WPC # VUNa % 0(UPw@- 4m  0l 0D 0P@ 0J 0T 0^. 0h  0r 0|n 0 0p 1u 0duU>U6 0@MB) D3| BDC A AOU*1?v~vt 0KG D+ A AO< 0DQ D/ BHP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular lmDnoDpqDrstӀf|$HHHHHH3|x((3$ !      0  (#$  0  ((3/Q$ !   d 2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New("$    % Line 7 dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5++++'dxd d((((7Border 1dd)'BG&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK'B,C << G<  9p`(Arial  !#d#%  //   YYY FILED/X August18,1998CecilCrowson,Jr./AppellateCourtClerk   !#d#%   $       &&T.C.A.292101(a)(4)provides,inpertinentpart,asfollows:  (a)Noactionshallbebrought:@ *** 8 (4)Uponanycontractforthesaleoflands,tenements,orhereditaments,...PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ( $ Figure  1  'dxd'y  <<= 8C'C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . %  P &76XXdd7\RA'\ћ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSٜR.0,A1-j|-`  `@Rߛ@ ATKNOXVILLEERNESTLEONFRIZZELL,  )C/ANO.03A019709CH00387      )  PlaintiffAppellee, )      )      )      )v.      )APPEALASOFRIGHTFROMTHE      )HAMILTONCOUNTYCHANCERYCOURT      )      )      )      )RAYMONDLEONFRIZZELL,  )      )HONORABLER.VANNOWENS,  DefendantAppellant.)CHANCELLORForAppellant     ForAppelleeHOWARDB.BARNWELL,JR.   ROBERTD.BRADSHAWChattanooga,Tennessee   B.STEWARTJENKINS       Jenkins&Bradshaw,P.C.       Chattanooga,Tennessee@  OPINION&&XAFFIRMEDANDREMANDED       Susano,J.  Ӝ  Theplaintiff,ErnestLeonFrizzell( Father),seeksϜdamagesforthebreachofanallegedoralagreementwithhisson,thedefendant,RaymondLeonFrizzell( Son).Followingabenchtrial,thecourtenteredjudgmentagainstSonfor$32,500.Sonappealed,raisinganumberofissuesthatessentiallypresentthreeissuesforourreview: 8 1.IstheclaimsetforthinthecomplaintϜbased,asitis,onanoralagreementbarredbythestatuteoffrauds,specificallyT.C.A.292101(a)(4) 1   ? 8 2.Doestheoralagreementuponwhichtheplaintiffreliesviolatetheparolevidencerule? 8 3.Doestheevidencepreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsjudgment?@ I.StandardofReview  OurreviewinthisnonjurycaseisgovernedbyRule13(d),T.R.A.P.Thatruleprovidesthatpartiesonappealareentitledtoadenovoexaminationoftherecordoftheproceedingsbelow;however,thatrecordcomestouswithapresumptionofcorrectnessastothetrialcourtsfactualfindingsthatwemusthonorunlessthe preponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise. Id .See UnionCarbideCorp.v.Huddleston ,854S.W.2d87,91(Tenn.1993).Thetrialcourtsconclusionsoflawarealsorevieweddenovo,buttheyarenotaccordedapresumptionofcorrectness. Campbellv.FloridaSteelCorp .,919S.W.2d26,35(Tenn.1996).@ II.Facts  Certainfactsarenotindispute.FatherandSonwereinvolvedforaperiodoftimeintheoperationofaconveniencestoreonapieceofpropertylocatedonSuckCreekRoadinHamiltonCounty.Fatherhadpurchasedthepropertyin1980.Fatherwithdrewfromthebusiness,andonApril24,1987,heconveyedtherealestatetoSonbywarrantydeed.Onthesameday,SonexecutedadeedoftrustwithFatherasbeneficiarytosecurethepurchasepriceof$125,000.  