ÿWPCð% b %l^ r 0ˆ~UNwT4Xl z{ÒõÇ mÉ#ÁàÆ¡ Æg Æ- Æó 0D¹ Ný Eÿ 0J 0TK 0^Ÿ 0hý 0re 0|× 0†SÙ 0á 1uq 0dæU>JU*ˆX²È bÒ$Úþv~vÓ~ 0ëQ! B<" 0@Y" D3™" D-Ì" 0Kù" ASD#Æ—# 0¤]$ 0D% A«E%»s¢ +â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÑuV)ê:i øð¤3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 SeriÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$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  Ô 2^ 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`(Times NÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÔ€*¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€*ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€For€simplicityððs€sake,€we€use€round€numbers€throughout€this€opinion.Ì ¾Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÔ€*¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€*ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Plaintiff€testified€at€trial€that€Defendant€made€three€payments€on€the€Installment€Loan€after€May€1996,Ïwhile€€Defendant€testified€that€Plaintiff€asked€him€for€money€for€various€reasons,€not€including€the€Installment€Loan.€ÏDefendant€testified€that€he€gave€Plaintiff€approximately€$4,500.€€In€his€brief,€however,€Defendant€stated€that€he€madeÏpayments€on€the€Installment€Loan€after€May€1996,€consistent€with€Plaintiffððs€trial€testimony.Ì- ù- Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÔ€*¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€*ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„3„109(a)€provides,€in€pertinent€part:ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€€The€following€actions€shall€be€commenced€within€six€(6)€years€after€theÏcause€of€action€accrued:ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€€€€(3)€Actions€on€contracts€not€otherwise€expressly€provided€for.Ì øÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÔ€*¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€*ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€At€the€trial€level,€it€does€not€appear€from€the€record€that€Defendant€specifically€raised€this€particularÏdefense,€found€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„2„101(5),€but€did€raise€the€general€defense€of€Statute€of€Frauds€in€his€AnswerÏand€at€trial.€ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  Serv Geneva ÒÒ  Serv Geneva Ò(|G24R$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¹ò»»Ô d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3[$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€*ÔÔ€*¼ÔÑ#€++¼d#ÑÑ#€++¼d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÔ_ÔÑ8€V)XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñ€à@ àÔ€*îÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE€à@ àÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÔ€*¼ÔÌÓ  ÓMay€8,€2001€SessionÌÔ€*XÔÌÌò òÔ€*¼ÔJ.€HOWARD€GREGG€v.€JACK€JOHNSONó óÌÌÌà@ àò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Bradley€CountyÌà@ àNo.€99„118€€€€€€Jerri€S.€Bryant,€ChancellorÌFILED€AUGUST€13,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÌà@ àßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Y` AßÌÌNo.€E2000„02685„COA„R3„CVÌÌßA€V) °°` dE<¤` AßÌó óÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€*XÔJ.€Howard€Gregg€(ð ðPlaintiffðð),€sued€his€former€business€partner,€Jack€Johnson€(ð ðDefendantðð),Ïessentially€alleging€that€Defendant€breached€an€agreement€to€pay€a€debt€originally€€incurred€by€theirÏformer€partnership,€Jack€Johnson€Motors.€€Plaintiff€also€alleged€that€Defendant€owed€him€moneyÏas€part€of€their€partnership€(ð ðPartnershipðð)€dissolution€agreement.€€Neither€the€PartnershipÏagreement€nor€the€dissolution€agreement€was€written.