’WPCZV ĖĀ@¢)ż ņ×Ͷ£u—RŽUĪŗż&zēė…ŖÅäÕ÷Z`’vZ©Ó¢*ˆ,Ē£Œä¾N¼Š4øĖHQ ­öiw—å"Óę7y›ˆĖŲ6¦"’.uX“½Ž±ų;|1yT=ą:š^]³  ƕĢkŕ%|t˜¶ą9ž¢Ÿ<y_ö€‡‘b T#¦“Ł3jOoŗ®FņŻõ‘‚H%o˜²ž čb;šīG¢p;šæå){BÆóu #܇ü¹ūå­õ7=ō/0fb‘^tc Ō<;S{lgš]X•—ŌJggˆ=S ńN ĀĢ;=uĮ¢ēįĖń™ćZēבv;S՚ˆ[äŒyfΌ@„~É„NŪ5 ߛ…€S1€^Čū“·© ”ģŗ'C€?Č"NÆSčķ+V4$mæG‰“ŹīgSatzķ¹z“0eĖdŒŃĘ«ēÅVŚr.FNBmĆņ5 ļ¬eļ tEC»—ūÆln2ņė1³“Ѱ‰avq%øI8rq6Ėɘ ęüj1¼|å’•Ū`¤üAŲÉČųBxŸ™ąŁ‚æ”ćv{£¹š!Ī ›įˆŪ±’‚xóĻ!oØŪUżÜ ‘&¤åiŲńV{¹¬(b 0D®K¼ņK D/®Q BŻQśQżRU:TTT :T˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlĪ'ķ€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular¼($””(q(2¶Š$¤¤Ż ƒ!ŻŻ  ŻŃ°°ŃҰŅŅX°ŅŌ€XŽ™X¼¼ŌÓ  Óą ` ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó E/F/”G/bH/I/”J/K/L/M/ӀW/ģu[%3|xZ/C:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT$$$$'’’dxd(3Æ$©©Ż ƒ!ŻŻ  ݁Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5,@ÓŠAZ‹"Arial Regular(#Ć$ņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó- ł-ingram v. earthman - opinion Ī$ ' IB011T10IB011T1 .    $Ń h ŃŃ  ŃŃ  ѹ ƒ%c $Ń  ŃŃ h ŃŃ  Ń $Ń  ŃŃ  ŃŃ h Ń+’U‹’ĄĄĄ ķŻ ƒ¶Š$ŻŃ@°°ŃҰŅŅX°ŅŌ€XŽ™X¼¼ŌÓ  Óą ` ąņņŚ  Ś1Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌCommerce€Union€Bank€was€later€acquired€by€Sovran€Bank.€€Sovran€Bank,€in€turn,€wasŠ ° Šacquired€by€NationsBank.€€For€the€sake€of€consistency,€we€will€refer€to€the€bank€as€š šCommerceĻUnion€Bankšš€because€the€ownership€of€the€bank€plays€no€direct€role€in€the€resolution€of€the€issuesĻinvolved€in€this€appeal. Ż ƒ±h$ŻŃ@°°ŃҰŅŅX°ŅŌ€X.„X»¼ŌÓ  Óą ` ąņņŚ  Ś3Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌIn€late€1980,€Mr.€Earthmanššs€debts€to€other€banks€were€between€$1,050,000€and€$1,291,000. ģŻ ƒ±h$ŻŃ@°°ŃҰŅŅX°ŅŌ€X.„X»¼ŌÓ  Óą ` ąņņŚ  Ś2Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌņņSee€United€States€v.€McPartlinóó,€595€F.2d€1321€(7th€Cir.€1979). mŻ ƒ±h$ŻŃ@°°ŃҰŅŅX°ŅŌ€X.„X»¼ŌÓ  Óą ` ąņņŚ  Ś4Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌThe€standard€form€note€defined€the€term€š šprime€Ō_ŌrateššŌ_Ō€as€follows:Š ° ŠĢą8 ` ąPrime€Rate€means€the€Bankššs€rate€for€loans€to€its€most€credit€worthy€customers€forĻ90„day€unsecured€loans.€€At€the€time€of€this€agreement,€that€rate€is€_________%€perĻyear,€although€it€will€change€from€time€to€time.€€If€a€change€in€the€Prime€Rate€occurs,Ļthe€interest€on€my€loan€may€be€adjusted€upward€or€downward. ŚŻ ƒ±h$ŻŃ@°°ŃҰŅŅX°ŅŌ€X.„X»¼ŌÓ  Óą ` ąņņŚ  Ś8Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌņņSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€47„3„104(1)€(1979). d QŻ ƒ±h$ŻŃ@°°ŃҰŅŅX°ŅŌ€X.„X»¼ŌÓ  Óą ` ąņņŚ  Ś20Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌHad€Mr.€Earthmanššs€note€been€governed€by€the€Uniform€Commercial€Code,€theŠ ° Šendorsement€of€the€separate€assignment€document€would€not€have€amounted€to€an€endorsement€inĻblank€of€the€note.€€ņņSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€47„3„202(2)€(1979).€€Without€an€assignment€in€blank,€theŠ ą Šnote€could€not€have€been€negotiated€by€delivery€alone.€€ņņSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€47„3„204(2)€(1979). ÖŻ ƒ±h$ŻŃ@°°ŃҰŅŅX°ŅŌ€X.„X»¼ŌÓ  Óą ` ąņņŚ  Ś9Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌņņSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€47„3„104(1)(a). @Ż ƒ±h$ŻŃ@°°ŃҰŅŅX°ŅŌ€X.„X»¼ŌÓ  Óą ` ąņņŚ  Ś5Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌIn€addition€to€his€debt€to€Mr.€Ingram,€Mr.€Earthmanššs€secured€and€unsecured€debt€at€the€timeŠ ° Šwas€between€$775,000€and€$1,305,000. $Ń X ŃŃ  ŃŃ  Ń $Ń  ŃŃ X ŃŃ  Ń $Ń  ŃŃ  ŃŃ X Ń/4;=Cž’<< C’’ ņŻ ƒ±h$ŻŃ@°°ŃҰŅŅX°ŅŌ€X.„X»¼ŌÓ  Óą ` ąņņŚ  Ś21Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌEven€if€Mr.€von€Meiss,€rather€than€Mr.€Ingram,€was€considered€the€holder€of€the€note,€theŠ ° Šrelationship€between€Mr.€von€Meiss€and€Mr.€Ingram€supports€an€inference€that€any€statementsĻacknowledging€or€reaffirming€the€debt€made€to€Mr.€Ingram€would€have€found€their€way€to€Mr.€vonĻMeiss€in€relatively€short€order. čŻ ƒ±h$ŻŃ@°°ŃҰŅŅX°ŅŌ€X.„X»¼ŌÓ  Óą ` ąņņŚ  Ś10Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌņņSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šššš€47„3„104(1)(b),€„105€(1979). €INGRAMDoramusMaclinTraugherDonelsonBearmanIngramSovranNationsBankMcPartlin UABBanque dlEuropeeneTampimexArcataworry[ingCitibankBeershebaestoppedHagedornKuykendallSaylorsRigsbeeMaplewoodNatlPetteroninegotiabilityHolsonbackPartney cmt SavAssn F.dClancyCenterreReinoso a]tBhogaonkerS.D.N.J. HarlWaterslidesConatserMcClain GannCrosslynAlsupO.R.R.PettusHurstFlorianMeiss t]hethuslyis isT]hereprofertGilreathAderholdCaruthersMcIverReifeissRubbelkeStreckerAlsbrookSneedMarinottChladekNorbob MizeAssocsMononaCrossland SunaE.D.N.Y.WeindropMisemerJarmanJudariL.L.C.CycletechStarkeyMcCrarySonneEdlundVetterMcLemore ACATalcottCassingMcKirganPrinieHauptestopGovtHardinNeaterourCacdacHilandReifschneiderEskewWoodlieTowlesRankhornSealtestBelote YerSkidmoreHobbsBrainardHibnerAppersonPattisonFrazorMcCormicGillumMcCroryGrissomCalvertSouterBarrellTuggleCastnerKnottLantroopMorelandEarhartSpellmeyerHartsellReglHeiskGleavesHutsellunrebutted"acknowledgementBlantonreweighBeaham a]nHelmarHarschepretermitTrauger InvsPefferoniMBankS.D.N.Y.AderholtAlsobrookMarinoff SavsJudarlspringwaterMcCorryBeahm WaidRiggsbeeCrosslinStanburyBacardi(3Æ$¢¢Ż ƒ!ŻŻ  Ż īŻ ƒ±h$ŻŃ@°°ŃҰŅŅX°ŅŌ€X.„X»¼ŌÓ  Óą ` ąņņŚ  Ś11Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌņņSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šššš€47„3„104(1)(b),€„106,€„107€(1979). ׯ ƒ±h$ŻŃ@°°ŃҰŅŅX°ŅŌ€X.„X»¼ŌÓ  Óą ` ąņņŚ  Ś12Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌņņSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€47„3„104(1)(c). ׯ ƒ±h$ŻŃ@°°ŃҰŅŅX°ŅŌ€X.„X»¼ŌÓ  Óą ` ąņņŚ  Ś13Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌņņSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€47„3„104(1)(d). ĀŻ ƒ±h$ŻŃ@°°ŃҰŅŅX°ŅŌ€X.„X»¼ŌÓ  Óą ` ąņņŚ  Ś14Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌņņSeeóó€Act€of€May€27,€1981,€ch.€511,€šššš€2€&€3,€1981€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts€846.€€The€legislativeŠ ° Šdebates€clearly€indicate€that€this€bill€was€designed€to€address€the€uncertainty€about€whether€notesĻwith€variable€interest€rate€terms€were€negotiable€instruments.(3Æ$££Ż ƒ!ŻŻ  Ż Ż ƒ±h$ŻŃ@°°ŃҰŅŅX°ŅŌ€X.„X»¼ŌÓ  Óą ` ąņņŚ  Ś16Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌDuring€this€instruction,€the€trial€court€illustrated€its€point€by€explaining:€š šIf€you€borrowŠ ° Šmoney€from€the€bank€and€sign€the€note€and€you€go€back€in€and€say€to€the€bank,€give€me€my€noteĻback,€and€they€give€you€the€note,€they€canššt€enforce€the€note€anymore€because€they€donššt€have€Ō_Ōit.ššŌ_Ō 9Ż ƒ±h$ŻŃ@°°ŃҰŅŅX°ŅŌ€X.„X»¼ŌÓ  Óą ` ąņņŚ  Ś6Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌņņSeeóó€Act€of€May€22,€1995,€ch.€397,€1995€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts€617,€codified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Š ° Ššššš€47„3„101,€„605€(1996). öŻ ƒ±h$ŻŃ@°°ŃҰŅŅX°ŅŌ€X.„X»¼ŌÓ  Óą ` ąņņŚ  Ś7Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌņņSeeóó€Act€of€May€22,€1995,€ch.€397,€šš€6,€1995€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts€617,€667. \Ż ƒ±h$ŻŃ@°°ŃҰŅŅX°ŅŌ€X.„X»¼ŌÓ  Óą ` ąņņŚ  Ś15Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌParagraph€14€of€the€complaint€states:Š ° ŠĢą8 ` ąą ø ąOn€or€about€October€14,€1980,€Earthman€signed€an€eighteen€monthĻpromissory€note€on€a€Commerce€Union€promissory€note€form€promising€to€payĻIngram€$1,700,000€together€with€interest€and€delivered€that€note€to€IngramššsĻsecretary€(the€š šNotešš).€€A€copy€of€the€Note,€which€is€due,€owing€and€unpaid€to€theĻpresent€day,€is€attached€hereto€as€Exhibit€A. ĮŻ ƒ±h$ŻŃ@°°ŃҰŅŅX°ŅŌ€X.„X»¼ŌÓ  Óą ` ąņņŚ  Ś17Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌProducing€a€note€at€trial€differs€from€the€plaintiffššs€traditional€obligation€to€make€profertŠ ° Šof€the€note€in€its€complaint.€€Making€profert€amounted€to€an€averment€by€the€plaintiff€that€theĻoriginal€instrument€on€which€its€suit€was€based€was€in€court€or€in€the€possession€of€the€pleader,€readyĻto€be€produced€or€shown€to€the€adverse€party€if€desired.€€ņņSeeóó€Sam€B.€Gilreath€&€Bobby€R.€Aderholt,Š €Š ŠņņCaruthersšš€History€of€a€Lawsuitó󀚚€128,€at€143€(8th€ed.€1963).€€Profert€was€not€required€at€commonŠ pĄ Šlaw€in€a€suit€on€a€note,€ņņsee€Gardner€v.€Henryóó,€45€Tenn.€(5€Cold.)€458,€459€(1868),€but€had€beenŠ ` ° Šrequired€by€statute€in€Tennessee€ever€since€1819.€€ņņSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€20„706€(1955).€€TheŠ P   Šstatutory€obligation€to€make€profert€was€repealed€in€1972€following€the€adoption€of€the€TennesseeĻRules€of€Civil€Procedure,€sņņeeóó€Act€of€March€21,€1972,€ch.€565,€šš€1(6),€1972€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts.€382,Š 0 € Š384,€and€was€replaced€by€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€10.03€which€permits€attaching€a€copy€of€the€writtenĻinstrument€sued€on€rather€than€the€original.€€Profert€was€never€required€in€suits€on€the€debtĻunderlying€the€note.€€ņņSee€Gardner€v.€Henryóó,€45€Tenn.€(5€Cold.)€at€459.  Ż ƒ±h$ŻŃ@°°ŃҰŅŅX°ŅŌ€X.„X»¼ŌÓ  Óą ` ąņņŚ  Ś18Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌThe€maker€of€a€note,€as€a€general€matter,€gives€a€note€as€payment€for€an€underlyingŠ ° Šobligation.€€ņņSeeóó€Hagedorn,€šš€11.06.€€The€underlying€obligation,€usually€itself€a€contract,€is€theŠ  š Šoriginal€obligation€between€the€parties€that€led€to€the€issuance€of€the€note.€€The€issuance€of€a€noteĻdoes€not€€discharge€the€underlying€obligation,€but€rather€suspends€it.€€ņņSeeóó€2€White€&€Summers,€šš€16„Š €Š Š14.