judgment.€€ò òòòIdóóó ó.€€Since€this€determinationÏinvolves€a€question€of€law,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctnessÏas€to€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.€€ò òòòIdóóó ó.€at€44.ÌÓ: ÓÌÌà@ àIII.€€òòLaw€and€Analysisóó€ÌÌÌÓrÓà àà àOn€the€day€the€trial€court€heard€the€Bankððs€motion€forÏsummary€judgment,€the€Bank€filed€with€the€trial€court€twoÏdocuments€from€its€records€as€late„filed€exhibits€to€theÍdeposition€of€its€loan€officer,€Richard€Hayes.× ƒ) ××  ×€€The€first€of€theseÏdocuments€is€entitled€ð ðCommercial€Loan€Memorandum,ðð€(see€ApendixÏNo.€1).€€It€is€dated€January€4,€1988,€a€short€time€before€theÏexecution€of€the€first€note.€€In€his€deposition,€Hayes€describedÏthe€document€as€a€ð ðwrite„up,ðð€apparently€of€the€Bankððs€loan€toÏJDRC.€€It€is€approved€and€signed€by€the€members€of€the€Bankððs€loanÏcommittee.€€The€second€bank€document€is€dated€October€19,€1988,Ïthe€date€on€which€the€second€$500,000€note€was€executed€by€theÏdefendants.€€It€is€entitled€ð ðNew€Loan€Summary,ðð€(see€Appendix€No.Ï2).€€It€contains€no€signatures.ÌÌà àà àPrior€to€the€filing€of€these€two€documents,€the€Bank€hadÏargued€to€the€trial€court€that€the€defendantsðð€counterclaim,€atÏbest,€was€based€on€an€oral€promise€or€commitment€and€was€thereforeÏunenforceable€under€the€Statute€of€Frauds,€T.C.A.€ðð€29„2„101(b)(1),€which€provides€thatÌÌÓ: Óà àà8 à[n]o€action€shall€be€brought€against€a€lenderÏor€creditor€upon€any€promise€or€commitment€toÏlend€money€or€to€extend€credit,€or€upon€anyÏpromise€or€commitment€to€alter,€amend,€renew,Ïextend€or€otherwise€modify€or€supplement€anyÏwritten€promise,€agreement€or€commitment€toÏlend€money€or€extend€credit,€unless€theÏpromise€or€agreement,€upon€which€such€actionÏshall€be€brought,€or€some€memorandum€or€noteÏthereof,€shall€be€in€writing€and€signed€by€theÏlender€or€creditor,€or€some€other€person€byÏhim€thereunto€lawfully€authorized.ÌÌÌÌÓrÓOnce€the€aforesaid€documents€were€produced,€the€Bankððs€argumentÏchanged€somewhat.€€Thereafter,€and€on€this€appeal,€it€argues€thatÏneither€of€these€documents€satisfies€the€requirements€of€T.C.A.€ððÏ29„2„101(b)(1).€€It€also€argues€that€even€if€the€Commercial€LoanÏMemorandum€is€sufficient€to€satisfy€the€ð ðin€writingðð€requirementÏof€T.C.A.€ðð€29„2„101(b)(1),€it€is€inadmissible€since,€so€theÏargument€goes,€it€is€an€attempt€to€modify€the€notes€by€parolÏevidence.€€The€trial€court€concluded€that€the€Commercial€LoanÏMemorandum€was€not€a€ð ðpublicðð€document€and€therefore€could€not€beÏused€to€satisfy€the€Statute€of€Frauds.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€outset,€we€would€point€out€that€the€New€LoanÏSummary€is€not€signed;€hence,€it€is€clear€that€it€cannot€satisfyÏthe€Statute€of€Frauds,€which€expressly€requires€a€document€ð ðsignedÍby€the€lender€or€creditor€or€some€other€person€by€him€thereuntoÏauthorized.ðð€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€€However,€unlike€the€New€Loan€Summary,€theÏCommercial€Loan€Memorandum€is€signed€by€officials€of€the€Bank.