€€Defendant€raises€as€defenses€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€€and€the€Statute€of€Frauds.€€The€Trial€Court€held€in€favor€of€Plaintiff.€€DefendantÏappeals.€€We€affirm.ÌÌÓ  ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmed.ó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòD.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.,óó€andÏòòCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.ÌÌAshley€L.€Ownby,€Cleveland,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Jack€Johnson.ÌÌRoger€E.€Jenne,€Cleveland,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee,€J.€Howard€Gregg.ÌÓÓÌÓÓò òà@ àOPINIONÌòòÌà@ àBackgroundó óóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àIn€February€1983,€Plaintiff€and€Defendant€entered€into€the€Partnership€to€buy€andÏsell€vehicles€under€the€name€of€Jack€Johnson€Motors.€€The€Partnership€agreement€was€unwritten.€ÏDefendant€had€been€in€the€used€car€sales€business€since€approximately€1963.€€Plaintiff€had€been€inÏbusiness€for€himself€in€other€areas€for€quite€some€time.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€parties€stipulated€that€Plaintiff€obtained€a€line€of€credit€in€his€name€fromÏMerchantððs€Bank€(ð ðLine€of€Creditðð)€when€they€formed€the€Partnership€in€February€1983.€ÏPlaintiff€testified€he€obtained€the€Line€of€Credit€because€he€had€better€credit€and€Defendant€did€notÏhave€the€money.€€The€parties€stipulated€at€trial€that€they€used€the€Line€of€Credit€to€purchase€vehiclesÍfor€the€Partnership€and€that€Partnership€funds€were€used€to€make€the€payments€toward€this€debt.€€InÏaddition,€the€proof€contained€in€the€record€shows€that€the€Partnershipððs€1987€Balance€SheetÏ(ð ðBalance€Sheetðð)€lists€the€Line€of€Credit€as€a€ð ðLong€Term€Liabilit[y]ðð€of€the€Partnership.€€TheÏrecord€also€contains€the€Partnershipððs€Ledger€Sheet€(ð ðLedger€Sheetðð)€which€lists€the€Line€ofÏCredit€with€a€beginning€balance€of€$425,000;€the€amount€of€payments€made€toward€the€Line€ofÏCredit€from€1987€through€December€1989;€and€the€ending€balance€in€1989€of€$150,000.€ÏMoreover,€the€parties€stipulated€that€Defendant€and/or€the€Partnership€claimed€as€a€deduction€forÏfederal€income€tax€purposes€the€interest€paid€on€the€Line€of€Credit.€€Defendant,€however,€disputesÏthat€this€was€a€Partnership€debt€and€points€to€the€fact€that€the€Line€of€Credit€was€in€Plaintiffððs€name.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€parties€operated€the€Partnership€from€1983€until€1989€when€they€agreed€to€a€Ïdissolution€of€the€Partnership.€€€The€parties€agreed€that€Plaintiffððs€portion€of€the€Partnership€assetsÏtotaled€approximately€$150,000.€€Plaintiff€was€given€$50,000€in€inventory€and€$50,000€in€cash,Ïwith€the€remaining€$50,000€(ð ðDissolution€Debtðð)€to€be€paid€by€Defendant€over€time.€€As€in€theÏcase€of€the€partiesðð€Partnership€agreement,€their€dissolution€agreement€was€not€written.€€ÌÌà àà àAt€this€point,€the€partiesðð€versions€of€the€facts€differ€sharply.€Plaintiff€claims€thatÏDefendant€agreed€to€pay€the€remaining€$150,000€balance€owed€on€the€Line€of€Credit€òòandóó€after€theÏLine€of€Credit€was€paid€entirely,€Defendant€then€was€to€pay€Plaintiff€the€outstanding€$50,000ÏDissolution€Debt.€€By€contrast,€Defendant€does€not€dispute€that€he€owed€Plaintiff€the€$50,000ÏDissolution€Debt,€but€he€claims€that€his€payments€on€the€Line€of€Credit€debt€were€credited€to€theÏ$50,000€Dissolution€Debt.€€Defendant€disputes€Plaintiffððs€contention€that€he€agreed€to€pay€the€LineÏof€Credit€òòandóó€then€the€Dissolution€Debt.€€The€parties,€however,€did€stipulate€at€trial€that€DefendantÏcontinued€to€make€payments€toward€the€Line€of€Credit€debt€from€the€date€of€dissolution€inÏDecember€1989,€until€October€1992.