ĢĢą ` ąRefusal€to€pay€a€note€when€due€results€not€only€in€a€breach€of€the€terms€of€the€note€but€alsoĻa€breach€of€the€underlying€obligation.€€When€a€maker€dishonors€a€note,€the€holder€may€seek€judicialĻrelief€on€the€note€itself,€the€underlying€obligation,€or€both€in€the€alternative.ņņ€€See€First€State€BankŠ 0 € Š&€Trust€Co.€v.€McIveróó,€681€F.€Supp.€1562,€1564€(M.D.€Ga.€1988);€ņņReifeiss€v.€Barnesóó,€192€S.W.2dŠ  p  Š427,€430€(St.€L.€Ct.€App.€1946);€ņņRubbelke€v.€Streckeróó,€765€P.2d€314,€316€(Wash.€Ct.€App.€1988).€Š `  ŠThus,€as€between€the€original€parties,€the€payee€may€sue€the€maker€on€the€note€or€may€waive€theĻcause€of€action€on€the€note€and€sue€on€the€underlying€obligation.€€ņņSee€Alsobrook€v.€Hathawayóó,€35Š š@  ŠTenn.€(3€Sneed)€454,€457€(1856);€ņņCook€v.€Beechóó,€29€Tenn.€(10€Hum.)€412,€414€(1849);€ņņsee€alsoŠ ą0  ŠAffiliated€Acceptance€Corp.€v.€óóBoggs,€917€S.W.2d€652,€656€(Mo.€Ct.€App.€1996);€ņņMansion€Carpet,Š Š  ŠInc.€v.€Marinoffóó,€265€N.Y.S.2d€298,€299€(App.€Div.€1965);€ņņDoyle€v.€Chladekóó,€401€P.2d€18,€25€(Ore.Š Ą Š1965).€€ĢĢą ` ąThe€suit€on€the€note€is€preferable.€€ņņSeeóó€3€Joseph€F.€Randolf,€ņņA€Treatise€on€the€Law€ofŠ ą ŠCommercial€Paperó󀚚€1673€(St.€Paul,€West€2d€ed.€1899).€€However,€if€the€action€is€brought€on€theŠ €Š Šunderlying€obligation,€the€plaintiff€need€not€produce€the€note.€€ņņSee€Gardner€v.€Henryóó,€45€Tenn.€(5Š pĄ ŠCold.)€at€459€(holding€that€profert€was€not€necessary);€ņņsee€also€United€Postal€Savs.€Assššn€v.€NorbobŠ `° ŠEnters.,€Inc.óó,€792€S.W.2d€898,€901€(Mo.€Ct.€App.€1990).€€In€this€circumstance,€the€note€is€simplyŠ P  Ševidence€of€the€makerššs€indebtedness€to€the€payee.€€ņņSee€Owen€v.€George€Cole€Motor€Co.óó,€155€Tenn.Š @ Š250,€252,€292€S.W.€1,€2€(1927);€ņņsee€also€Price€v.€Mizeóó,€628€P.2d€705,€706€(Okla.€1981);€ņņMortgageŠ 0€ ŠAssocs.,€Inc.€v.€Monona€Shores,€Inc.óó,€177€N.W.2d€340,€347€(Wis.€1970).Š  p ŠĢą ` ąThe€wording€of€Mr.€Ingramššs€complaint€is€broad€enough€to€include€a€claim€based€on€theĻOctober€14,€1980€note€and€a€claim€based€on€the€underlying€$1,700,000€loan.€€Thus,€while€Mr.ĻIngram€could€have€elected€to€pursue€Mr.€Earthman€on€the€underlying€loan,€he€did€not.€€The€entireĻcourse€of€the€proceedings€following€the€trial€courtššs€November€1994€order€dismissing€all€of€Mr.ĻIngramššs€claims€against€Mr.€Earthman€except€the€claim€based€on€the€note€demonstrates€that€Mr.ĻIngram€elected€to€pursue€the€claim€based€on€Mr.€Earthmanššs€October€14,€1980€note.($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó ó ²Ż ƒ±h$ŻŃ@°°ŃҰŅŅX°ŅŌ€X.„X»¼ŌÓ  Óą ` ąņņŚ  Ś19Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌA€Ń @ ŃŃ @ Ństatute€of€limitations€bars€the€remedy€only;€it€does€not€undermine€the€substance€of€theŠ ° Šplaintiffššs€claim€or€cause€of€action.€€ņņSee€Woodlie€v.€Towlesóó,€68€Tenn.€592,€593„94€(1877);€ņņWyatt€v.Š  š ŠA„Best€Prods.€Co.óó,€924€S.W.2d€98,€102€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995);€ņņRankhorn€v.€Sealtest€Foodsóó,€63€Tenn.Š ą ŠApp.€714,€723,€479€S.W.2d€649,€652€(1971).€Some€older€decisions€hold€that€the€revival€exceptionĻpredicates€liability€on€the€original€debt€that€has€been€revived,€ņņsee€e.g.,€Jordan€v.€Jordanóó,€85€Tenn.Š pĄ Š561,€565€(1887);ņņWoodlie€v.€Towlesóó,€68€Tenn.€at€594;€ņņWilliamson€Bros.€v.€Danielóó,€21€Tenn.€App.€346,Š ` ° Š351,€110€S.W.2d€1028,€1031€(1937);€while€other€older€decisions€predicated€liability€on€the€newĻpromise.€€ņņSee€e.g.,€Beloteššs€Executors€v.€Wynneóó,€15€Tenn.€(7€Yer.)€534,€543„44€(1835).€€Other€courtsŠ @  Šhave€observed€that€whether€the€remedy€for€the€old€cause€of€action€is€revived€or€a€new€cause€of€actionĻbased€on€the€old€consideration€is€created€are€š šquestions€of€some€metaphysical€nicety,€but€[are]€of€noĻpractical€Ō_Ōimportance.ššŌ_Ō€€ņņHannah€v.€Hawkinsóó,€73€Tenn.€240,€242€(1880).>>'÷’ dxdü’P Pd łŻ ƒ/Æ"ŻŻ  ŻŌ€¼ݵ¼¼¼ŌŌ€(Ų¼¼ݵŌÓ  Óņ ņŌ Ad ŌFILEDŌ€XXm X(ŲŌŠ  ŠĢDecember€8,€1998ĢĢCecil€W.€CrowsonĢAppellate€Court€ClerkŌdAhŌó ó łŻ ƒ/Æ"ŻŻ  ŻŌ€A¼ݵ¼¼¼ŌŌ€A(Ų¼A¼ݵŌÓ  Óņ ņŌ Ad ŌFILEDŌ€AXXm XA(ŲŌŠ  ŠĢ0ctober€21,€1998ĢĢCecil€W.€CrowsonĢAppellate€Court€ClerkŌdAhŌó ó,@ÓŠAZ‹"Arial Regular Ż ƒ±h$ŻŃ@°°ŃҰŅŅX°ŅŌ€X.„X»¼ŌÓ  Óą ` ąņņŚ  Ś22Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌBecause€we€have€affirmed€the€judgment€based€on€Mr.€Ingramššs€claims€arising€from€theŠ ° ŠOctober€14,€1980€note,€we€pretermit€the€three€issues€raised€by€Mr.€Ingram€concerning€the€trialĻcourtššs€summary€dismissal€of€his€intentional€and€negligent€misrepresentation€claims€and€theĻcalculation€of€interest€should€the€case€be€remanded€for€a€new€trial.Ż ƒ!ŻŻ  ŻŌ_ŌҰŅŅX°ŅŃܰŃŃTR[¤ AŲ'’ Legal3Ų' AŲ'’ Legal’3Ų'TŃŌ€„]É„¼¼ŌŃ  ŃńW/ńńM/ńßr€+? <,(j 8` `€€@E Ż` 8ttxPXÜš  rßńM/ńńW/ńńW/ńńW/ńĢńW/ńßt€+@ >.*jxžž` `€€@Eb` 8ttxPVšš Č tßńW/ńą@” ” Dąņ ņIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆŠ Dh Šą@ÜÜ)DąAT€NASHVILLEˆĢŌ€¼fū¼„„]ÉŌó óĢĢĢFREDERIC€B.€INGRAM,ą Ą ąą  ą)Š V z Šą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ą)Ģą ` ąPlaintiff/Appellee,ą Ą ąą  ą)Š ‚¦  Šą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ą)ą p ąDavidson€ChanceryŠ ˜¼  ŠVS.ą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ą)ą p ąNo.€94„842„IIIŠ ®Ņ  Šą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ą)Ģą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ą)ą p ąAppeal€No.Š Śž  ŠWILLIAM€F.€EARTHMAN,ą Ą ąą  ą)ą p ą01A01„9510„CH„00439Š š  Šą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ą)Ģą ` ąDefendant/Appellant.ą Ą ąą  ą)Š @ ŠĢĢĢą@``DąAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYˆĢą@88$DąAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEˆĢĢĢą@Ī Ī DąTHE€HONORABLE€ROBERT€S.€BRANDT,€CHANCELLORˆĢĢĢĢĢņņFor€the€Plaintiff/Appelleeóó:ą Ą ąą  ąą p ąņņFor€the€Defendant/Appellantóó:Š :%^ ŠĢJames€V.€Doramusą h ąą Ą ąą  ąą p ąMaclin€P.€Davis,€Jr.Š f'Š! ŠGregory€Mitchellą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ąą p ąH.€Buckley€ColeŠ |( " ŠDoramus€&€Traugerą h ąą Ą ąą  ąą p ąJonathan€ColeŠ ’)¶#  ŠNashville,€Tennesseeą h ąą Ą ąą  ąą p ąBaker€Donelson€Bearman€&€CaldwellŠ Ø*Ģ$! Šą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ąą p ąNashville,€TennesseeĢĢĢĢĢĢĢą@%Dąņ ņŌ€„]É„¼¼fūŌAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó óˆŠ X3|-) ŠĢŌ€¼fū¼„„]ÉŌĢĢĢą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ąą p ąWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEŠ  j9Ž3. ŠŌ_ŌѰÜŃŃX°ŃŌ€„]É„¼¼fūŌņņÓ  ÓŃ€ŃŃ7€fū¼¼d¼¼d7ŃŃ  ŃÓ€ÓńE/ńńD/ńŃ€‚7#ŃńD/ńńE/ńńF/ńńE/ńŃ€ź#ŃńE/ńńF/ńńG/ńńF/ńŃ€”ł#ŃńF/ńńG/ńńH/ńńG/ńŃ€(€G#ŃńG/ńńH/ńńI/ńńH/ńŃ€)Ćé#ŃńH/ńńI/ńńI/ńŃ€*±÷#ŃńI/ńą@ĪĪ)Dąņ ņO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóˆŠ ° ŠĢŌ€¼fū¼„„]ÉŌą ` ąThis€appeal€involves€a€dispute€between€two€former€friends€and€businessŠ č8 Šassociates€over€a€sizeable€personal€debt.€€After€one€of€the€friends€failed€to€repay€aĻ$1,700,000€loan,€the€friend€who€had€loaned€the€money€filed€suit€in€the€ChanceryĻCourt€for€Davidson€County€seeking€to€recover€the€loan€and€interest.€€The€borrowerĻasserted€that€the€lender€had€delayed€too€long€in€filing€suit€and€counterclaimed€forĻallegedly€unpaid€compensation€and€retirement€benefits.€€A€jury€awarded€the€lenderĻ$5,667,122.84€on€the€debt,€and€the€trial€court,€with€the€partiesšš€consent,€awarded€theĻlender€an€additional€$400,000€for€his€legal€expenses.€€On€this€appeal,€the€€borrowerĻraises€numerous€issues€relating€to€the€denial€of€his€motions€for€directed€verdict,€theĻadequacy€of€the€jury€instructions,€the€instructions€limiting€the€use€of€the€evidence€ofĻthe€lenderššs€prior€criminal€conviction,€and€the€excessiveness€of€the€verdict.€€We€haveĻdetermined€that€the€judgment€should€be€affirmed.ĢĢą@łł.Dąņ ņI.ó óˆŠ e ŠĢą ` ąFrederic€B.€Ingram€and€William€F.€Earthman€became€acquaintances€in€the€earlyĻ1960's.€€Mr.€Ingram€was€the€scion€of€a€prominent,€wealthy€Nashville€family.€€Mr.ĻEarthman€was€the€young,€fast„rising€president€of€Nashvilleššs€Commerce€UnionĻBank,׃ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś1Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€one€of€a€group€of€banks€extending€credit€to€the€Ingram€Corporation.€€Mr.Š :&Š!( ŠEarthman€had€been€the€bank€officer€assigned€to€the€Ingram€Corporation€accounts€forĻseveral€years€and€had€developed€a€cordial€business€relationship€with€Mr.€IngramššsĻfather.€€The€business€dealings€between€the€two€men€ripened€into€a€close€personalĻrelationship€between€the€two€men€and€their€families.€€€€ĢĢą ` ąIn€1970€Mr.€Earthman€was€elected€chief€operating€officer€of€Tennessee€ValleyĻBancorp,€the€holding€company€that€owned€Commerce€Union€Bank.€€He€retained€hisĻposition€as€president€of€Commerce€Union€Bank.€€Despite€the€outward€appearance€ofĻfinancial€success€and€security,€Mr.€Earthmanššs€personal€finances€were€burdened€byĻlarge€medical€expenses€associated€with€a€chronic€mental€illness€of€one€of€his€children.€Š „6Ō1< ŠMr.€Earthman€was€struggling€to€keep€up€with€these€expenses,€and€in€September€1972,Ļhe€turned€to€Mr.€Ingram€for€help.€€Mr.€Ingram€agreed€to€loan€Mr.€Earthman€$600,000Ļfor€six€months,€and€Mr.€Earthman€executed€a€note€made€payable€to€Mr.€IngramĻbearing€an€interest€rate€of€5šš%.€€Mr.€Earthman€was€unable€to€pay€the€note€when€itĻcame€due,€but€Mr.€Ingram€did€not€insist€on€being€repaid€as€long€as€Mr.€EarthmanĻcontinued€to€pay€the€interest€accruing€on€the€note.€€ĢĢą ` ąIn€the€early€1970's,€the€Ingram€Corporation€decided€to€pursue€a€lucrativeĻsludge„hauling€contract€with€the€sanitary€district€serving€Chicago€and€surroundingĻcommunities.€€Sometime€before€the€fall€of€1974,€a€federal€grand€jury€in€ChicagoĻbegan€looking€into€how€the€Ingram€Corporation€had€secured€the€contract€and€how€itĻhad€obtained€favorable€modifications€to€the€contract.€€The€grand€jury€eventuallyĻindicted€Mr.