OnOctober15,1992,Fatherexecuteda FullReleaseofLienwithrespecttothesubjectproperty.Thatdocumentprovides,inpertinentpart,asfollows: 8 Theundersigned,[Father],herebydeclaresthathewasthetrueandlawfulholderandowneratthetimeofpaymentoftheentireindebtednessfullydescribedinandsecuredbyalienintheDeedofTrustfrom[Son]toLandmarkTitleandTrustCompany,Inc,TrusteeofrecordinBook3340,Page821,intheRegistersOfficeofHamiltonCounty,Tennessee,towhichreferenceisheremadeandherebyacknowledgethepaymentinfullofsaidindebtednessandthesatisfactionanddischargeofsaidlien.  FatherandSonagreethatin1992FatherwaschargedwithanumberoffederalgamblingviolationsintheDistrictCourtinHamiltonCounty.TheyalsoagreethatWilliamThompsonwasnamedasacodefendantinthatprosecution.ItisundisputedthatFatherapproachedSonandaskedhimtoputuprealpropertyasabondtosecureFathersappearanceinthegamblingcase.ϜHowever,theystronglydisagreewithrespecttotheirconversationandsubsequentconduct.  FathertestifiedthatwhenheapproachedSonheassumedϜthatSoncouldandwouldusepropertyotherthantheSuckCreekRoadpropertytosecurehisrelease.Instead,accordingtoFather,SonofferedtoputuptheSuckCreekRoadpropertyinexchangeforFathersreleaseofthedeedoftrustonthatproperty.FathertestifiedthatSonhadnotthenmadeanypaymentsonthe$125,000debt.Nevertheless,FatheragreedtoreleasethedeedoftrustifSonwouldagreetopayhimhalfofthesalesproceedswhenthepropertywassold,inadditiontomakinghisbond.AccordingtoFather,Sonagreed.Onthesameday,Fatherexecutedthereleasereferredtoearlierinthisopinion.  Sontestifiedtoadifferentsetoffacts.Hetoldthecourtthattheentire$125,000obligationhadbeenpaidinfullϜpriortothetimeFatherwaschargedwiththefederalgamblingviolations.HeclaimedthatwhenFatherapproachedhimaboutmakinghisbond,heagreedtodosoprovidedFatherwouldreleasethedeedoftrustsecuringthethenfullysatisfiedobligation.Accordingtohim,Fatherthenexecutedtherelease,andhe,Son,putupthepropertyasabondforFathersrelease.HedeniedthatheeveragreedtosharethesalesproceedswithFatherwhenthepropertywassold.  FathertestifiedthatwhenhelearnedthatSonhadsoldtheproperty,herequestedthatSonpayhimhalfoftheproceeds.AccordingtoFather,Sonoriginallyagreedtodoso,buthelaterchangedhismind,notingthatifhepaidFather,thelatter wouldjustthrowthemoneyaway.Sondeniedthisconversation.@ III.TrialCourtsRulings  Pretrial,thecourtdeniedSonsmotiontodismissfiledpursuanttoRule12.02(6),Tenn.R.Civ.P.SonclaimsinhismotionthattheoralagreementallegedinthecomplaintisbarredbyT.C.A.292101(a)(4),thestatuteoffrauds,andthattheoralagreementattemptstovarythetermsofthereleaseandisthusatoddswiththeparolevidencerule.Thetrialcourtconcludedthattheoralagreement couldconstitutetheconsiderationfortherelease,andproofofthedetailsdoesnotviolateeitherthestatuteoffraudsortheparolevidencerule.  Attheconclusionoftheproof,thetrialcourtmadeϜfindings,includingthefollowing: 8 ThedemeanorofthewitnesseshavecontributedtotheCourtsconcernastotheaccuratenessofmuchofthetestimony.ItsacaseinwhichtheCourtmightwellbeinclinedtothrowupitshandsandsaythatbothpartiescomeintocourtwithuncleanhands. 8 TheCourtreachedtheopinion,though,thateventhoughtheplaintiffscasecarriesalotofdoubts,holes,questions,anduncertainties,thatnevertheless,thepreponderanceoftheproofsupportshisversion.Inotherwords,thetruthismorelikely,ormoreakin,tothatascontendedbytheplaintiff. 