€€ItÏraises€two€issues:€first,€does€the€latter€document€satisfy€all€ofÏthe€requirements€of€T.C.A.€ðð€29„2„101(b)(1)?;€and€second,€is€thisÏdocument€otherwise€admissible?ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€the€Bank€attacks€only€one€element€of€theÏdefendantsðð€counterclaim,€i.e.,€whether€there€was€a€legallyÏenforceable€promise€or€commitment.€€Therefore,€the€Bankððs€motionÏmust€rise€or€fall€on€this€one€issue.€€Since€the€Bank€did€not€fileÏa€properly„supported€motion€as€to€any€of€the€other€elements€of€theÏcounterclaim,€the€defendants,€as€counter„plaintiffs,€were€notÏrequired€to€present€facts€with€respect€to€these€other€elements.ÌÌà àà àWe€will€now€examine€the€two€questions€posed€above.ÌÌÓ: Óà@ àòòA.€€Statute€of€FraudsóóÌÌÌÓrÓà àà àThe€defendantsðð€counterclaim€is€clearly€subject€to€theÏterms€of€the€Statute€of€Frauds,€T.C.A.€ðð€29„2„101(b)(1).€€ThatÏstatute€expressly€applies€to€an€action€ð ðagainst€a€lendor€orÍcreditor...€upon€any€promise€or€commitment€to...€supplement€anyÏwritten€promise,€agreement€or€commitment€to€lend€money€or€extendÏcredit....ðð€€òòId.óó€€In€order€to€satisfy€this€provision,€there€mustÏfirst€be€a€promise,€commitment,€or€agreement,€ð ðor€some€memorandumÏor€note€thereof.ðð€€òòId.óó€€We€believe€that,€at€a€minimum,€theÏCommercial€Loan€Memorandum€constitutes€a€ð ðmemorandumðð€of€theÏBankððs€commitment€to€release€the€deed€of€trust€upon€the€sale€of€aÏlot,€provided€it€receives€$30,000€of€the€net€proceeds€from€theÏsale.ÌÌà àà àThe€Memorandum€contains€the€following€notation:€ð ðLotÏrelease€$30,000.00.ðð€€This€is€consistent€with€ArmstrongððsÏtestimony€that€the€Bank€had€agreed€to€release€each€lot€from€theÏdeed€of€trust€upon€payment€of€$30,000€of€the€purchase€price€of€aÏlot.€€Furthermore,€the€Memorandum€states€that€ð ð$250,000€of€[the]Ïfirst€loan€would€be€paid€from€sales€of€[the]€1st€25€units.ðð€€ThisÏfigure€corresponds€to€Hayesðð€testimony€that€the€Bank€appliedÏ$10,000€from€each€sale€to€the€initial€loan.€€Therefore,€whenÏconstrued€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€defendants,€as€we€areÏrequired€to€do€in€this€summary€judgment€determination,€theÏCommercial€Loan€Memorandum€is€evidence€of€a€commitment€by€the€BankÍto€release€each€lot€upon€the€payment€of€$30,000.ÌÌà àà àT.C.A.€ðð€29„2„101(b)(1)€additionally€requires€that€suchÏpromise€or€commitment,€or€ð ðmemorandum€or€note€thereof,ðð€be€inÏwriting.€€It€is€clear€that€the€Commercial€Loan€Memorandum,€aÏwritten€document,€meets€this€requirement.ÌÌà àà àFinally,€T.C.A.€ðð€29„2„101(b)(1)€provides€that€theÏpromise,€agreement€or€memorandum€must€be€ð ðsigned€by€the€lendor€orÏcreditor,€or€some€other€person€by€him€thereunto€lawfullyÏauthorized.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€The€Commercial€Loan€Memorandum€is€signed€byÏð ðR.M.€Hayesðð,€ð ðT.K.€Wrightðð,× ƒ, ××  ×€and€several€others€on€behalf€of€theÏBank.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€the€document€meets€the€signatureÏrequirement€of€T.C.A.€ðð€29„2„101(b)(1).ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€concluded€that€the€Commercial€LoanÏMemorandum€could€not€be€used€to€satisfy€the€Statute€of€FraudsÏbecause€it€was€an€internal€bank€document,€whose€existence€wasÏapparently€not€known€outside€the€Bank.€€We€disagree.€€There€isÍnothing€in€the€statute€requiring€that€ð ðthe€memorandum€or€noteðð€ofÏthe€promise€or€commitment€be€furnished€to€the€borrower€orÏotherwise€be€a€public€document.ÌÌà àà àWe€therefore€conclude€that€the€Commercial€LoanÏMemorandum€satisfies€the€Statute€of€Frauds.€€The€notation,€ð ðLotÏrelease€$30,000.00",€is€not,€as€the€Bank€argues,€too€indefinite€toÏform€the€basis€of€a€promise€or€commitment.€€The€MemorandumÏevidences€a€promise€or€commitment€to€release€each€lot€from€theÏdeed€of€trust€upon€payment€of€$30,000.ÌÌà àà àWith€regard€to€the€New€Loan€Summary,€on€the€other€hand,Ïwe€have€previously€indicated€that€that€document„„being€unsigned„„does€not€satisfy€the€Statute€of€Frauds.€€While€the€New€LoanÏSummary,€in€and€of€itself,€cannot€constitute€a€binding€commitment,Ïwe€believe€it€is€nevertheless€relevant,€and€hence€admissible,€onÏthe€issue€of€the€lot€release€agreement;€specifically,€it€containsÏevidence€bearing€upon€the€Commercial€Loan€Memorandum,€a€documentÏthat€does€satisfy€the€Statute€of€Frauds.€€The€New€Loan€Summary€isÏdated€October€19,€1988€„„€the€same€date€as€the€second€loan.€€ItÏcontains,€on€a€line€designated€ð ðRepayment€Agreementðð,€theÍhandwritten€notation:€ð ðlot€release€20,000€per€sale€this€loan,Ï10,000€per€lot€1st€loan.ðð€€Again,€these€numbers€correspond€toÏArmstrongððs€testimony€regarding€the€terms€of€the€repaymentÏarrangement:€€the€Bank€would€release€each€lot€upon€receipt€ofÏ$30,000€of€its€purchase€price;€it€would€then€apply€$20,000€towardÏrepayment€of€the€second€loan,€and€$10,000€toward€the€repayment€ofÏthe€first€loan.€€Thus,€the€New€Loan€Summary€on€the€second€loanÏprovides€further€evidence€that€the€Bank€made€a€promise€orÏcommitment€to€release€the€lots€from€the€deed€of€trust€upon€theÏpayment€of€$30,000.ÌÌÓ: Óà@ àòòB.€€Admissibility€of€à@ àBank€DocumentsÌÌÌÓrÓóóà àà àThe€Bank€argues€that€even€if€the€Commercial€LoanÏMemorandum€satisfies€the€Statute€of€Frauds,€it€is€inadmissible€asÏan€attempt€to€modify€the€promissory€notes€by€parol€evidence.€€WeÏdisagree.€€The€parol€evidence€rule€provides€thatÌÌÓ: Óà àà8 àparol€evidence€is€inadmissible€to€contradict,Ïvary,€or€alter€a€written€contract€where€theÏwritten€instrument€is€valid,€complete,€andÏunambiguous,€absent€fraud€or€mistake€or€anyÏclaim€or€allegation€thereof.ÌÌÓrÓÌò òòòAirline€Constr.,€Inc.€v.€Barró óóó,€807€S.W.2d€247,€259€(Tenn.App.Ï1990).€€Our€courts€have€held,€however,€that€parol€evidence€òòisóóÏòòadmissibleóó€ð ðto€prove€the€existence€of€an€independent€collateralÏagreement.ðð€€ò òòòStarnes€v.€First€American€Natððl€Bankóóó ó,€723€S.W.2dÏ113,€117€(Tenn.App.€1986).€€òòSee€alsoóó€ò òòòEarly€v.€Streetó óóó,€241€S.W.2dÏ531,€535€(Tenn.€1951)€(ð ðThere€are€exceptions€to€the€effect€that€anÏindependent€collateral€agreement€may€be€proven...ðð).