€Ingram€and€other€business€associates€for€paying€more€than€$900,000€inĻbribes€to€an€Illinois€legislator€and€other€city€officials.€€In€November€1977,€followingĻa€nine„week€trial,€Mr.€Ingram€was€convicted€of€authorizing€political€payoffs€and€wasĻsentenced€to€imprisonment€for€four€years.€€Mr.€Earthman€attended€portions€of€the€trialĻto€support€Mr.€Ingram.ĢĢą ` ąMr.€Ingram€remained€free€on€bond€pending€the€appeal€of€his€conviction.€InĻ1978,€he€and€his€brother€decided€to€divide€the€family€business.€€Mr.€Ingram€formedĻa€new€entity€and€invited€several€members€of€the€board€of€the€former€IngramĻCorporation€to€serve€on€the€board€of€his€new€corporation.€€His€brother€invited€theĻremaining€board€members€to€serve€on€the€board€of€his€corporation.€€After€the€UnitedĻStates€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€Sixth€Circuit€affirmed€his€conviction€in€March€1979,׃!ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś2Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׊ l*¼%. ŠMr.€Ingram€recruited€several€new€board€members,€one€of€whom€was€Mr.€Earthman.€ĻAccording€to€Mr.€Ingram,€he€sought€out€Mr.€Earthman€because€he€was€š šan€astute€andĻhonest€businessman.šš€€Mr.€Earthman,€for€his€part,€later€stated€that€Mr.€Ingram€invitedĻhim€to€join€the€board€to€be€š šhis€eyes€and€earsšš€while€he€was€in€prison.ĢĢą ` ąMr.€Ingram€began€serving€his€sentence€in€January€1980.€€Mr.€Earthman€visitedĻhim€for€the€first€time€in€April€1980.€€After€the€federal€Parole€Commission€set€hisĻrelease€date€for€September€1982€even€though€he€was€eligible€for€parole€in€May€1981,ĻMr.€Ingram€requested€Mr.€Earthman€and€others€to€assist€him€in€seeking€an€earlierŠ 09€4@ Šrelease€from€prison.€€Mr.€Earthman€enlisted€the€aid€of€a€local€politician,€John€JayĻHooker,€who€assisted€in€obtaining€the€services€of€a€lawyer€and€a€political€consultantĻwith€governmental€connections€and€who€also€contacted€President€Carterššs€chief€ofĻstaff€on€Mr.€Ingramššs€behalf.€€ĢĢą ` ąMr.€Earthman€visited€Mr.€Ingram€in€prison€in€September€or€October€1980€toĻdiscuss€his€personal€financial€problems€caused€by€his€childššs€continuing€illness.€€HeĻcontinued€to€be€unable€to€repay€Mr.€Ingram€the€$600,000€he€had€borrowed€eightĻyears€earlier,€and€he€had€accumulated€large€secured€and€unsecured€debts€at€otherĻbanks.׃ ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś3Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€Mr.€Earthman€again€asked€Mr.€Ingram€for€financial€assistance.€€Mr.€IngramŠ tÄ Šdesired€to€help€his€friend€but€made€it€clear€that€he€would€not€incur€any€personalĻexpense€in€doing€so.€€Accordingly,€he€proposed€to€guaranty€a€$1,700,000€loan€to€Mr.ĻEarthman€from€another€Nashville€bank€which€held€a€sizeable€amount€of€Mr.€IngramššsĻcollateral.€€Mr.€Earthman€informed€Mr.€Ingram€that€he€planned€to€use€the€stockĻoptions€he€was€receiving€from€Commerce€Union€Bank€to€repay€his€personal€debts.ĢĢą ` ąInstead€of€following€Mr.€Ingramššs€suggestion,€Mr.€Earthman€returned€toĻNashville€and€arranged€for€a€$1,700,000€loan€from€United€American€Bank€inĻKnoxville€directly€to€Mr.€Ingram.€€On€October€14,€1980,€he€also€prepared€andĻexecuted€a€personal€$1,700,000€note€to€Mr.€Ingram,€using€a€standard€CommerceĻUnion€Bank€note€form.€€Mr.€Earthman€wrote€š šFrederic€B.€Ingramšš€in€the€space€forĻidentifying€the€lending€bank€and€also€filled€in€another€blank€stating€that€the€noteĻwould€be€due€š šEighteen€Months€after€Date.šš€€With€regard€to€the€interest,€Mr.ĻEarthman€checked€a€box€signifying€that€the€interest€would€be€š šAt€the€Bankššs€ššPrimeĻRatešš€plus€_____€%€per€year.šš×ƒ"€ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś4Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€Š ,`'0 ŠĢą ` ąThereafter,€Mr.€Earthman€mailed€the€note€to€Mr.€Ingramššs€assistant€in€NewĻOrleans.€€United€American€Bank€wired€the€loan€proceeds€to€Mr.€Ingramššs€personalĻaccount€at€a€New€Orleans€bank.€On€October€24,€1980,€the€$1,700,000€was€transferredŠ  2š-8 Što€Mr.€Earthmanššs€account€at€a€New€York€bank.€€Three€days€later,€Mr.€Earthman€usedĻ$600,000€of€the€proceeds€to€repay€Mr.€Ingramššs€1972€loan.€€ĢĢą ` ąMr.€Ingram€received€word€in€late€December€1980€that€he€had€been€granted€aĻpresidential€commutation€enabling€him€to€be€released€from€prison€in€May€1981.€ĻFollowing€his€release,€Mr.€Ingram€pursued€discussions€with€Mr.€Earthman€about€Mr.ĻEarthmanššs€leaving€Commerce€Union€Bank€and€working€full„time€for€the€IngramĻCorporation.€€The€two€men€also€discussed€in€general€terms€the€possibility€that€Mr.ĻIngram€might€forgive€Mr.€Earthmanššs€$1,700,000€loan€out€of€gratitude€for€his€effortsĻin€helping€secure€Mr.€Ingramššs€early€release€from€prison.ĢĢą ` ąWith€regard€to€the€offer€of€employment€with€the€Ingram€Corporation,€Mr.ĻEarthman€told€Mr.€Ingram€that€leaving€Commerce€Union€Bank€would€depend€onĻobtaining€the€bank€boardššs€approval€of€his€early€retirement€and€that€it€could€takeĻseveral€years€to€work€this€out.€€In€the€meantime,€Messrs.€Ingram€and€Earthman€agreedĻthat€Mr.€Earthman€would€become€the€š šmanaging€directoršš€of€Ingram€WorldwideĻInvestments,€Ltd.€€On€September€23,€1981,€Mr.€Ingram€provided€Mr.€Earthman€withĻa€letter€agreeing€to€pay€Mr.€Ingram€supplemental€retirement€benefits€in€return€for€hisĻservices€to€the€Ingram€Corporation€and€other€related€corporations.€€The€purpose€ofĻthis€agreement€was€to€compensate€Mr.€Earthman€for€the€difference€between€theĻamount€of€his€early€retirement€benefit€from€the€bank€and€the€amount€of€his€regularĻretirement€benefit€if€he€retired€at€the€age€of€sixty„five.€€In€the€letter,€Mr.€IngramĻagreed€to€pay€the€supplemental€retirement€benefits€himself€if€the€Ingram€CorporationĻdid€not€make€them€because€of€š šthe€Boardššs€not€having€authorized€and€approved€this€Ļagreement.šš€ĢĢą ` ąIn€mid„December€1981,€Mr.€Ingram€renounced€his€United€States€citizenshipĻand€became€a€citizen€of€Ireland.€€He€explained€later€that€he€took€this€step€for€taxĻreasons,€but€Mr.€Earthman€added€that€Mr.€Ingram€was€also€angry€about€his€treatmentĻby€the€federal€government.€€In€late€1981€or€early€1982,€Mr.€Ingram€establishedĻseveral€trusts€in€Liechtenstein€and€placed€his€personal€assets,€valued€at€betweenĻ$100,000,000€and€$150,000,000,€in€the€hands€of€the€professional€trustees€retained€toĻmanage€the€trusts.€€On€January€26,€1982,€Mr.€Ingram€executed€an€assignment€in€blankĻof€Mr.€Earthmanššs€note€and€forwarded€the€original€note€and€the€incompleteŠ Ō:$6B Šassignment€document€to€a€Swiss€lawyer€who€was€serving€as€a€trustee€of€theĻLiechtenstein€trusts.ĢĢą ` ąFollowing€their€discussion€in€mid„1981,€Mr.€Earthman€continued€to€find€waysĻto€induce€Mr.€Ingram€to€forgive€his€$1,700,000€debt.€€During€a€telephoneĻconversation€in€early€January€1982,€Mr.€Ingramššs€New€Orleans€lawyer€and€Mr.ĻEarthmanššs€New€York€lawyer€discussed€various€possible€forms€for€the€gift€includingĻa€testamentary€gift€to€Mr.€Earthmanššs€children€and€an€outright€inter€vivos€gift.€€TheyĻreached€no€conclusion€because€of€the€unresolved€question€about€the€tax€consequencesĻof€this€gift€to€Mr.€Ingram.€€ĢĢą ` ąIn€April€1982,€Mr.€Ingram€received€word€that€the€$1,700,000€note€in€his€nameĻat€United€American€Bank€was€about€to€come€due.€€Mr.€Earthman€informed€Mr.ĻIngram€that€he€was€unable€to€repay€the€loan€and€that€he€had€made€arrangements€forĻUnited€American€Bank€to€renew€the€loan.€€Four€months€later,€when€it€encounteredĻfederal€regulatory€problems€of€its€own,€United€American€Bank€called€uponĻCommerce€Union€Bank€to€purchase€Mr.€Ingramššs€loan.€€Despite€the€fact€thatĻCommerce€Union€Bankššs€loan€committee€had€declined€to€purchase€Mr.€IngramššsĻnote,€a€high€ranking€bank€officer€authorized€the€purchase€of€the€note€after€Mr.ĻEarthman€assured€him€that€š šthe€loan€will€be€out€of€the€bank€in€a€few€days.šš€ĻAccordingly,€Commerce€Union€Bank€purchased€Mr.€Ingramššs€United€American€BankĻnote€and€placed€the€current€amount€of€the€loan€and€accumulated€interest€š!šŠ $'t"* Š$2,540,527.46€š!š€on€its€own€books€as€a€personal€loan€to€Mr.€Ingram.€€Š Č($, ŠĢą ` ąOn€December€1,€1982,€Commerce€Union€Bank€debited€Mr.€Ingramššs€accountĻfor€a€$66,333.99€interest€payment€and€then€sold€the€loan€to€a€Cayman€Island€bankĻnamed€Banque€dššl€Union€Europeene€for€$2,606,863.45.€€As€a€condition€to€the€sale,Ļthe€Banque€dššl€Union€Europeene€required€Commerce€Union€Bank€to€execute€anĻagreement€to€repurchase€the€loan€if€it€was€not€paid€off€before€May€15,€1983.ĢĢą ` ąOn€March€29,€1983,€Commerce€Union€Bankššs€internal€auditor€and€Mr.ĻEarthman€discussed€the€$2,540,527.46€personal€loan€to€Mr.€Ingram€as€well€as€twoĻother€personal€loans€to€others€that€Mr.€Ingram€had€guaranteed.€€The€auditor€explainedĻthat€there€was€an€š šappearance€problemšš€with€these€loans€because€they€had€been€madeŠ Ō:$6B Šwhile€Mr.€Earthman€served€on€the€Ingram€Corporationššs€board€of€directors.€€TwoĻweeks€later,€Mr.€Earthman€had€a€similar€conversation€with€the€chairman€of€the€loanĻaudit€committee.€€During€neither€conversation€did€Mr.€Earthman€reveal€that€he€hadĻreceived€the€proceeds€of€Mr.€Ingramššs€loan.ĢĢą ` ąAs€the€payment€date€for€Mr.€Ingramššs€loan€approached,€the€Banque€dššl€UnionĻEuropeene€called€upon€Commerce€Union€Bank€to€repurchase€the€loan€in€accordanceĻwith€the€buy„back€agreement.€€Mr.€Earthman€still€lacked€the€funds€to€pay€the€note€andĻaccumulated€interest׃'ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś5Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€and€understood€that€having€the€bank€purchase€the€note€couldŠ Š  Šjeopardize€his€position€with€the€bank.€€Accordingly,€he€asked€Mr.€Ingram€to€pay€theĻnote.€€Mr.