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€October€1992,€the€successor€to€Merchants€Bank,€SunTrust€Bank,€requested€thatÏPlaintiff€liquidate€the€Line€of€Credit€debt.€€Plaintiff€then€obtained€an€installment€loan€from€anotherÏlender€(ð ðInstallment€Loanðð),€to€pay€in€full€the€Line€of€Credit€debt€of€approximately€$117,040.× ƒ, ××  ×€ÏAround€the€time€that€the€Installment€Loan€was€obtained,€in€an€apparent€bank€error,€a€personal€loanÏto€Plaintiff€in€the€amount€of€$20,000€was€placed€on€the€Line€of€Credit.€€According€to€Plaintiff,€theÏparties€discussed€this€issue€and€agreed€that€the€Dissolution€Debt€of€$50,000€would€be€off„set€byÏ$20,000€to€total€$30,000€with€Defendant€to€pay€the€remaining€Line€of€Credit€debt€which€nowÏincluded€Plaintiffððs€$20,000€personal€loan.€€At€trial,€Plaintiff€testified€that€the€Installment€Loan€debtÏwas€not€to€be€paid€within€a€year€but€rather€was€to€be€paid€over€time.ÌÌà àà àFrom€November€1992€through€May€1996,€Defendant€made€the€monthly€paymentsÏof€$2,200€on€the€Installment€Loan€by€giving€a€check€to€Plaintiff€who,€in€turn,€endorsed€the€check€toÏmake€the€Installment€Loan€payment.€€As€in€the€case€of€the€Line€of€Credit€debt,€Defendant€claimedÏas€a€deduction€on€his€federal€income€tax€the€interest€he€paid€on€the€Installment€Loan.€€€DefendantÏtestified€that€after€May€1996,€he€stopped€making€payments€on€the€Installment€Loan€because€heÏbelieved€that€he€had€paid€enough€toward€the€Dissolution€Debt€owed€to€Plaintiff.€€Plaintiff,€on€theÏother€hand,€testified€that€Defendant€expressly€acknowledged€that€he€owed€the€debt€on€theÏInstallment€Loan€but€that€he€was€having€financial€difficulties.€€Although€not€contained€in€theirÏstipulations,€it€is€not€disputed€that€after€May€1996,€Defendant€made€three€more€payments€on€theÍInstallment€Loan.× ƒ- ××  ×€€The€Trial€Court€found€that€Defendant€made€his€last€payment€on€the€InstallmentÏLoan€in€April€1998.€Thereafter,€in€May€1998,€Plaintiff€paid€off€the€Installment€Loan€balance€ofÏ$47,890.€ÌÌà àà àOn€April€29,€1999,€Plaintiff€filed€his€Complaint,€alleging€that€Defendant€owed€himÏ$30,000€on€the€Dissolution€Debt€plus€the€$47,890€Plaintiff€paid€on€the€Installment€Loan.€€In€hisÏAnswer,€with€respect€to€the€Dissolution€Debt,€Defendant€raised€the€defense€of€statute€of€limitations.€ÏDefendant€also€alleged€in€his€Answer€that€any€agreement€that€he€made€with€Plaintiff€to€pay€the€LineÏof€Credit€and€Installment€Loan€(collectively€ð ðPartnership€Debtsðð)€violates€the€Statute€of€FraudsÏand€is,€therefore,€unenforceable.€ÌÌà àà àAfter€a€bench€trial,€the€Trial€Court€awarded€judgment€to€Plaintiff€in€the€amount€ofÏ$87,860,€which€included€money€owed€for€the€Dissolution€Debt€and€the€Installment€Loan€debt,€plusÏpre„judgment€interest.€€Defendant€then€filed€a€post„trial€Motion€to€Make€Additional€Findings€ofÏFact,€to€Alter€or€Amend€the€Judgment,€and€to€Stay€Execution€of€the€Judgment.€€Thereafter,€the€TrialÏCourt€made€additional€findings€of€fact€which€included€the€following:ÌÌà8 àà8 à1)€After€the€partiesðð€dissolution,€Jack€Johnson€Motors€continued€toÏmake€all€of€the€payments€on€the€Line€of€Credit€because€the€moneyÏhad€been€used€for€the€Partnership;ÌÌà8 àà8 à2)€Defendant€continued€to€claim€the€Line€of€Creditððs€interestÏpayments€as€a€deduction€on€his€federal€income€tax€return;ÌÌà8 àà8 à3)€After€the€Line€of€Credit€was€converted€to€an€Installment€Loan,€à8 à€Ïfrom€November€1992€through€May€1996,€Defendant€paid€theÏmonthly€payment€of€$2,200€ð ðin€accordance€with€the€parties€[sic]Ïagreementðð;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à4)€After€May€1996,€Defendant€made€three€more€payments€on€theÏInstallment€Loan€totaling€$4,500,€and€the€last€payment€was€made€onÏApril€16,€1998;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à5)€The€Line€of€Credit€belonged€to€the€Partnership€and€was€therefore,Ïð ðthe€Defendantððs€debt,€as€well€as€the€Plaintiffððs€debt.