€€Furthermore,Ïas€stated€in€ò òòòStarnesóóó ó,ÌÌÓ: Óà àà8 à[t]he€terms€of€a€written€agreement€may€beÏsupplemented€by€evidence€of€additional€termsÏunless€it€is€found€that€the€writing€wasÏintended€as€an€exclusive€statement€of€theÏterms€of€the€agreement.ÌÌÌÌò òòòÓòùÓStarnesó óóó,€723€S.W.2d€at€118€(citing€ò òòòStrickland€v.€City€ofÏLawrenceburgóóó ó,€611€S.W.2d€832€(Tenn.App.€1980);€ò òòòKilday€v.ÏBasketteóóó ó,€259€S.W.2d€162€(Tenn.€1953)).ÌÌà àà àThe€application€of€the€parol€evidence€rule× ƒ. ××  ×€and€itsÍexceptions€depends€upon€the€facts€of€each€particular€case.€€òòò òEarlyó óóó,Ï241€S.W.2d€at€535;òòò ò€Starnesó óóó,€723€S.W.2d€at€117.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€ò òòòAirline€Constructionóóó ó€case,€this€courtÏaddressed€the€admissibility€of€evidence€of€an€oral€agreement€toÏcomplete€part€of€a€construction€project€within€six€months.€€AfterÏfinding€that€the€written€contract€specified€that€substantialÏcompletion€was€to€be€achieved€within€approximately€òòeightóó€months,Ïthe€court€held€that€the€parol€evidence€at€issue€contradicted€andÏvaried€the€terms€of€the€partiesðð€contract€and€was€thereforeÏinadmissible.€€ò òòòAirline€Constr.ó óóó,€807€S.W.2d€at€259.€€The€courtÏstated€thatÌÌÓùüÓà àà8 à[p]arol€proof€of€ð ðinducing€representationsðð€or€Ïð ðcollateral€agreementsðð€to€the€writtenÏcontract€must€be€limited€to€subject€matterÏwhich€does€not€òòcontradictóó€or€òòvary€termsóó€whichÏare€plainly€expressed€in€the€writing.ÌÌÌÌò òòòÓòùÓId.óóó ó€(emphasis€in€original)(citing€ò òòòSearcy€v.€Brandonóóó ó,€68€S.W.2dÏ112€(Tenn.€1934);€ò òòòLitterer€v.€Wrightóóó ó,€151€Tenn.€210,€268€S.W.Ï624€(Tenn.€1925);€ò òòòDupont€Rayon€Co.€v.€Robersonóóó ó,€12€Tenn.App.Ï261€(1930);€ò òòòSeaton€v.€Dyeóóó ó,€263€S.W.2d€544€(Tenn.App.€1954)).ÌÌà àà àIn€ò òòòEarly€v.Streetó óóó,€the€Supreme€Court€found€thatÏvarious€oral€agreements,€which€a€buyer€sought€to€establish€byÏparol€evidence,€were€independent€of€and€collateral€to€a€deed€ofÏsale€between€the€parties.€€The€court€held€that€such€evidence€wasÏadmissible€and€noted€thatÌÌÓùüÓà àà8 àit€certainly€was€not€the€intention€of€theÏparties,€nor€did€they€deem€it€necessary€toÏincorporate€all€of€these€collateral€agreementsÏin€the€deed.ÌÌÌÌòòò òÓòùÓEarlyó óóó,€241€S.W.2d€at€535.ÌÌà àà àUnder€the€facts€of€the€instant€case,€we€conclude€thatÏthe€arrangement€between€the€parties€as€to€the€release€of€anÏindividual€lot€from€the€deed€of€trust€upon€payment€of€$30,000€wasÏan€independent€agreement,€collateral€to€the€promissory€notes.€€òòSeeÏò òEarlyó óóó,€241€S.W.2d€at€535;€òòò òAirline€Constr.ó óóó,€807€S.W.2d€at€259;Ïand€òòò òStarnesó óóó,€723€S.W.2d€at€117„18.€€Therefore,€such€agreement€mayÏbe€established€by€evidence€in€the€form€of€the€Commercial€LoanÏMemorandum€and€the€New€Loan€Summary,€provided€such€evidence€doesÏnot€contradict€or€vary€terms€that€are€clearly€expressed€in€theÏnotes.€€ò òòòAirline€Constr.óóó ó,€807€S.W.2d€at€259.ÌÌà àà àUpon€review€of€the€relevant€documents,€it€is€clear€thatÏthe€lot€release€agreement€in€no€way€varies€or€contradicts€theÏterms€of€the€promissory€notes.