€Ingram€expressed€displeasure€at€being€required€to€raise€such€a€large€amountĻof€money€on€short€notice€in€order€to€prevent€embarrassment€to€Mr.€Earthman€andĻCommerce€Union€Bank.€€However,€on€May€6,€1983,€Mr.€Ingram€paid€Banque€dššlĻUnion€Europeene€$2,729,675.95€to€retire€the€loan€after€Mr.€Earthman€promised€himĻthat€he€would€repay€the€loan€as€soon€as€he€could.ĢĢą ` ąMr.€Earthmanššs€career€at€Commerce€Union€Bank€was€nearing€an€end€in€mid„¼1983.€€He€had€already€accepted€full„time€employment€with€the€Ingram€CorporationĻwhen€he€negotiated€a€$200,000€per€year€consulting€contract€with€Commerce€UnionĻBank€without€informing€Mr.€Ingram.€€On€May€31,€1983,€Mr.€Earthman€resigned€asĻpresident€of€Commerce€Union€Bank€and€as€chief€executive€officer€of€TennesseeĻValley€Bancorp€effective€on€June€30,€1983.€€He€remained€on€Commerce€UnionĻBankššs€board€and€accepted€the€title€of€chair€of€the€executive€committee.ĢĢą ` ąOn€June€19,€1983,€Mr.€Earthman€signed€an€employment€contract€with€theĻIngram€Corporation€in€which€Ingram€agreed€to€pay€him€$300,000€per€year€in€salaryĻand€an€additional€$100,000€per€year€in€deferred€compensation.€€Mr.€EarthmanššsĻcombined€income€from€the€Commerce€Union€Bank€consulting€contract€and€from€theĻIngram€Corporation€far€exceeded€the€salary€he€had€been€earning€as€president€of€theĻbank€and€chief€executive€officer€of€the€bank€holding€company.Ģā āŠ č581< Šą ` ąMr.€Earthman€went€to€work€for€the€Ingram€Corporation€on€July€1,€1983.€€AsĻā āone€of€his€first€assignments,€Mr.€Earthman€traveled€to€London€at€Mr.€IngramššsĻrequest€to€examine€the€soundness€of€the€business€and€investment€practices€ofĻTampimex,€an€Ingram€subsidiary.€€Two€months€after€Mr.€Earthman€reported€thatĻTampimexššs€internal€controls€were€sound,€Tampimex€lost€approximatelyĻ$100,000,000€because€its€internal€controls€failed€to€respond€to€a€downturn€in€the€oilĻmarket.€€Tampimexššs€failure€caused€Mr.€Ingram€to€sell€off€the€Ingram€CorporationĻassets€and€to€disband€the€company.€€Tampimexššs€creditor€banks€also€directed€Mr.ĻIngram€to€reduce€Mr.€Earthmanššs€salary€from€$300,000€to€$100,000.ĢĢą ` ąMr.€Earthman€formally€retired€from€Commerce€Union€Bank€in€February€1985.€ĻDuring€the€same€month,€Mr.€Ingram€received€a€telephone€call€from€Mr.€EarthmanššsĻNashville€lawyer€seeking€information€about€Mr.€Earthmanššs€activities€with€regard€toĻMr.€Ingramššs€accounts€at€Commerce€Union€Bank.€€The€lawyer€informed€Mr.€IngramĻthat€the€bank€had€appointed€a€special€committee€to€review€Mr.€Earthmanššs€activitiesĻwhile€president€and€chief€executive€officer€with€regard€to€Mr.€Ingramššs€loans€and€thatĻthe€bank€was€considering€canceling€Mr.€Earthmanššs€$200,000€per€year€consultingĻcontract,€withdrawing€his€retirement€package,€and€rescinding€his€stock€options.€€Mr.ĻIngram€informed€the€lawyer€that€Mr.€Earthman€had€received€the€proceeds€of€one€ofĻthe€loans€being€questioned€by€the€bank.ĢĢą ` ąSeveral€days€later,€Mr.€Earthman€visited€Mr.€Ingram€in€London€and€expressedĻconcern€about€his€precarious€position€with€the€bank.€€Within€a€month,€however,€Mr.ĻEarthman€exercised€the€stock€options€he€had€accumulated€while€working€at€the€bankĻand€earned€between€$4,000,000€and€$5,000,000.€€Mr.€Earthman€did€not€inform€Mr.ĻIngram€that€he€had€exercised€these€options€and€did€not€use€any€of€the€proceeds€toĻrepay€his€October€1980€debt€to€Mr.€Ingram.€€ĢĢą ` ąLater€in€1985,€Commerce€Union€Bank€reduced€Mr.€Earthmanššs€consultingĻcontract€from€$200,000€per€year€to€$100,000.€€Mr.€Ingram€also€informed€Mr.ĻEarthman€that€š šthere€.€.€.€[was]€nothing€more€he€could€add€to€the€Ingram€CorporationššĻand€requested€his€resignation.€€Mr.€Earthman€submitted€his€letter€of€resignation€fromĻā āthe€Ingram€Corporation€on€October€30,€1985.€€The€other€directors€of€the€IngramŠ 09€4@ ŠCorporation€later€resigned,€and€the€company€eventually€went€out€of€business€as€aĻresult€of€Tampimexššs€financial€reversals.€€Ģā āĢą ` ąMr.€Earthmanššs€resignation€from€the€Ingram€Corporation€did€not€end€hisĻrelationship€with€Mr.€Ingram.€€At€Mr.€Ingramššs€request,€he€remained€on€the€board€ofĻdirectors€of€Arcata€Corporation,€a€printing€and€wood€products€company€in€whichĻIngram€Worldwide€Investments€had€purchased€an€8%€interest€in€1982.€€One€of€theĻplans€for€Arcata€was€to€break€up€the€company€and€sell€its€assets€to€Japanese€buyers.€ĻMr.€Ingram€believed€that€Mr.€Earthman€could€play€an€instrumental€role€in€thisĻprocess€because€of€his€contacts€with€Japanese€businessmen€and€agreed€to€pay€Mr.ĻEarthman€$10,000€per€month€to€continue€to€serve€on€Arcataššs€board.€€Arcata€alsoĻcontracted€with€Mr.€Earthmanššs€Cayman€Island€consulting€company€to€serve€as€itsĻš šfinancial€advisoršš€with€regard€to€its€negotiations€with€the€Japanese.€€Mr.€Ingram€andĻMr.€Earthman€anticipated€that€Mr.€Earthman€could€earn€a€commission€of€as€much€asĻ$8,000,000€if€he€engineered€the€sale€of€Arcata€and€that€he€would€use€a€portion€of€thisĻcommission€to€repay€his€debt€to€Mr.€Ingram.ĢĢą ` ąIn€April€and€May€1987,€Mr.€Earthman€sent€Mr.€Ingram€a€series€of€writtenĻproposals€intended€to€resolve€their€financial€relationships.€€Each€of€these€proposalsĻwas€based€on€Mr.€Earthmanššs€assumption€that€Mr.€Ingram€would€agree€to€assumeĻpersonal€liability€for€unpaid€compensation€due€from€the€Ingram€Corporation€and€thatĻMr.€Ingram€would€forgive€his€$1,700,000€debt.€€In€his€April€21,€1987€letter€offeringĻtwo€alternatives,€Mr.€Earthman€warned€that€the€lack€of€a€resolution€of€theĻcompensation€and€debt€issues€could€š šššfesteršš€in€such€a€way€as€to€be€detrimental€to€ourĻmutual€best€interest.šš€€He€also€conceded€that€he€could€not€play€a€š šconstructive€roleššĻin€Mr.€Ingramššs€business€ventures€following€the€completion€of€the€Arcata€project.ĢĢą ` ąIn€discussions€following€his€receipt€of€the€April€21,€1987€letter,€Mr.€IngramĻtold€Mr.€Earthman€that€his€proposals€were€not€acceptable.€€He€told€Mr.€Earthman€thatĻthe€assumption€that€he€would€assume€the€Ingram€Corporationššs€financial€obligationsĻwas€š šnutsšš€because€he€had€already€lost€$100,000,000€when€the€Ingram€CorporationĻfailed€and€because€he€was€not€responsible€for€assuming€any€other€corporateĻobligations.€€Despite€Mr.€Ingramššs€response,€Mr.€Earthman€stated€that€he€wouldĻsubmit€a€revised€proposal€in€a€more€final€form.Š Ō:$6B Їą ` ąMr.€Earthman€sent€Mr.€Ingram€a€revised€proposal€on€May€21,€1987.€€On€thisĻoccasion,€Mr.€Earthman€proposed€that€they€enter€into€a€termination€agreement€on€orĻbefore€December€31,€1987€and€that€either€Mr.€Ingram€or€his€trust€forgive€his€debt€andĻpay€him€an€additional€$500,000€by€June€30,€1987.€€Mr.€Ingramššs€response,€like€hisĻresponse€to€the€earlier€proposal,€was€blunt.€€He€informed€Mr.€Earthman€that€theĻproposal€was€š štotally€unacceptable€in€concept€and€every€other€wayšš€and€that€the€onlyĻthing€they€had€to€talk€about€was€š šhow€he€was€going€to€pay€me€back€the€money€heĻowed€me€on€the€note.šš€€According€to€Mr.€Ingram,€the€two€men€discussed€using€theĻcommission€Mr.€Earthman€expected€from€the€sale€of€Arcata€to€repay€the€debt€afterĻMr.€Ingram€insisted€that€they€stop€š šworry[ing]€with€these€silly€schemes€of€trying€toĻfigure€out€a€way€to€get€me€to€pay€some€money€that€I€wasnššt€obligated€to€pay.šš€€€ĢĢą ` ąAfter€this€May€21,€1987€letter,€Mr.€Earthman€made€no€other€formal€proposalsĻconcerning€the€forgiveness€of€his€debt.€€In€April€1988,€as€the€statute€of€limitationsĻwas€about€to€run€on€his€debt€to€Mr.€Ingram,€Mr.€Earthman€told€Mr.€Ingram€that€heĻwas€still€unable€to€repay€the€loan€and€accrued€interest€and€that€he€was€still€relying€onĻthe€Arcata€commission€to€provide€the€funds€to€do€so.€€He€did€not€tell€Mr.€Ingram€thatĻhe€had€exercised€his€stock€options€or€that€his€bank€stock€made€up€$5,000,000€of€hisĻ$5,520,000€net€worth.ĢĢą ` ąEven€though€Mr.€Ingram€replaced€Mr.€Earthman€on€Arcataššs€board€during€theĻSpring€of€1988,€Messrs.€Earthman€and€Ingram€traveled€to€Japan€in€August€or€ĻSeptember€1988€to€promote€the€Arcata€sale.€€While€in€Tokyo,€they€agreed€that€theĻfirst€$2,000,000€of€any€commission€from€the€sale€of€Arcata€would€be€paid€to€theĻformer€chairman€of€Citibank€who€was€assisting€them€with€the€negotiations.€€TheyĻalso€agreed€that€the€next€portion€of€the€commission€would€be€used€to€pay€off€Mr.ĻEarthmanššs€debt€to€Mr.€Ingram€and€that€the€remaining€commission€would€be€paid€toĻMr.€Earthman.€€In€October€1988,€after€the€efforts€to€sell€Arcata€did€not€bear€fruit,ĻArcata€informed€Mr.€Ingram€that€it€would€not€renew€its€consulting€contract€with€him.ĢĢą ` ąIn€April€1991,€Mr.€Earthman€enlisted€Mr.€Ingramššs€assistance€in€anotherĻbusiness€venture€involving€the€sale€of€bottled€water€from€a€spring€Mr.€EarthmanĻowned€at€Beersheba€Springs.€€Because€of€the€growing€popularity€of€bottled€water,€Mr.ĻEarthman€told€Mr.€Ingram€that€the€venture€could€earn€š šmore€than€ššwalking€aroundŠ Ō:$6B Šmoneyšššš€and€requested€Mr.€Ingram€to€contact€a€friend€on€Coca€Colaššs€board€with€theĻproposal.€€According€to€Mr.€Ingram,€Mr.€Earthman€offered€him€40%€of€the€ventureĻto€settle€his€debt.€€Coca€Cola€eventually€rejected€the€proposal,€and€by€early€1992,€Mr.ĻIngram€believed€that€Mr.€Earthman€was€losing€enthusiasm€about€the€venture.ĢĢą ` ąAs€1992€wore€on,€Mr.€Ingram€became€increasingly€concerned€about€theĻrepayment€of€Mr.€Earthmanššs€loan€and€eventually€hired€a€Washington,€D.C.€law€firmĻto€look€into€the€activities€of€Mr.€Earthman€and€Commerce€Union€Bank€during€theĻearly€1980's.€€In€late€1992,€Mr.€Ingram€requested€a€meeting€with€Mr.€Earthman€afterĻhis€lawyers€informed€him€that€the€bank€could€be€liable€to€Mr.€Ingram€based€on€theĻway€it€handled€Mr.€Ingramššs€loans€with€United€American€Bank€and€the€Banque€dššlĻUnion€Europeene.€€In€early€December€1992,€Mr.