ððÌÌThe€Trial€Court€also€held€that€the€partiesðð€agreement€that€Defendant€would€pay€the€Line€of€CreditÏwas€not€within€the€Statute€of€Frauds€because€the€debt€was€a€Partnership€debt€and€ð ðnot€a€promise€toÏpay€the€debt€of€another.ðð€€The€Trial€Court€further€held€that€even€if€the€Statute€of€Frauds€wasÏapplicable,€Defendant€was€estopped€from€relying€on€the€Statute€because€he€tendered€partialÏperformance€of€his€duty€under€the€partiesðð€agreement.€€An€Agreed€Order€granting€DefendantððsÏmotion€to€stay€was€entered.€€Defendant€appeals.€€We€affirm.ÌÌà@ àò òòòDiscussionó óÌÌà àà àóóOn€appeal€and€although€not€stated€exactly€as€such,€Defendant€raises€the€followingÏissues:€1)€Plaintiffððs€claim€regarding€the€Dissolution€Debt€of€$30,000€is€barred€by€the€applicableÏstatute€of€limitations€of€six€years;€2)€Plaintiffððs€claim€regarding€the€Partnership€Debts€violates€theÏStatute€of€Frauds;€€3)€the€doctrine€of€partial€performance€does€not€apply€to€this€situation€so€as€toÏtake€the€partiesðð€agreement€regarding€the€Partnership€Debts€out€of€the€Statute€of€Frauds;€and€4)€theÏTrial€Court€erred€in€holding€Defendant€liable€for€the€balance€of€the€Installment€Loan€because€it€wasÏnot€a€debt€of€the€Partnership.€€Plaintiff€raises€no€additional€issues€on€appeal.ÌÌà àà àOur€review€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€of€the€findings€of€fact€of€the€Trial€Court,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÏotherwise.€Tenn.€Rule€App.€P.€13(d);òò€Alexander€v.€€Inman,€óó974€S.W.2d€689,€692€(Tenn.€1998).€€AÏTrial€Courtððs€conclusions€of€law€are€subject€to€a€òòde€novoóó€review€with€no€presumption€ofÏcorrectness.€€òòGanzevoort€v.€€Russell,€óó949€S.W.2d€293,€296€(Tenn.€1997).ÌÌà àà àWe€first€address€Defendantððs€argument€regarding€the€Dissolution€Debt€of€$30,000.€ÏDefendant€contends€that€Plaintiffððs€claim€against€him€regarding€the€Dissolution€Debt€is€barred€byÏthe€applicable€statute€of€limitations.€Defendant€contends€that€the€applicable€statute€of€limitationsÏperiod€is€six€years€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„3„109(a)(3).× ƒ/ ××  ×€€Defendant€argues€that€the€partiesÏdid€not€set€a€date€that€the€Dissolution€Debt€was€due,€and€as€a€result,€the€limitations€period€accrued€atÏthe€time€the€promise€was€made.€€òòSee€óó51€Ô_ÔAm.JurÔ_Ô.2d€òòLimitations€of€Actionsóó€ðð€164€(2000)€(stating€thatÏin€an€oral€agreement€to€pay€money,€where€no€date€for€payment€was€set,€the€statute€of€limitationsÏmay€begin€to€run€at€the€time€that€the€promise€is€made).ÌÌÓ ` °XÓà àà àAlthough€we€agree€that€the€applicable€limitations€period€is€six€years,€we€disagree,€asÏdid€the€Trial€Court,€that€the€parties€did€not€set€a€time€that€the€Dissolution€Debt€was€due.€€It€isÏapparent€from€the€Trial€Courtððs€Judgment€in€favor€of€Plaintiff€and€its€rejection€of€this€defense€that€itÏfound€Plaintiff€to€be€more€credible€than€Defendant.€€The€substance€of€the€partiesðð€oral€dissolutionÏagreement€is€provided€by€their€testimony.€€€Plaintiff€testified€that€at€the€time€of€the€partiesððÏdissolution€in€1989,€they€agreed€that€Defendant€first€would€pay€the€Line€of€Credit€debt€and€then€payÏPlaintiff€the€$50,000€Dissolution€Debt.€€Defendantððs€testimony€directly€conflicts€with€PlaintiffððsÏaccount€of€the€partiesðð€agreement.€ÌÌà àà àð ðUnlike€this€Court,€the€[Ô_ÔT]rialÔ_Ô€[Ô_ÔC]ourtÔ_Ô€observed€the€manner€and€demeanor€of€theÏwitnesses€and€was€in€the€best€position€to€evaluate€their€credibility.ðð€€òòUnion€Planters€Ô_ÔNatððlÔ_Ô€Bank€v.ÏIsland€Ô_ÔMgmtÔ_Ô.€Auth.,€Inc.