€€Unlike€the€contract€in€theÏò òòòAirline€Constructionóóó ó€case,€which€included€a€specific€provisionÏthat€directly€contradicted€the€alleged€oral€agreement,€the€notesÏin€the€instant€case€contain€no€specific€provision€regarding€theÏrelease€of€the€lots€from€the€deed€of€trust.€€As€previouslyÏindicated,€the€collateral€agreement€in€this€case€did€not€vary€orÏchange€the€notes€in€any€way„„they€continued€to€be€due€and€payableÏprecisely€according€to€their€terms€as€found€within€the€fourÏcorners€of€the€notes.ÌÌà àà àFurthermore,€it€appears€that,€as€in€the€ò òòòEarlyóóó ó€case,€theÏparties€did€not€deem€it€necessary€to€include€every€aspect€of€theirÏagreement€in€the€notes.€€On€the€contrary,€it€appears€that€theÏnotes€were€not€intended€to€be€an€ð ðexclusive€statement€of€the€termsÏof€the€agreement.ðð€€ò òòòStarnes,€ó óóó723€S.W.2d€at€118.€€As€a€practicalÏmatter,€to€facilitate€the€sale€of€individual€condominiums€free€ofÏthe€underlying€mortgage,€there€had€to€be€some€additionalÏarrangement€regarding€the€release€of€the€lots€from€the€deed€ofÏtrust.€€The€collateral€agreement€had€the€effect€of€addressing€anÏobvious€andÇessential€element€otherwise€missing€from€the€partiesðð€ð ðdealðð„„theÏamount€of€the€sales€price€of€each€lot€that€was€to€be€paid€to€theÏbank€in€order€to€obtain€a€release€of€the€deed€of€trust€as€to€theÏindividual€lots.€€In€a€multi„unit€condominium€project,€there€hasÏto€be€some€understanding€between€the€borrower€and€lender€regardingÏthe€release€of€the€individual€lots€if€sales€are€to€be€effected€andÏfinanced.ÌÌà àà àWe€therefore€conclude€that€the€Commercial€LoanÏMemorandum€and€the€New€Loan€Summary€are€admissible€evidence€of€anÏindependent,€collateral€agreement€between€the€parties.€€Under€theÏfacts€of€this€case,€the€parol€evidence€rule€does€not€operate€toÏbar€their€admission.€€òòSee€ò òEarlyó óóó,€241€S.W.2d€at€535;€ò òòòAirlineÏConstr.ó óóó,€807€S.W.2d€at€259;€and€òòò òStarnesó óóó,€723€S.W.2d€at€117„18.òòÌóóÌà@ àIV.€€òòConclusionóóÌÌà àà àWe€conclude€that€the€Commercial€Loan€Memorandum€isÏsufficient€to€satisfy€the€Statute€of€Frauds.€€Therefore,€theÏBankððs€motion€fails€in€its€attempt€to€negate€the€defendantsðð€claimÏof€a€commitment€by€the€Bank€to€release€lots€from€the€deed€of€trustÏupon€the€payment€of€$30,000€out€of€the€net€proceeds€of€a€closing.€ÍThere€is€admissible€evidence€of€this€commitment.€€Since€this€wasÏthe€only€element€of€the€counterclaim€attacked€by€the€motion€forÏsummary€judgment,€we€find€and€hold€that€the€Bank€is€not€entitledÏto€summary€judgment.ÌÌÇÓÓà àà àWe€express€no€opinion€as€to€the€merits€of€theÏcounterclaim.€€We€simply€hold€that€the€Bank€is€not€entitled€toÏjudgment€in€a€summary€fashion.ÌÓòùÓÌÓÓà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€awarding€the€appelleeÏsummary€judgment€on€the€counterclaim€is€vacated.€€This€case€isÏremanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings€notÏinconsistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€theÏappellee.ÌÓòùÓÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.