€Ingram€recounted€his€lawyerššsĻconclusions€to€Mr.€Earthman€during€a€three€hour€meeting€at€the€Admiralššs€Club€in€theĻDallas€airport.€€Mr.€Ingram€also€asked€Mr.€Earthman€to€sign€a€statement€detailing€hisĻactions€€with€regard€to€Mr.€Ingramššs€loans€and€suggested€that€this€statement€couldĻforce€the€bank€to€be€š ša€50„50€partner€in€paying€off€his€obligation€to€me.šš€€AccordingĻto€Mr.€Ingram,€Mr.€Earthman€acknowledged€that€he€owed€Mr.€Ingram€the€money€andĻthat€š šit€would€be€very€useful€to€him€if€.€.€.€[the€bank]€would€pay€part€of€the€bill.šš€ĻAccording€to€Mr.€Earthman,€Mr.€Ingram€also€promised€him€that€he€š šcould€go€toĻZurich€and€pick€up€the€notešš€if€he€signed€the€statement.ĢĢą ` ąShortly€after€the€meeting€in€Dallas,€Mr.€Ingramššs€Washington€lawyers€sent€Mr.ĻEarthmanššs€Nashville€lawyer€a€draft€of€a€statement€for€Mr.€Earthmanššs€signature.€€Mr.ĻEarthman€declined€to€sign€the€statement€because€he€asserted€that€it€was€not€accurateĻand€because€his€lawyer€advised€him€that€signing€the€statement€could€expose€him€toĻcriminal€liability.€€With€this€development,€Mr.€Ingram€decided€that€he€had€š šgone€theĻlast€milešš€with€Mr.€Earthman.€€ĢĢą ` ąIn€March€1994,€Mr.€Ingram€filed€a€multi„count€complaint€against€Mr.€EarthmanĻin€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€County€seeking€to€recover€the€$1,700,000€debtĻand€accrued€interest€and€attorneyššs€fees.€€In€response,€Mr.€Earthman€admitted€that€heĻhad€borrowed€$1,700,000€from€Mr.€Ingram€in€October€1980€and€that€he€had€notĻrepaid€the€loan€or€paid€any€interest€on€the€loan.€€However,€he€also€asserted€numerousĻdefenses,€including€laches€and€the€statute€of€limitations,€and€counterclaimed€forŠ Ō:$6B Š$6,500,000€in€unpaid€compensation€and€retirement€benefits.€€In€response,€Mr.€IngramĻasserted€that€Mr.€Earthman€was€estopped€to€assert€a€statute€of€limitations€defense.€ĻBoth€parties€eventually€moved€for€summary€judgment,€and€the€trial€court€dismissedĻall€of€Mr.€Ingramššs€claims€against€Mr.€Earthman€except€for€the€š šbreach€ofĻcontract/promissory€notešš€claim€and€declined€to€dismiss€Mr.€EarthmanššsĻcounterclaim€against€Mr.€Ingram.ĢĢą ` ąFollowing€a€nine€day€trial,€the€jury€deliberated€less€than€one€hour€beforeĻreturning€a€verdict€finding€that€Mr.€Earthman€was€estopped€from€relying€on€theĻstatute€of€limitations€defense€and€awarding€Mr.€Ingram€a€$5,667,122.84€judgmentĻagainst€Mr.€Earthman.€€The€jury€also€determined€that€Mr.€Earthman€was€not€entitledĻto€receive€a€pension€from€Mr.€Ingram€personally.€€Based€on€the€partiesšš€agreement,Ļthe€trial€court€also€awarded€Mr.€Ingram€$400,000€for€his€legal€expenses.€€Mr.ĻEarthman€has€perfected€this€appeal.Ģą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ąą p ąą Č ąą  ąĢą@ĖĖ.Dąņ ņII.ó óˆŠ Lœ ŠĢą ` ąThe€first€step€in€suits€like€this€one€is€to€identify€the€body€of€law€applicable€toĻthe€dispute.€€ņņSeeóó€Richard€B.€Hagedorn,€ņņThe€Law€of€Promissory€Notesó󀚚€1.05€(1992)Š 8"ˆ$ Š(š šHagedornšš).€€This€case€presents€two€issues€in€this€regard.€€The€first€issue€concernsĻwhich€version€of€the€Uniform€Commercial€Code€should€be€used€to€determine€whetherĻMr.€Earthmanššs€October€14,€1980€note€is€a€negotiable€instrument.€€The€second€issueĻconcerns€whether€the€note€is€a€negotiable€instrument€under€the€applicable€version€ofĻthe€Uniform€Commercial€Code.€€If€the€note€is€a€negotiable€instrument,€the€partiesššĻrights€are€governed€by€Article€3€of€the€Uniform€Commercial€Code;€if€it€isĻnonnegotiable,€we€must€look€to€the€common€law€of€contracts€to€define€the€partiesššĻrights€and€remedies.ĢĢą@ÓÓ.Dąņ ņA.ó óˆŠ  2š-8 ŠĢą ` ąIn€1990€the€National€Conference€of€Commissioners€on€Uniform€State€LawsĻand€the€American€Law€Institute€made€significant€substantive€revisions€to€Article€3Ļof€the€Uniform€Commercial€Code.€€ņņSeeóó€2€James€J.€White€&€Robert€S.€Summers,Š 09€4@ ŠņņUniform€Commercial€Codeó󀚚€16„2€(4th€ed.€1995)€(š šWhite€&€Summersšš).€€TheŠ Ō:$6B ŠGeneral€Assembly€incorporated€many€of€these€changes€into€Tennesseeššs€version€ofĻthe€Uniform€Commercial€Code€in€1995.׃6ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś6Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€Because€Mr.€Ingramššs€$1,700,000€loan€toŠ T¤ ŠMr.€Earthman€and€Mr.€Earthmanššs€execution€of€the€promissory€note€occurred€inĻ1980,€we€must€at€the€outset€determine€which€version€of€the€Uniform€CommercialĻCode€should€be€used€to€determine€whether€Mr.€Earthmanššs€note€was€a€negotiableĻinstrument.ĢĢą ` ąThe€pre„1995€version€of€Article€3€of€the€Uniform€Commercial€Code€applies€toĻthis€transaction€for€two€reasons.€€First,€the€1995€amendments€themselves€state€thatĻthey€will€take€effect€on€July€1,€1996.׃7pׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś7Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€Second,€amendatory€acts€that€makeŠ tÄ Šsubstantive,€as€opposed€to€procedural,€changes€in€existing€law€must€be€appliedĻprospectively.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņKuykendall€v.€Wheeleróó,€890€S.W.2d€785,€787€(Tenn.€1994);Š ¼  ŠņņSaylors€v.€Riggsbeeóó,€544€S.W.2d€609,€610€(Tenn.€1976).€€Thus,€like€other€statutesŠ `° Šmaking€substantive€changes€in€existing€law,€we€will€not€apply€the€1995€amendmentsĻto€Article€3€to€a€transaction€occurring€before€the€amendmentsšš€effective€date.€ņņSeeŠ Øų ŠResolution€Trust€Corp.€v.€Maplewood€Invs.óó,€31€F.3d€1276,€1286„88€(4th€Cir.€1994);Š Lœ ŠņņBankers€Trust€(Del.)€v.€236€Beltway€Inv.óó,€865€F.€Supp.€1186,€1192€n.7€(E.D.€Va.Š š@  Š1994);€ņņJohnson€v.€Johnsonóó,€614€N.E.2d€348,€354€(Ill.€App.€Ct.€1993);€ņņWoo€v.€Smartóó,Š ” ä" Š442€S.E.2d€690,€693€(Va.€1994).€€Instead,€we€will€apply€the€version€of€the€UniformĻCommercial€Code€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€partiesšš€agreement€and€the€execution€ofĻthe€October€14,€1980€note.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņYin€v.€Society€Natššl€Bank€Indianaóó,€665€N.E.2d€58,€62Š €%Š ( Š(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1996).ĢĢą@ŁŁ.Dąņ ņB.ó óˆŠ l*¼%. ŠĢą ` ąWe€now€turn€to€the€question€concerning€whether€Mr.€Earthmanššs€note€isĻnegotiable€and,€therefore,€governed€by€Article€3€of€the€Uniform€Commercial€Code.€ĻWhether€an€instrument€is€negotiable€is€a€question€of€law€to€be€determined€by€theĻcourt.€€ņņSee€Northern€Bank€v.€Pefferoni€Pizza€Co.óó,€562€N.W.2d€374,€376€(Neb.€1997);Š  2š-8 ŠņņCartwright€v.€MBank€Corpus€Christi,€N.A.óó,€865€S.W.2d€546,€549€(Tex.€Ct.€App.Š D4”/: Š1993);€5A€Ronald€A.€Anderson,€ņņAnderson€on€the€Uniform€Commercial€Codeó󀚚€3„Š č581< Š101:48€(3d€ed.€1994)€(š šAndersonšš).€€Using€a€version€of€the€š šfour€corners€rule,šš€theĻcourts€determine€the€negotiability€from€the€face€of€the€instrument€without€referenceĻto€extrinsic€facts.€€ņņSee€Bankers€Trust€(Del.)€v.€236€Beltway€Investmentóó,€865€F.€Supp.Š ųH Šat€1192;€ņņHolsonback€v.€First€State€Bankóó,€394€So.€2d€381,€383€(Ala.€Civ.€App.€1980);Š œ ģ ŠņņPartney€v.€Reedóó,€889€S.W.2d€896,€900€(Mo.€Ct.€App.€1994).€€If€there€is€any€doubt€thatŠ @  Šan€instrument€is€negotiable,€the€courts€generally€find€that€it€is€nonnegotiable.€€ņņSeeŠ ä 4  ŠGeiger€Fin.€Co.€v.€Grahamóó,€182€S.E.2d€521,€525€(Ga.€Ct.€App.€1971);€ņņPacific€Fin.Š ˆŲ  ŠLoans€v.€Goodwinóó,€324€N.E.2d€578,€580€(Ohio€Ct.€App.€1974);€5A€Anderson,€šššš€3„Š ,|  Š101:21,€„104:13,€at€117.ĢĢą ` ąAs€it€existed€in€1980,€Tennesseeššs€version€of€the€Uniform€Commercial€CodeĻcontained€six€requirements€for€negotiability.€€In€order€to€be€negotiable,€an€instrumentĻwas€required€to€(1)€be€in€writing,׃#ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś8Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀(2)€be€signed€by€the€maker€or€drawer,׃&€ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś9Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀(3)€containŠ `° Šan€unconditional€promise€or€order,׃-8ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś10Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀(4)€provide€for€the€payment€of€a€sum€certain€inŠ T Šmoney,׃0šׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś11Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀(5)€be€payable€on€demand€or€at€a€definite€time,׃1Øׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś12Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀and€(6)€be€payable€to€orderŠ Øų Šor€to€bearer.׃2` ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś13Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€At€that€time,€the€š šsum€certainšš€provision€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šššš€47„3„Š Lœ Š104(1)(b),€„106€required€that€the€š šcomputation€[of€interest]€must€be€one€which€canĻbe€made€from€the€instrument€itself€without€reference€to€any€outside€source.šš€€ņņSeeóóŠ ” ä" ŠTenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€47„3„106€cmt.€1€(1979);€ņņBlack€v.€Commerce€Union€Bankóó,€No.Š 8"ˆ$ Š01A01„9206„CH„00220,€1992€WL€335948,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€April€4,€1994)€(NotĻfor€Publication).€€Thus,€a€majority€of€courts€construing€similar€provisions€have€heldĻthat€notes€containing€variable€interest€rate€terms€were€nonnegotiable.€€ņņSee€Doyle€v.Š $'t"* ŠTrust€Sav.€&€Loan€Assššnóó,€869€F.2d€558,€560€(10th€Cir.€1989);€ņņNorthern€Trust€Co.€v.Š Č($, ŠE.€T.€Clancy€Export€Corp.óó,€612€F.€Supp.€712,€715€(N.D.€Ill.€1985);€ņņJohnson€v.Š l*¼%. ŠJohnsonóó,€614€N.E.2d€at€352„53;€ņņCenterre€Bank€of€Branson€v.€Campbellóó,€744€S.W.2dŠ ,`'0 Š490,€496„98€(Mo.€Ct.€App.€1988);€ņņDH€Cattle€Holdings€Co.€v.€Reinosoóó,€575€N.Y.S.2dŠ “-)2 Š203,€204€(App.€Div.€1991);€2€White€&€Summers,€šš€17„4,€at€n.7.€€After€Mr.