óó,€43€S.W.3d€498,€502€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).€€The€Trial€CourtððsÏdeterminations€regarding€credibility€are€accorded€deference€by€this€Court.€€òòId.óó;òò€Davis€v.€LibertyÏMutual€Ins.€Co.óó,€38€S.W.3d€560,€563€(Tenn.€2001).€€ð ððð[Ô_ÔA]ppellateÔ_Ô€courts€will€not€re„evaluate€a€trialÏjudgeððs€assessment€of€witness€credibility€absent€clear€and€convincing€evidence€to€the€contrary.ððððÏòòWells€v.€Tennessee€Bd.€of€Regentsóó,€9€S.W.3d€779,€783€(Tenn.€1999).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€finding€that€PlaintiffððsÏversion€of€the€dissolution€agreement€is€the€more€credible,€and,€therefore,€the€Dissolution€Debt€wasÏnot€due€until€Defendant€completely€paid€the€Partnership€Debts.€€The€statute€of€limitations€never€wasÍtriggered€since€Defendant€never€completely€paid€the€Partnership€Debts.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€thatÏthe€Trial€Court€did€not€err€in€finding€that€the€statute€of€limitations€had€not€expired€for€PlaintiffððsÏclaim€regarding€the€Dissolution€Debt.ÌÌà àà àWe€now€address€Defendantððs€arguments€related€to€the€Partnership€Debts.€ÏDefendant€contends€that€any€oral€agreement€by€him€to€pay€the€Partnership€Debts€is€unenforceableÏunder€the€Statute€of€Frauds.€€The€Statute€of€Frauds€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€the€following:ÌÌà0 àà àà8 àà8 à(a)€No€action€shall€be€brought:€.€.€.€Ìà@ àÌà8 àà8 à(2)€To€charge€the€defendant€upon€any€special€promise€to€answer€forÏthe€debt,€default,€or€miscarriage€of€another€person;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€Upon€any€agreement€or€contract€which€is€not€to€be€performedÏwithin€the€space€of€one€(1)€year€from€the€making€of€the€agreement€orÏcontract;ÌÌà8 àà8 àunless€the€promise€or€agreement,€upon€which€such€action€shall€beÏbrought,€or€some€memorandum€or€note€thereof,€shall€be€in€writing,Ïand€signed€by€the€party€to€be€charged€therewith,€or€some€otherÏpersonal€lawfully€authorized€by€such€party.ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„2„101.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€Statute€of€Frauds€requires€written€evidence€of€certain€types€of€contracts€beforeÏthose€contracts€can€be€found€enforceable.€€òòÔ_ÔGRWÔ_Ôóó€òòEnter.,€Inc.€v.€Davisóó,€797€S.W.2d€606,€611€(Tenn.ÏCt.€App.€1990).€€This€Court,€in€examining€the€intent€behind€the€Statute€of€Frauds€has€held:€ÌÌà8 àà8 àIts€purpose€is€to€prevent€frauds€based€upon€oral€testimony€and€toÏdeter€the€formation€of€contracts€based€upon€loose€statements€orÏinnuendoes€long€after€witnesses€have€become€unavailable€or€whenÏmemories€of€the€precise€agreement€have€been€dimmed€by€theÏpassage€of€time.ÌÌòòPrice€v.€Mercury€Supply€Co.,€Inc.óó,€682€S.W.2d€924,€932€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984).€€The€application,Ïhowever,€of€the€Statute€of€Frauds€is€not€without€limits,€and€courts€should€not€allow€a€person€to€useÏthe€Statute€ð ðto€avoid€contracts€or€to€ððgrant€a€privilege€to€a€person€to€refuse€to€perform€what€he€hasÏagreed€to€do.ðððð€€òòÔ_ÔGRWÔ_Ôóó€òòEnter.,€Inc.€v.€Davisóó,€797€S.W.2d€at€611€(quoting€òòCobble€v.€Ô_ÔLangfordÔ_Ôóó,€230ÏS.W.2d€194,€196€(Tenn.€1950));€òòsee€also€Jarrett€v.€Ô_ÔEpperlyÔ_Ôóó,€896€F.2d€1013,€1018€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1990)Ï(holding€that€ð ðunder€Tennessee€law,€a€wrongdoer€is€not€permitted€to€rely€on€the€Statute€of€Frauds€Ïdefenseðð).ÌÌà àà àDefendant€contends€that€any€agreement€he€made€to€pay€the€Partnership€Debts€isÏunenforceable€because€it€violates€the€Statute€of€Frauds€since€it€is€a€promise€to€pay€the€debt€ofÏanother€person.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„2„101(2).