8 TheCourtsopinionissimilartowhatthelastwitnessthedefendanttestified: Thereisnotellingwhatanaccuratebalancewouldbebetweentheseparties. 8 TheCourtinhearingtheproof,considerssomeoftherepairsmadebythesonandfindsthattheresabalanceof$32,500owingtothefather.TheCourtsofindstheplaintiffisentitledtoajudgment,plusthecourtcostinthecase.@ IV.ApplicableLaw@ A.ӛ  Inthiscase,SonreliesonboththestatuteoffraudsandtheparolevidenceruleasalegalbartoFathersclaim.Wehavepreviouslynotedthat [t]heparolevidenceruleandthestatuteoffraudsareseparaterulesthatoperateindependentlyfromeachother. GRWEnterprises,Inc.v.Davis ,797S.W.2d606,611(Tenn.App.1990).WewillnowproceedtoexaminebothϜrules.@ B.ӛ  Thestatuteoffraudswas enactedtopreventfraudandperjury. Cobblev.Langford ,230S.W.2d194,196(Tenn.1950).Seealso Yatesv.Skaggs ,213S.W.2d41,43(Tenn.1948).( Thepurposeofthestatuteoffraudsistopreventfraudulentcontractsfrombeingestablishedbyperjuredtestimony.)  Subsection4ofthestatuteoffrauds,T.C.A.292101,appliesto thesaleoflands,tenements,orhereditaments... Id .Thebreadthoftheprovisionisaddressedinthecaseof Lambertv.HomeFederalSavingsandLoanAssociation ,481S.W.2d770(Tenn.1972): 8 Amortgage,oradeedoftrust,initslegalaspectisaconveyanceofanestateoraninterestinlandandassuchwithinthemeaningoftheStatuteofFrauds.Amortgageordeedoftrustoflandcannotbemadebyparol.Apromisetomakeanothertheownerofalienorchargeuponlandisequivalenttosellhimsuchaninteresttherein,andiswithinthestatute.49Am.Jur.StatuteofFrauds,197. 8 Restatement,Contracts,195,declaresthatanyinterestwhichthelawregardsasrealestateiswithinthestatute. 8 Andin76A.L.R.574,579;49Am.Jur.StatuteofFrauds,199at526,itisheldthatanoralcontracttomortgageortogivesecurityonrealestateisunenforceable. Id .at77273.  Thestatuteoffraudsistobeconstruedsoastoaccomplishitspurpose, GRWEnterprises,Inc .,797S.W.2dat611;however, [t]hecourtshave...recognizedthatequitableestoppelisanexceptiontothestatuteoffrauds. Id .Ӝ@ C.ӛ  Theparolevidenceruleisaruledesignedtoprotecttheintegrityofwrittencontracts. Id .at610.Simplystated,itprovidesthatapartytoacontract cannotuseextraneousevidencetoalter,vary,orqualifytheplainmeaningofanunambiguouswrittencontract.𛀜 Id .Anumberofexceptionstotheparolevidencerulehavebeenrecognizedinourcases. Id .Forexample,ithasbeenheldthat theparolevidenceruledoesnotpreventusingextraneousevidencetoprovethatawrittencontractdoesnotcorrectlyembodythepartiesagreement.𛀀 Id .at611.ӛ@ V.Analysis@ A.  Intheinstantcase,thecomplaintalleges,andFatherstestimony,ifbelieved,makesout,anoralagreement.Inthatoralagreement,eachofthepartiesassumedcontractualobligations.Fatheragreedtoreleasehislienonthesubjectproperty,whichhesubsequentlydidwhenheexecutedthewritingentitled FullReleaseofLien.𛀀AccordingtoFatherstestimony,Sonmadetwopromises:heagreedtoputupthepropertyasabondtosecureFathersappearanceinthefederalcriminalcase,andheagreedtogiveFatherhalfofthesalesproceedswhenthepropertywassold.AccordingtoFather,Sondidtheformer,butnotthelatter.  