€EarthmanĻprepared€and€executed€the€$1,700,000€promissory€note,€the€General€AssemblyŠ ü0L,6 Šamended€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šššš€47„3„104(1)(b)€and€47„3„106(1)€to€enable€notes€withĻvariable€interest€rates€to€be€considered€negotiable€instruments.׃3ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś14Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׊ T¤ ŠĢą ` ąMr.€Earthmanššs€note€did€not€satisfy€the€š šsum€certainšš€requirement€in€Tenn.ĻCode€Ann.€šššš€€47„3„104(1)(b),€„106€when€it€was€signed€because€its€interest€rate€couldĻnot€be€computed€š šfrom€the€instrument€itself€without€reference€to€any€outside€source.šš€ĻņņSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€47„3„106€cmt.€1.€€The€note€provided€for€interest€š š[a]t€theŠ ˆŲ  ŠBankššs€ššPrime€Ratešš€plus€___%€per€year.šš€€It€also€defined€the€š šBankšš€as€š šFrederic€B.ĻIngramšš€and€š šPrime€Ratešš€as€the€š šBankššs€rate€for€loans€to€its€most€credit€worthyĻcustomers€for€90„day€unsecured€loans.šš€€Thus,€the€note€required€Mr.€Earthman€to€payĻinterest€at€whatever€rate€Mr.€Ingram€charged€his€most€credit€worthy€customers€forĻninety„day€unsecured€loans.€€ĢĢą ` ąThis€interest€rate€provision€makes€little€sense€on€its€face€and€certainly€does€notĻpermit€the€calculation€of€interest€from€the€face€of€the€instrument€itself.€€Mr.€IngramĻwas€not€in€the€business€of€making€ninety„day€unsecured€loans,€and€it€is€not€possibleĻto€determine€from€the€face€of€the€note€what€Mr.€Ingramššs€š šPrime€Ratešš€might€haveĻbeen.€€Accordingly,€the€note€was€not€for€a€sum€certain€and,€therefore,€was€notĻnegotiable.ĢĢą ` ąThe€1981€changes€in€the€substance€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šššš€47„3„104(1)(b),€„¼106(1)€do€not€apply€to€Mr.€Earthmanššs€note.€€However,€even€if€they€did,€they€wouldĻnot€render€the€note€negotiable.€€As€amended,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€47„3„104(1)(b)(ii)Ļand€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€47„3„106(1)(f)€permitted€negotiable€instruments€to€containĻrenegotiable€or€variable€rates€of€interest€and€to€require€the€payment€of€a€š šsum€ofĻmoney€which€is€determinable€by€a€formula€as€provided€in€the€writing,€whether€or€notĻsuch€formula€requires€the€use€of€extrinsic€criteria.šš€€Other€courts€that€have€construedĻthese€provisions€have€held€that€they€authorize€the€use€of€readily€ascertainableĻformulae€based€on€some€objective€or€marketplace€factor.ņņ€€See€Randolph€v.€ResolutionŠ  2š-8 ŠTrust€Corp.óó,€995€F.2d€611,€614€(5th€Cir.€1993);€ņņWalters€v.€First€Tenn.€Bankóó,€855€F.2dŠ D4”/: Š267,€274„75€(6th€Cir.€1988);€ņņFirst€City€Fed.€Sav.€Bank€v.€Bhogaonkeróó,€715€F.€Supp.Š č581< Š1216,€1219€(S.D.N.Y.€1989).€€Mr.€Ingramššs€š šPrime€Ratešš€is€not€based€on€a€readilyŠ Œ7Ü2> Šascertainable,€objective€marketplace€standard.€€Thus,€Mr.€Earthmanššs€October€14,Ļ1980€note€fails€to€meet€the€negotiability€requirements€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€47„3„¼104(1)(b)(ii)€and€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€47„3„106(1)(f).ĢĢą@ÓÓ.Dąņ ņC.ó óˆŠ @  ŠĢą ` ąThe€conclusion€that€Mr.€Earthmanššs€note€was€not€a€negotiable€instrument€isĻentirely€consistent€with€the€conduct€of€the€parties.€€Their€transaction€was€not€aĻcommercial€one,€but€rather€a€financial€accommodation€between€friends.€€Mr.ĻEarthman€prepared€the€note,€not€with€the€intention€or€anticipation€that€it€would€enterĻthe€stream€of€commerce€as€a€negotiable€instrument,€but€rather€as€evidence€of€hisĻagreement€to€repay€Mr.€Ingramššs€$1,700,000€loan.€€Thus,€concluding€that€the€noteĻwas€not€negotiable€does€not€conflict€with€the€partiesšš€expectations.ĢĢą ` ąLikewise,€the€conclusion€that€Mr.€Earthmanššs€note€was€not€negotiable€does€notĻmaterially€alter€or€undermine€the€partiesšš€legal€rights€or€responsibilities.€€AnĻinstrument€may€still€be€a€note€even€if€it€is€not€negotiable.€€ņņSee€Cummings€v.€Freemanóó,Š š@  Š21€Tenn.€(2€Hum.)€143,€145€(1840)€(holding€that€negotiability€is€not€an€essentialĻelement€of€a€note);€ņņsee€also€Gibson€v.€Harlóó,€857€S.W.2d€260,€267€(Mo.€Ct.€App.Š 8"ˆ$ Š1993).€€Thus,€the€negotiability€of€an€instrument€is€irrelevant€in€an€action€between€theĻoriginal€parties€to€the€note€based€either€on€the€note€itself€or€the€underlying€obligation.€ĻņņSee€Clements€v.€Lindsayóó,€320€So.€2d€608,€609€(La.€Ct.€App.€1975);€ņņTerry€v.Š $'t"* ŠSuperintendent€of€Educ.óó,€52€So.€2d€13,€14€(Miss.€1951);€ņņMauricio€v.€Mendezóó,€723Š Č($, ŠS.W.2d€296,€298€(Tex.€Ct.€App.€1987);€Joseph€Story,€ņņCommentaries€on€the€Law€ofŠ l*¼%. ŠPromissory€Notesó󀚚€41€(Boston,€Little,€Brown,€and€Co.€1868).€Š ,`'0 ŠĢą@-Dąņ ņIII.ó óˆŠ X/Ø*4 ŠĢą ` ąWe€now€turn€to€Mr.€Earthmanššs€assertion€that€he€was€entitled€to€a€directedĻverdict€because€Mr.€Ingram€failed€to€produce€the€original€note€at€trial.€€He€insists€thatĻthe€evidence€of€the€creation€of€Mr.€Ingramššs€trusts€and€the€possession€of€the€note€byĻone€of€Mr.€Ingramššs€trustees€requires€the€conclusion€that€Mr.€Ingram€was€not€theĻholder€or€owner€of€the€note€after€1982.€€We€have€determined€that€the€evidence€doesĻnot€weigh€so€heavily€in€Mr.€Earthmanššs€favor€that€it€requires€the€finder„of„fact€toŠ Ō:$6B Šconclude€that€Mr.€Ingram€assigned€the€note€to€another€and,€therefore,€was€no€longerĻthe€holder€or€owner€of€the€note.ĢĢą@ÓÓ.Dąņ ņA.ó óˆŠ œ ģ ŠĢą ` ąAn€appeal€from€the€denial€of€a€directed€verdict€involves€a€question€of€lawĻconcerning€whether€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€create€an€issue€for€the€jury€to€decide.€ĻņņSee€Underwood€v.€Waterslides€of€Mid„America,€Inc.óó,€823€S.W.2d€171,€176€(Tenn.€Ct.Š ,|  ŠApp.€1991);€ņņNorman€v.€Liberty€Life€Assurance€Co.óó,€556€S.W.2d€772,€773€(Tenn.€Ct.Š Š  ŠApp.€1977).€€The€reviewing€court€does€not€weigh€the€evidence,€ņņsee€Conatser€v.Š tÄ ŠClarksville€Coca„Cola€Bottling€Co.óó,€920€S.W.2d€646,€647€(Tenn.€1995);€ņņBenton€v.Š h ŠSnyderóó,€825€S.W.2d€409,€413€(Tenn.€1992),€or€evaluate€the€credibility€of€theŠ ¼  Šwitnesses.€€ņņSee€Benson€v.€Tennessee€Valley€Elec.€Coopóó.,€868€S.W.2d€630,€638„39Š `° Š(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€Instead,€it€reviews€the€evidence€most€favorably€to€the€partyĻagainst€whom€the€motion€is€made,€gives€that€party€the€benefit€of€all€reasonableĻinferences€from€the€evidence,€and€also€disregards€all€evidence€contrary€to€that€partyššsĻposition.€€ņņSee€Eaton€v.€McClainóó,€891€S.W.2d€587,€590€(Tenn.€1994);€ņņGann€v.Š š@  ŠInternational€Harvester€Co.óó,€712€S.W.2d€100,€105€(Tenn.€1986).Š ” ä" ŠĢą ` ąDirected€verdicts€are€appropriate€only€when€reasonable€minds€can€reach€oneĻconclusion.€€ņņSee€Williams€v.€Brownóó,€860€S.W.2d€854,€857€(Tenn.€1993);€ņņCrosslin€v.Š €%Š ( ŠAlsupóó,€594€S.W.2d€379,€380€(Tenn.€1980).€€A€case€should€go€to€the€jury,€even€if€theŠ $'t"* Šfacts€are€undisputed,€when€reasonable€persons€could€draw€conflicting€conclusionsĻfrom€the€facts.€€ņņSee€Gulf,€M.€&€O.R.R.€v.€Underwoodóó,€182€Tenn.€467,€474,€187Š l*¼%. ŠS.W.2d€777,€779€(1945);€ņņPettus€v.€Hurstóó,€882€S.W.2d€783,€788€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Š ,`'0 Š1993).€€These€conclusion,€however,€must€be€based€on€more€than€speculation,Ļconjecture,€and€guesswork.€€ņņSee€Daniels€v.€White€Consol.€Indus.,€Inc.óó,€692€S.W.2dŠ X/Ø*4 Š422,€425€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985).€€ĢĢą@ŁŁ.Dąņ ņB.ó óˆŠ D4”/: ŠĢą ` ąDespite€his€assertion€that€he€had€owned€nothing€except€his€clothes€since€1982,ĻMr.€Ingram€did€not€surrender€all€his€assets€directly€into€the€Liechtenstein€trusts.€ĻFlorian€von€Meiss,€the€Swiss€lawyer€serving€as€one€the€trustees,€held€several€assetsŠ Ō:$6B Šfor€Mr.€Ingram€until€he€could€decide€what€to€do€with€them.€€One€of€the€assets€beingĻheld€by€Mr.€von€Meiss€was€Mr.€Earthmanššs€note.€€ĢĢą ` ąMr.€Ingram€turned€over€the€note€to€Mr.€von€Meiss€on€January€26,€1982€inĻZurich.€€On€that€date,€Mr.€Ingram€executed€a€written€assignment€prepared€by€Mr.€vonĻMeiss€but€purposely€did€not€fill€in€the€name€of€the€assignee.€€The€written€assignmentĻwas€not€affixed€to€the€note€in€any€way.€€He€then€gave€the€original€note€and€theĻassignment€form€to€Mr.€von€Meiss.€€Both€the€assignment€and€the€original€note€haveĻbeen€in€Mr.€von€Meissššs€hands€ever€since,€awaiting€Mr.€Ingramššs€directions.ĢĢą ` ąMr.€Earthman€was€generally€aware€in€late€1981€that€Mr.€Ingram€was€placingĻall€his€assets€in€trust€in€order€to€avoid€paying€taxes€in€the€United€States.€€He€was€notĻnecessarily€aware€of€the€location€or€status€of€his€note€until€December€1992.€€DuringĻtheir€meeting€in€the€Dallas€airport,€Mr.€Ingram€told€Mr.€Earthman€that€the€note€wasĻin€Zurich€and€invited€him€to€pick€up€the€note€in€Zurich€in€return€for€his€signature€onĻa€statement€implicating€Commerce€Union€Bank€in€the€handling€of€Mr.€Ingramššs€loansĻat€the€United€American€Bank€and€the€Banque€dššl€Union€Europeene.€€In€light€of€thisĻconversation,€Mr.€Earthman€knew€more€than€sixteen€months€before€Mr.€Ingram€filedĻsuit€that€the€note€was€in€Zurich.ĢĢą ` ąMr.€Ingram€alleged€in€his€complaint€that€Mr.€Earthman€executed€theĻ$1,700,000€promissory€note€on€October€14,€1980€and€appended€a€copy€of€the€note€toĻhis€complaint.׃8ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś15Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€He€also€alleged€that€Mr.€Earthman€had€š šrefused€to€repay€any€of€theŠ Č($, Šmoney€he€borrowed€or€received€from€Ingram,šš€that€he€had€š šnot€recovered€any€of€theĻfunds€he€advanced€to€Earthmanšš€and€that€Mr.€Earthman€did€not€dispute€that€he€hadĻnot€repaid€the€funds€he€had€borrowed.€€Based€on€these€allegations,€Mr.€IngramĻasserted€in€Count€I€of€his€complaint€,€called€š šBreach€of€Contract/Promissory€Note,ššĻā āthat€š šEarthman€has€agreed€in€writing€and€orally€to€repay€Ingram€for€all€of€his€loans,Š ü0L,6 Šadvances€and€payments.