€€The€Trial€Court€found€this€agreement€to€beÏoutside€of€the€Statute€of€Frauds€because€the€Line€of€Credit€debt€was€the€Partnershipððs€and,Ïtherefore,€€the€debt€of€Defendant€and€Plaintiff.€€Although€Defendant€argues€that€any€agreement€heÏmade€to€pay€the€Line€of€Credit€and€the€Installment€Loan€violates€the€Statute,€Defendantððs€argumentÏprimarily€involves€the€Installment€Loan.€€Defendant€argues€that€the€Trial€Courtððs€findings€did€notÏaddress€the€Installment€Loan€taken€out€by€Plaintiff€in€1992.€€Defendant€also€argues€that€the€Line€ofÏCredit€was€paid€in€full€when€Plaintiff€obtained€the€Installment€Loan€and€also€that€the€InstallmentÍLoan€is€actually€a€separate€debt€from€the€Line€of€Credit,€and€,€therefore,€not€a€Partnership€debt.€ÏMoreover,€Defendant€points€to€Plaintiffððs€testimony€that€he€listed€the€Installment€Loan€on€hisÏfinancial€statement€as€a€debt.€€ÌÌà àà àAfter€careful€consideration€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€contained€in€the€record,€Ïwe€hold€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€determination€that€theÏLine€of€Credit€is€a€Partnership€debt.€€We€find€no€error€in€the€Trial€Courtððs€holding€that€DefendantÏis€liable€for€the€amount€paid€by€Plaintiff€on€the€Installment€Loan.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔGanzevoortÔ_Ô€v.€Russell,€óó949ÏS.W.2d€at€296;€Tenn.€Rule€App.€P.€13(d);òò€Alexander€v.€€Ô_ÔInmanÔ_Ô,€óó974€S.W.2d€at€692.€€The€partiesÏstipulated€that€in€February€1983,€when€the€parties€entered€their€Partnership€agreement,€PlaintiffÏobtained€a€Line€of€Credit.€€It€is€not€disputed€that€the€proceeds€from€the€Line€of€Credit€were€to€beÏand€were€used€in€the€operation€of€the€Partnershipððs€business,€Jack€Johnson€Motors,€and€toÏpurchase€inventory€for€the€Partnership.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€61„1„107(a)€ð!ð€(b).€€The€partiesððÏstipulations€included€that€while€they€were€partners,€Jack€Johnson€Motors€made€all€payments€on€theÏLine€of€Credit€and€that€after€the€dissolution€of€the€Partnership€in€1989,€Defendant€continued€toÏmake€payments€on€the€Line€of€Credit.€€Further,€the€record€shows€that€the€Partnershipððs€BalanceÏSheet€and€Ledger€Sheet€both€referred€to€the€Line€of€Credit€as€its€liability.€€Moreover,€the€partiesÏstipulated€that€Defendant€and/or€Jack€Johnson€Motors€claimed€the€interest€paid€on€both€the€Line€ofÏCredit€and€the€Installment€Loan€for€federal€income€tax€purposes.€ÌÌà àà àIn€addition,€the€proof€in€the€record€shows€that€in€1992,€the€Line€of€Credit€was€paidÏoff€with€the€proceeds€of€the€Installment€Loan€only€at€the€request€of€the€successor€of€MerchantððsÏBank,€Ô_ÔSunTrustÔ_Ô.€€As€found€by€the€Trial€Court,€and€as€stipulated€by€the€parties,€when€the€Line€ofÏCredit€was€converted€to€the€Installment€Loan,€Defendant€continued€to€make€regular€monthlyÏpayments€toward€the€debt€until€1996.€€Plaintiff€testified€that€thereafter,€Defendant€made€three€moreÏpayments€on€the€Installment€Loan€until€1998,€and€the€Trial€Court€incorporated€this€into€its€findingsÏof€fact.€€€ÌÌà àà àSince€the€Trial€Court€found€Defendant€liable€for€the€balance€on€the€InstallmentÏLoan,€€it€clearly€treated€the€Line€of€Credit€debt€and€the€Installment€Loan€as€the€same€debt€belongingÏto€the€Partnership.€€Likewise,€Defendant€treated€this€debt€as€the€same€obligation€as€well€sinceÏDefendant€continued€making€regular€payments€for€four€years€after€the€debt€was€converted.€ÏAccordingly,€we€hold€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€finding€thatÏthe€Line€of€Credit€debt€was€a€Partnership€debt.€€Tenn.€Rule€App.€P.€13(d);òò€Alexander€v.€Ô_ÔInmanÔ_Ô,€óó974ÏS.W.2d€at€692.€€We€find€no€error€in€the€Trial€Courtððs€determination€that€the€partiesðð€agreement€thatÏDefendant€would€pay€the€Line€of€Credit€debt€was€not€an€agreement€to€pay€the€debt€of€another,€and,Ïtherefore,€does€not€fall€within€the€Statute€of€Frauds.