WeagreewiththeChancellorthattheoralagreementconstitutestheconsiderationfortherelease.Thisactiondoesnotseekaninterestinland;rather,itseekssatisfactionoftheobligationsallegedlyundertakenbySoninconsiderationforFathersreleaseofhislien.Wedonotfindtheoralagreementtobea contractforthesaleofaninterestinland.SeeT.C.A.292101(a)(4).Therefore,weconcludethatthestatuteoffraudsisnotanimpedimenttothisaction.̛  Eveniftheoralagreementsoughttobeenforcedinthiscaseissubjecttothestatuteoffrauds,neverthelesswefindthatSonisequitablyestoppedtoassertthatdefenseinthiscase.See Balilesv.CitiesServiceCo .,578S.W.2d621,624(Tenn.1979); Knightv.Knight ,436S.W.2d289,291(Tenn.1969).ItwouldnotbefairtoallowSontoassertthestatuteoffraudstobarthisactionafterhehadalreadyreceivedthebenefitofhisbargainFathersexecutionoftherelease.ToϜenforcethestatuteoffraudsinthiscasewouldbeto makeitaninstrumentofhardshipandoppression,vergingonactualfraud.See Baliles at624.Accordingly,SoncannotassertthestatuteoffraudsasabartoFathersclaim.@ B.  Theparolevidencerulepreventstheintroductionoforaltestimonyto alter,vary,orqualifytheplainmeaningofanunambiguouswrittencontract.See GRWEnterprises,Inc. ,797S.W.2dat610.SonarguesthatFathersattempttoprovetheformersallegedobligationtopayFatherhalfofthesaleproceedsisinconsistentwithFathersacknowledgmentinthereleaseof paymentinfullofsaid[$125,000]indebtedness.Wedisagree.Thereleasedoesnotstatethatthepaymentofthe$125,000istheonlyconsiderationfortherelease.Cf. Perryv.CentralSouthernRailroadCo .,45Tenn.(5Cold.)138,143(1867)( [A]lthoughthegrantorisestoppedbytherecitalinthedeedfromdenyingtheconsiderationexpressed,yetheisnotestoppedfromprovingtherewereotherconsiderationsthantheoneexpressedinthedeed.)Intheinstantcase,Fatherisnotsuingontheoriginal$125,000debt.Thatdebtwasextinguishedbytherelease.Onthecontrary,heisattemptingtocollect otherconsiderations. Id .Histestimonynotbeinginconsistentwiththereleasedoesnotrunafouloftheparolevidencerule.@ C.  WedonotfindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthatSonpromisedtopayFatherhalfofthesalesproceedswhenthepropertywassold.BothFatherandhisfriend,WilliamThompson,testifiedthatSonmadethiscommitment.WhiletherewastestimonybySonandothersthatbringintoquestionthetruthfulnessofFathersevidence,thiscasecamedowntoaquestionofwhomtheChancellorwasgoingtobelieve.Whileconcedingthatitwasaclosecall,hefoundtheplaintiffsproofonthisissuemorepersuasivethanthatofSon.ϜAswehavesaidmanytimes,thetrieroffactisinthebestpositiontoassessthecredibilityofthewitnesses;accordingly,suchdeterminationsareentitledtogreatweightonappeal. Massengalev.Massengale ,915S.W.2d818,819(Tenn.App.1995); Bowmanv.Bowman ,836S.W.2d563,566(Tenn.App.1991).Withthisinmind,wecannotsaythatthe preponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.SeeRule13(d),T.R.A.P.  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellant.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforenforcementofthejudgmentandcollectionofcostsassessedbelow,allpursuanttoapplicablelaw.       __________________________       CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.̜ǛCONCUR:_______________________̜HerschelP.Franks,J._______________________WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.