€€Earthman€has€breached€his€obligations€under€the€Note€andĻhis€other€obligations.šš€€Ģā āĢą ` ąMr.€Earthman€admitted€in€his€answer€that€he€signed€the€note€and€that€the€copyĻof€the€note€appended€to€Mr.€Ingramššs€complaint€was€a€true€and€accurate€copy€of€theĻnote€he€executed€on€October€14,€1980.€€He€also€admitted€that€he€had€š šnot€repaid€theĻnote€to€Plaintiff€of€$1,700,000€with€interest€or€any€amount€to€repay€the€CaymanĻIslands€debt€or€attorneysšš€fees€and€expenses.šš€€With€specific€reference€to€Mr.ĻIngramššs€š šBreach€of€Contract/Promissory€Notešš€claim,€Mr.€Earthman€denied€that€heĻrenewed€his€promise€to€pay€Mr.€Ingram€on€many€occasions€and€asserted€affirmativeĻdefenses€based€on€laches€and€the€six„year€statute€of€limitations.€ĢĢą ` ąIn€November€1994,€in€response€to€Mr.€Earthmanššs€motion€for€summaryĻjudgment,€the€trial€court€dismissed€four€of€Mr.€Ingramššs€five€claims€against€Mr.ĻEarthman€after€concluding€that€š š[t]he€facts€Ingram€alleges€do€not€state€a€cause€ofĻaction€for€anything€other€than€on€the€note.šš€€Thus,€after€November€1994,€the€partiesĻprepared€for€trial€with€the€understanding€that€Mr.€Ingramššs€claim€against€Mr.ĻEarthman€was€essentially€a€suit€based€on€Mr.€Earthmanššs€note.€€ĢĢą ` ąMr.€Ingram€was€deposed€on€April€20,€1995.€€In€response€to€questions€by€Mr.ĻEarthmanššs€lawyer,€he€described€the€creation€of€the€Liechtenstein€trusts€andĻexplained€how€he€had€transferred€assets€worth€between€$100,000,000€andĻ$150,000,000€to€these€trusts.€€While€he€claimed€that€he€owned€no€assets€except€hisĻclothes€after€1982,€Mr.€Ingram€also€explained€that€Mr.€von€Meiss€was€holding€theĻoriginal€note€and€the€blank€assignment€form€until€he€decided€what€to€do€with€theĻnote.€€Mr.€Ingram€also€provided€Mr.€Earthmanššs€lawyer€with€a€copy€of€the€note€andĻthe€January€26,€1982€assignment.ĢĢą ` ąBoth€parties€tried€the€case€on€the€basis€that€Mr.€Ingramššs€claim€against€Mr.ĻEarthman€was€premised€on€the€October€14,€1980€note.€€Mr.€Ingramššs€lawyerĻdisplayed€an€enlarged€copy€of€the€note€during€his€opening€argument.€€Mr.€EarthmanššsĻlawyer€argued€that€Mr.€Ingramššs€claim€was€based€on€the€note€and€admitted€that€Mr.ĻEarthman€had€not€paid€the€note€when€it€came€due€in€April€1982.€€He€told€the€jury€thatĻMr.€Earthman€had€not€paid€the€note€because€Mr.€Ingram€had€gratuitously€promisedŠ Ō:$6B Što€forgive€Mr.€Earthmanššs€$1,700,000€debt€and€that€Mr.€Ingram€lost€his€right€to€insistĻon€payment€of€the€note€after€the€statute€of€limitations€ran€in€April€1988.€€Mr.ĻEarthmanššs€lawyer€did€not€argue€to€the€jury€that€Mr.€Ingram€was€not€entitled€toĻrecover€on€the€note€because€he€was€no€longer€the€owner€or€holder€of€the€note.ĢĢą ` ąMr.€Ingram€was€the€first€witness€during€his€case„in„chief.€€Early€on€the€secondĻday€of€trial,€his€lawyer€sought€to€introduce€a€copy€of€Mr.€Earthmanššs€note€intoĻevidence€by€asking€him€to€identify€the€copy.€€One€of€the€lawyers€representing€Mr.ĻEarthman€pointed€out€that€Mr.€Ingram€was€seeking€to€introduce€a€copy€of€the€noteĻrather€than€the€original.€€After€Mr.€Ingram€testified€that€the€copy€sought€to€beĻintroduced€was€a€true€and€accurate€copy€of€the€original€note,€the€trial€court€admittedĻthe€copy€into€evidence€without€objection€from€Mr.€Earthman.ĢĢą ` ąOn€the€third€day€of€trial,€while€being€cross„examined€about€the€discussionĻsurrounding€Mr.€Ingramššs€gift€of€the€note€to€Mr.€Earthman,€one€of€Mr.€Ingramššs€NewĻOrleans€lawyers€testified€that€š šthe€note€obviously€would€not€be€in€IngramššsĻpossession€if€it€had€been€given€away.šš€€This€statement€prompted€the€trial€court,€withĻthe€agreement€of€the€lawyers€for€both€parties,€to€give€the€jury€a€detailed€instructionĻconcerning€the€legal€significance€of€a€holder€of€a€note€giving€the€original€note€backĻto€the€maker.׃5ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś16Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€Before€Mr.€Ingram€closed€his€case„in„chief,€he€introduced€portionsŠ Ü#,& Šof€Mr.€Earthmanššs€deposition€in€which€Mr.€Earthman€admitted€(1)€that€he€borrowedĻ$1,700,000€from€Mr.€Ingram€in€1980,€(2)€that€he€prepared€and€signed€a€promissoryĻnote€for€the€$1,700,000€loan€on€October€14,€1980,€(3)€that€he€did€not€pay€the€noteĻwhen€it€came€due€in€April€1982,€(4)€that€he€has€never€repaid€the€principal€and€interest,Ļand€(5)€that€Mr.€Ingram€never€gave€him€the€original€note.ĢĢą ` ąMr.€Earthman€moved€for€a€directed€verdict€at€the€close€of€Mr.€Ingramššs€case„¼in„chief€on€two€grounds.€€First,€he€asserted€that€Mr.€Ingram€had€presented€no€materialĻevidence€on€which€a€verdict€for€the€plaintiff€could€stand.€€Second,€he€asserted€that€Mr.ĻIngram€had€failed€to€present€evidence€upon€which€the€jury€could€find€that€his€claimĻā āwas€not€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€He€did€not€elaborate€on€his€first€groundŠ č581< Šand€never€asserted€specifically€that€Mr.€Ingram€had€failed€to€prove€that€he€was€theĻholder€or€owner€of€the€note.€€The€trial€court€responded€to€the€motion€as€follows:Ģā āÓ€Óą8 ` ąą8ø ` (#` (#ąin€this€case,€Mr.€Earthman€has€admitted€execution€of€theĻnote€and€.€.€.€that€he€hasnššt€paid€it.€€Then€the€burden€shiftsĻto€him€to€prove€a€defense.€€All€the€holder€of€the€note€has€toĻdo€is€prove€the€signature€and€nonpayment.Š ø Š ø Š  ŠĢą8 ` ąą8ø ` (#` (#ąą  ąThe€defense€that€Mr.€Earthman€offers,€and€the€onlyĻdefense,€is€the€statute€of€limitations;€I€mean,€the€only€oneĻfor€the€jury€to€decide.Š ø Š ø Š  ŠĢÓ€ÓThereafter,€the€trial€court€overruled€Mr.€Earthmanššs€motion€for€directed€verdict,Ļstating€that€š šthere€is€ample€evidence€in€the€record€so€far€to€support€a€jury€conclusionĻthat€Mr.€Earthman€is€estopped€from€raising€the€statute€of€limitations€or€Mr.€IngramššsĻexcused€for€[sic]€filing€the€case€within€the€time€period,€however€you€want€to€put€it.šš€Ģ€Ģą ` ąDuring€his€testimony€on€the€fifth€day€of€trial,€Mr.€Earthman€admitted€that€heĻborrowed€$1,700,000€from€Mr.€Ingram€in€October€1980€and€that€he€had€never€repaidĻthe€principal€or€interest.€€He€also€admitted€that€he€prepared€and€signed€the€note,€thatĻhe€sent€the€note€to€Mr.€Ingramššs€secretary€in€New€Orleans,€and€that€Mr.€Ingram€hadĻnever€given€him€the€original€note€despite€their€discussions.ĢĢą ` ąOn€the€eighth€day€of€trial€as€Mr.€Earthmanššs€case€came€to€a€close,€Mr.ĻEarthmanššs€lawyer€sought€to€introduce€the€portions€of€Mr.€Ingramššs€depositionĻcontaining€€his€testimony€about€the€transfer€of€his€assets€to€the€Liechtenstein€trusts.€ĻFor€the€first€time,€Mr.€Earthmanššs€lawyer€argued€that€this€testimony€was€relevantĻbecause€it€š šshows€that€he€[Mr.€Ingram]€is€not€the€holder€of€this€note€and€that€heĻtransferred€the€note€to€the€trust,€and€he€is€not€the€holder€and€he€has€no€right€to€bringĻthis€action.šš€€In€response€to€this€new€argument,€the€trial€court€ruled€š šthat€the€defenseĻthat€Mr.€Ingram€is€not€a€holder€of€the€note€sued€upon€is€an€affirmative€defense€andĻmust€be€pled€and€is€not€plead€and,€therefore,€it€is€not€relevant€in€this€case.šš€€ĢĢą ` ąDespite€its€ruling,€the€trial€court€permitted€Mr.€Ingramššs€lawyer€to€recall€Mr.ĻIngram€to€the€stand€to€testify€that€he€owned€the€note.€€Following€Mr.€IngramššsĻtestimony,€the€trial€court€permitted€Mr.€Earthmanššs€lawyer€to€read€to€the€jury€portionsĻof€Mr.€Ingramššs€April€29,€1995€deposition€in€which€he€stated€that€he€owned€no€assetsĻafter€1982€except€his€clothes€and€that€Mr.€von€Meiss€had€kept€the€note€since€1982.€Š Ō:$6? ŠThe€trial€court€also€permitted€Mr.€Ingramššs€lawyer€to€read€additional€portions€of€theĻdeposition€in€which€Mr.€Ingram€explained€that€Mr.€von€Meiss€was€holding€the€noteĻfor€him€until€he€decided€what€to€do€with€it.ĢĢą ` ąAt€the€close€of€all€the€proof,€on€the€ninth€and€last€day€of€trial,€Mr.€EarthmanššsĻlawyer€moved€for€a€directed€verdict€on€the€grounds€that€Mr.€Ingram€had€failed€toĻprove€that€he€was€the€holder€of€the€note€and€that€the€statute€of€limitations€barred€Mr.ĻIngramššs€claim.€€Mr.€Ingramššs€lawyer€responded:ĢÓ€Óą8 ` ąą8ø ` (#` (#ąą  ąThis€issue€about€the€ownership€of€the€note€came€upĻat€the€last€two€days€of€the€trial€and€doesnššt€have€anythingĻto€do€with€any€issue€in€this€trial.€€What€it€is€is€a€blankĻassignment,€which€in€the€course€of€discovery€I€provided€toĻMr.€Davis;€it€is€a€common€way€that€something€held€inĻsafekeeping€in€another€country€so€that€in€the€event€Mr.ĻIngram€wants€to€transfer€it€to€somebody,€he€can€tell€Mr.Ļvon€Meiss€to€put€the€name€in€there.Š ø Š ø Š  ŠĢą8 ` ąą8ø ` (#` (#ąą  ąIt€is€a€blank€assignment.€€Mr.€Ingram€is€the€owner€ofĻthe€note€and€has€been€the€owner€of€the€note.€€It€has€beenĻheld,€as€he€testified€to€in€his€deposition,€for€safekeeping€byĻMr.€von€Meiss€with€his€other€papers€in€Switzerland.Š ø Š ø Š  ŠĢą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ą*ą@  /Dą*ˆą p ąą Č ą*ą  ąą x ąŠ  !p ŠĢą8 ` ąą8ø ` (#` (#ąą  ąWe€could€have€the€note€here€probably€on€Tuesday€ifĻitššs€needed.€€We€have€been€prejudiced€by€his€delay€inĻraising€this€action€because€all€we€have€to€do€is€call€Mr.ĻFlorian€von€Meiss€in€Switzerland€and€he€will€send€it€byĻcourier€to€the€United€States,€and€we€canššt€have€it€hereĻbefore€Tuesday.Š ø Š ø Š  ŠĢÓ€ÓFollowing€these€arguments,€the€trial€court€overruled€Mr.€Earthmanššs€motion€forĻdirected€verdict€by€stating:€š šThat€was€raised€for€the€first€time€on€the€eighth€day€of€aĻnine„day€trial€and€as€I€previously€held,€I€believe€thatššs€an€affirmative€defense.€€It€mustĻbe€pled€and€it€is€not€pled,€and€thatššs€not€an€issue€in€this€case,€at€least€today,€and€so€IĻoverrule€the€motion€based€on€that.šš€€ĢĢą ` ąDuring€its€instructions,€the€trial€court€explained€to€the€jury€that€Mr.