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€29„2„101(a)(2);òòÏÔ_ÔGanzevoortÔ_Ô€v.€Russell,€óó949€S.W.2d€at€296.€€Ìà àà àÌà àà àDefendant€also€argues€on€appeal€that€any€agreement€he€made€with€Plaintiff€to€payÏthe€Installment€Loan€violates€the€Statute€of€Frauds€because€it€was€not€to€be€performed€within€oneÏyear.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„2„101(5).× ƒ0 ××  ×€€We€disagree.€€This€Court€has€held€that€this€particularÏprovision€of€the€Statute€of€Frauds€is€ð ðgenerally€construed€very€narrowly€by€the€courts€.€.€.€becauseÏcourts€generally€attempt€to€give€effect€to€contracts€rather€than€defeating€them.ðð€€òòPrice€v.€MercuryÏSupply€Co.,€Inc.óó,€682€S.W.2d€at€932.€€In€interpreting€this€particular€provision€of€the€Statute,€thisÏCourt€held:ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àà8 àð ðThe€question€is€not€what€the€probable,€expected,€or€actual€performance€ofÏthe€contract€may€be,€but€whether,€according€to€the€reasonable€interpretationÏof€its€terms,€it€requires€that€it€should€not€be€performed€within€the€year.€ÏUnless€the€court,€looking€at€the€contract€in€view€of€the€surroundings,€can€sayÏthat€in€no€reasonable€probability€can€such€agreement€be€performed€withinÏthe€year,€it€is€its€duty€to€uphold€the€contract.€ÌÌà@ à*€*€*€*€*€*€*€*€ÌÌà8 àà0 àà àà8 à[Ô_ÔI]fÔ_Ô€a€contract,€when€made,€was€in€reality€capable€of€full€and€bona€fideÏperformance€with€[sic]€the€year,€it€is€to€be€considered€as€not€within€theÏstatute.ððÌÌòòId.óó€(quoting€òòÔ_ÔBoutwellÔ_Ô€v.€Lewis€Bros.€Lumber€Co.óó,€182€S.W.2d€1,€3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1944);ÏòòAnderson„Gregory€Co.€v.€Leaóó,€370€S.W.2d€934,€936€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1963)).ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€the€proof€in€the€record€does€not€show€that€both€debts€were€not€capableÏof€being€paid€in€full€within€one€year.€€Stated€conversely,€it€was€possible€for€the€debts€to€be€paidÏwithin€one€year.€€We€acknowledge€Plaintiffððs€testimony€that€the€Line€of€Credit€debt€was€to€be€paidÏback€over€time,€instead€of€one€year.€€The€proof€in€the€record€does€not€show,€however,€that€there€wasÏno€ð ðððreasonable€probability€.€.€.ðððð€that€this€agreement€could€not€be€performed€within€one€year.€€òòId.óóÏ(quoting€òòÔ_ÔBoutwellÔ_Ô€v.€Lewis€Bros.€Lumber€Co.óó,€182€S.W.2d€at€3).€€There€is€no€proof€in€the€recordÏon€appeal€that€the€lenders€would€have€refused€full€payment€within€the€first€year€after€the€partiesððÏagreement.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€the€Trial€Court€correctly€held€that€Defendantððs€agreement€toÏpay€the€Partnership€Debts€does€not€violate€the€Statute€of€Frauds,€and€is,€therefore,€enforceable.ÌÌà àà àNevertheless,€if€the€partiesðð€agreement€does€violate€the€Statute€of€Frauds,ÏDefendantððs€partial€performance€takes€the€agreement€out€of€the€Statute.€€ð ðTennessee€courts€.€.€.Ïrecognize€a€part€performance€exception€to€the€Statute€which€is€applicable€to€oral€contracts€other€thanÏfor€the€sale€of€land.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔSchniderÔ_Ô€v€.€Carlisle€Corp.óó,€No.€W2000„01695„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV,€2001€WLÏ400387,€at€*€3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Apr.€19,€2001).€€In€explaining€the€purpose€and€application€of€thisÏexception€to€the€Statute€of€Frauds,€this€Court€held:ÌÌà8 àà8 àThis€doctrine€of€partial€performance€to€take€the€verbal€contract€out€ofÏthe€operation€of€the€Statute€of€Frauds€is€purely€an€equitable€doctrineÏand€is€a€judicial€interpretation€of€the€acts€of€the€parties€to€preventÏfrauds.€.€.€.€€ð ðThe€plaintiff€must€be€able€to€show€such€acts€andÏconduct€of€the€defendant€as€the€court€would€hold€to€amount€to€aÏrepresentation€that€he€proposed€to€stand€by€his€agreement€and€notÏavail€himself€to€the€statute€to€escape€its€performance;€and€also€thatÏthe€plaintiff,€in€reliance€on€this€representation,€has€proceeded,€eitherÏin€performance€or€pursuance€of€his€contract,€so€far€to€alter€hisÏposition€as€to€incur€an€unjust€and€unconscious€injury€and€loss,€inÏcase€the€defendant€is€permitted€after€all€to€rely€upon€the€statutoryÏdefense.€.€.€.ððÌÌòòÔ_ÔCalabroÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔCalabroÔ_Ôóó,€15€S.W.3d€873,€878€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000)€(quoting€òòÔ_ÔBlasingameÔ_Ô€v.€American€ÏMaterials,€Inc.óó,€654€S.W.2d€659,€663€(Tenn.€1983)).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€Trial€Court€found€that€Defendant€partially€performed€his€agreement€to€pay€theÏPartnership€Debts€after€the€1989€Partnership€dissolution.€€Consistently€from€1989€until€1996,€andÏsporadically€from€1996€until€1998,€Defendant€made€payments€toward€the€Partnership€DebtsÏtotaling€$96,900,€leaving€only€a€balance€of€$47,890.€€This€evidence€is€strong€support€that€DefendantÏintended€to€perform€his€agreement€to€pay€the€Partnership€Debts€after€the€partiesðð€dissolution.€€òòSeeÏid.óó€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€this€finding€by€the€Trial€Court.ÌÌà àà àMoreover,€we€disagree€with€Defendantððs€argument€on€appeal€that€the€doctrine€ofÏpart€performance€does€not€apply€because€Plaintiff€did€not€place€himself€in€a€detrimental€position€byÏrelying€upon€Defendantððs€agreement€to€pay€the€Partnership€Debts.€€The€proof€in€the€record€showsÏthat€over€a€number€of€years€and€long€after€the€Partnership€ended,€Plaintiff€justifiably€relied€uponÏDefendant€to€pay€a€debt€incurred€in€the€first€place€for€their€Partnershipððs€business.€€At€the€time€ofÏthe€Partnership€dissolution,€Defendant€kept€most€of€the€inventory€which€had€been€purchased€withÏthe€Line€of€Credit€proceeds.€€Partial€performance€by€both€parties€occurred.€€Further,€onceÏDefendant€stopped€making€regular€payments€on€the€Installment€Loan,€Plaintiff€had€to€make€theÏmonthly€payments€of€$2,200€from€his€own€funds,€and€although€the€proof€in€the€record€regardingÏthe€terms€of€the€Installment€Loan€is€minimal,€it€is€likely€that€if€Plaintiff€did€not€make€the€regularÏpayments,€he€risked€penalties€and€interest€accumulation.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€the€Trial€CourtÏcorrectly€held€that€even€if€the€agreement€was€within€the€Statute€of€Frauds,€the€doctrine€of€partialÏperformance€rendered€it€enforceable.€€ÌÌà àà àDefendantððs€final€argument€on€appeal€regarding€the€Partnership€Debts€is€that€if€theÏdebt€belonged€to€the€Partnership,€then€Plaintiff€is€equally€liable€for€the€debt.€€In€light€of€our€findingsÏthat€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€determination€that€Defendant€Ïagreed€to€pay€the€Partnership€debts,€the€principle€of€law€relied€upon€by€Defendant€is€not€applicableÏto€the€facts€found€by€the€Trial€Court.€€ÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONó óóóÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed€and€this€cause€is€remanded€to€the€TrialÏCourt€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€be€required,€if€any,€consistent€with€this€Opinion,€and€forÏcollection€of€the€costs€below.€€The€costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€Appellant,€Jack€Johnson,Ïand€his€surety.ÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________________€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àD.€MICHAEL€Ô_ÔSWINEYÔ_Ô,€JUDGEÌà àà àÌÌ