€IngramššsĻclaim€against€Mr.€Earthman€was€based€on€Mr.€Earthmanššs€note.€€The€trial€court€alsoĻpointed€out€that€Mr.€Earthman€had€admitted€that€he€signed€the€note€and€that€he€hadĻnot€repaid€it.€€The€trial€court€also€explained€that€Mr.€Earthmanššs€defense€was€basedĻon€the€statute€of€limitations€and€that€Mr.€Ingram€had€the€burden€of€proving€that€Mr.Š `;°6; ŠEarthman€was€estopped€to€assert€this€defense.€€The€trial€court€summarized€the€juryššsĻresponsibility€as€follows:€š š[T]here€are€two€questions€you€must€decide.€€First,€hasĻIngram€established€that€Earthman€is€estopped€from€relying€on€the€statute€of€limitationĻas€a€defense€.€.€.€If,€and€only€if,€you€decide€that€issue€in€favor€of€Ingram,€you€shouldĻanswer€the€second€question€which€is,€what€is€the€amount€Earthman€owes€Ingram€onĻthe€note.ššĢĢą ` ąThe€jury€returned€a€judgment€for€Mr.€Ingram,€and€on€June€19,€1995,€the€trialĻcourt€entered€a€judgment€and€final€order€awarding€Mr.€Ingram€$5,667,122.84€plusĻ$400,000€in€legal€expenses.€€Mr.€Earthman€filed€post„trial€motions€on€July€17,€1995Ļasserting,€among€other€issues,€that€the€trial€court€should€have€directed€a€verdict€on€theĻstatute€of€limitations€and€holder€issues.€€Mr.€Ingram€filed€a€response€to€these€motionsĻon€August€28,€1995,€and€also€submitted€the€original€note.€€The€trial€court€denied€Mr.ĻEarthmanššs€post„trial€motions€on€September€8,€1995€and€approximately€one€monthĻlater€denied€Mr.€Earthmanššs€motion€to€strike€the€original€note€from€the€record.ĢĢą@ÓÓ.Dąņ ņC.ó óˆŠ š@  ŠĢą ` ąMr.€Earthman€insists€that€he€was€entitled€to€a€directed€verdict€because€Mr.ĻIngram€failed€to€prove€that€he€was€the€holder€or€owner€of€the€note€by€producing€theĻoriginal€note€at€trial.׃9ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś17Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€While€producing€the€original€note€at€trial€is€the€most€efficientŠ €%Š ( Šand€conclusive€way€for€a€party€to€prove€that€it€is€the€holder€or€owner€of€a€note,€it€isĻnot€the€only€way.€€Under€the€facts€of€this€case,€Mr.€Ingram€introduced€other€sufficientĻcompetent€evidence€from€which€the€jury€could€have€concluded€that€he€was€the€holderĻand€owner€of€Mr.€Earthmanššs€note.Ģā āŠ “-)2 Šą ` ąMr.€Ingramššs€claim€against€Mr.€Earthman€is€based€only€on€the€note.׃:ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś18Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€In€a€suitŠ ° Šā āon€a€note,€the€holder€makes€out€a€prima€facie€case€by€producing€the€note€signed€byĻthe€maker€and€by€showing€that€there€is€a€balance€due€on€the€note.€€ņņSee€Crossland€Fed.Š ųH ŠSav.€Bank€v.€A.€Suna€&€Co.óó,€935€F.€Supp.€184,€191€(E.D.N.Y.€1996);€ņņSmith€v.Š œ ģ ŠWeindropóó,€833€P.2d€856,€857€(Colo.€Ct.€App.€1992);€ņņMisemer€v.€Fredaššs€Restaurant,Š @  ŠInc.óó,€961€S.W.2d€120,€121€(Mo.€Ct.€App.€1998);ņņ€L.€Harvey€&€Son,€Co.€v.€Jarmanóó,€333Š ä 4  ŠS.E.2d€47,€52„53€(N.C.€App.€1985);€€ņņJudarl,€L.L.C.€v.€Cycletech,€Inc.óó,€667€N.Y.S.2dŠ ˆŲ  Š451,€452€(App.€Div.€1998).€€ĢĢą ` ąProducing€the€original€note€is€not,€however,€the€only€way€to€establish€a€primaĻfacie€case.€€The€holder€may€also€produce€a€copy€of€the€note€along€with€evidence€thatĻ(1)€the€plaintiff€is€the€holder€or€owner€of€the€note,€(2)€that€the€maker€signed€the€note,Ļ(3)€that€the€note€is€in€default€and€there€is€a€balance€due€on€the€note,€(4)€that€the€copyĻproduced€at€trial€is€a€true€and€accurate€copy€of€the€note€sued€on,€and€(5)€that€theĻholder€has€not€assigned,€pledged,€or€transferred€the€note€to€another.€€ņņSee€ResolutionŠ Øų ŠTrust€Corp.€v.€Starkeyóó,€41€F.3d€1018,€1023€(5th€Cir.€1995);€ņņFDIC€v.€McCraryóó,€977Š ° ŠF.2d€192,€194€(5th€Cir.€1992);€ņņUnited€States€v.€Golden€Elevator,€Inc.,óó€868€F.€Supp.Š T¤ Š1063,€1065€(C.D.€Ill.€1994);€ņņSonne€v.€FDICóó,€881€S.W.2d€789,€794€(Tex.€Ct.€App.Š ųH Š1994);€ņņEdlund€v.€Boundsóó,€842€S.W.2d€719,€724€(Tex.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€The€holderŠ œ ģ Šmay€supply€one€or€more€of€these€elements€of€proof€using€the€makerššs€admissions€inĻits€answer€or€during€discovery€or€at€trial.€€ņņSee€Vetter€v.€FDICóó,€426€So.€2d€444,€446Š ä 4  Š(Ala.€Civ.€App.€1983);€ņņMcLemore€v.€Southwest€Ga.€Farm€Credit,€ACAóó,€495€S.E.2dŠ ˆŲ  Š335,€337€(Ga.€Ct.€App.€1998);€ņņGood€v.€Goodóó,€324€S.E.2d€43,€45€(N.C.€Ct.€App.€1985).€Š ,|  ŠĢą ` ąThe€purpose€of€the€presentment€rule€is€to€facilitate€proof€that€the€plaintiff€is€theĻholder€of€the€note,€ņņsee€James€Talcott,€Inc.€v.€Allahabad€Bank,€Ltd.óó,€444€F.2d€451,€458Š h Š(5th€Cir.€1971);€ņņUnion€Sav.€Bank€v.€Cassingóó,€691€S.W.2d€513,€515€(Mo.€Ct.€App.Š ¼  Š1985),€and€to€avoid€the€risk€that€the€maker€might€be€required€to€pay€the€same€noteĻtwice.€€ņņSee€McKirgan€v.€American€Hosp.€Supply€Corp.óó,€375€A.2d€591,€593€(Md.€Ct.Š T ŠSpec.€App.€1977);€ņņPrime€Fin.€Group,€Inc.€v.€Smithóó,€623€A.2d€757,€759€(N.H.€1993);ņņŠ Øų ŠHaupt€v.€Coldwellóó,€500€S.W.2d€563,€565€(Tex.€Civ.€App.€1973).€€In€disputes€betweenŠ Lœ Šthe€original€parties,€the€presentment€rule€is€not€as€important€when€the€note€is€notĻnegotiable€because€the€holder€is€not€a€holder€in€due€course€and€thus,€the€maker€canĻassert€the€defense€of€payment€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.05€in€a€subsequent€suit€on€theĻsame€note.ĢĢą@ÓÓ.Dąņ ņD.ó óˆŠ $'t"* ŠĢą ` ąIt€is€the€better€practice€in€a€suit€on€a€note,€negotiable€or€not,€for€the€plaintiff€toĻproduce€the€original€note€at€trial€and€introduce€it€into€evidence.€€Doing€so€effectivelyĻforestalls€any€issue€concerning€whether€the€plaintiff€is€the€holder€or€owner€of€theĻnote.€€Had€Mr.€Ingram€produced€Mr.€Earthmanššs€original€note,€no€dispute€would€haveĻbeen€precipitated€later€concerning€his€status€as€the€holder€or€owner€of€the€note.€ĻHowever,€Mr.€Ingram€did€not€produce€the€original€note,€and€thus€we€must€nowĻdetermine€whether€the€record€contains€sufficient€evidence€to€defeat€Mr.€EarthmanššsĻmotion€for€directed€verdict€at€the€close€of€all€the€proof.ĢĢą ` ąMr.€Ingramššs€testimony€and€Mr.€Earthmanššs€admissions€establish€conclusivelyĻ(1)€that€Mr.€Earthman€prepared€and€executed€the€note,€(2)€that€Mr.€EarthmanŠ Ō:$6B Šdelivered€the€note€to€Mr.€Ingram,€(3)€that€Mr.€Earthman€did€not€pay€the€note€when€itĻcame€due,€(4)€that€Mr.€Earthman€has€never€repaid€Mr.€Ingram€the€principal€andĻinterest€due€on€the€note,€and€(5)€that€the€copy€of€the€note€Mr.€Ingram€produced€at€trialĻwas€a€true€and€accurate€copy€of€the€original€note.€€The€only€remaining€essentialĻelement€of€Mr.€Ingramššs€case€concerns€whether€Mr.€Ingram€is€the€holder€or€owner€ofĻthe€note€or€whether€he€assigned€or€transferred€the€note€to€another.ĢĢą ` ąMr.€Earthman€would€be€entitled€to€a€directed€verdict€only€if€the€evidenceĻpermitted€the€jury€to€draw€only€one€reasonable€conclusion€š!š€that€Mr.€Ingram€was€notŠ Š  Šthe€holder€or€owner€of€the€note€because€he€assigned€it€to€Mr.€von€Meiss€in€1982.€€TheĻevidence€is€simply€not€sufficiently€one„sided€to€support€this€conclusion.€€To€theĻcontrary,€the€evidence€demonstrates€rather€convincingly€that€Mr.€von€Meiss€wasĻholding€the€original€note€as€Mr.€Ingramššs€agent€while€Mr.€Ingram€decided€what€to€doĻwith€the€note.€€Accordingly,€rather€than€establishing€that€Mr.€Ingram€was€not€theĻholder€or€owner€of€the€note,€the€evidence€points€toward€a€contrary€result.€€Therefore,Ļthe€trial€court€properly€denied€Mr.€Earthmanššs€motion€for€directed€verdict€at€the€closeĻof€all€the€proof€based€on€the€claim€that€Mr.€Ingram€had€not€proved€that€he€was€theĻholder€or€owner€of€the€note.ĢĢą@„„.Dąņ ņIV.ó óˆŠ Ü#,& ŠĢą ` ąMr.€Earthman€also€asserts€that€he€was€entitled€to€a€directed€verdict€on€hisĻstatute€of€limitations€defense.€€He€argues€that€the€only€conclusions€a€reasonable€fact„¼finder€could€draw€from€the€evidence€were€either€that€he€did€not€induce€Mr.€IngramĻto€delay€filing€suit€on€the€note€by€promising€to€pay€the€note€or€that€he€did€not€reviveĻthe€note€after€the€statute€of€limitations€ran€by€expressly€promising€to€pay€it€or€byĻacknowledging€the€debt€and€expressing€a€willingness€to€pay€it.€€We€have€determinedĻthat€the€evidence€presents€a€jury€question€concerning€whether€Mr.€Earthman€wasĻestopped€to€rely€on€the€statute€of€limitations€and€whether€Mr.€Earthman,€by€hisĻstatements€and€conduct,€revived€his€obligation€under€the€note€after€the€statute€ofĻlimitations€ran.ĢĢĢŠ Ō:$6B Šą@ÓÓ.Dąņ ņA.ó óˆŠ ° ŠĢą ` ąA€defense€based€on€the€statute€of€limitations€is€an€affirmative€defense.€€ņņSeeóóŠ ųH ŠTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.03.€€The€defendant€asserting€it€has€the€burden€of€establishing€allĻof€its€elements.€€ņņSee€Carr€v.€Borchersóó,€815€S.W.2d€528,€532€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991);Š @  ŠņņStockburger€v.€Rayóó,€488€S.W.2d€378,€382€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1972);€ņņJones€v.€HamiltonŠ ä 4  ŠCountyóó,€56€Tenn.€App.€240,€247,€405€S.W.2d€775,€779€(1965).€€However,€once€theŠ ˆŲ  Šdefendant€establishes€the€defense,€the€burden€shifts€to€the€plaintiff€to€establish€oneĻor€more€of€the€recognized€exceptions€to€the€defense.€€ņņSee€Jones€v.€Coal€Creek€MiningŠ Š  Š&€Mfg.€Co.óó,€133€Tenn.€159,€169,€180€S.W.€179,€182€(1915);€ņņSmith€v.€SoutheasternŠ tÄ ŠProperties,€Ltd.óó,€776€S.W.2d€106,€109€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€Š h ŠĢą ` ąMr.€Earthman€did€not€repay€his€note€to€Mr.€Earthman€when€it€came€due€onĻApril€14,€1982.€€Accordingly,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€28„3„109(a)(3)€(1980)€required€Mr.ĻIngram€to€file€suit€against€Mr.€Earthman€based€on€the€note€within€six€years€or€by€noĻlater€than€April€14,€1988.€€The€parties€agreed€that€Mr.€Ingram€did€not€file€suit€againstĻMr.€Earthman€until€March€24,€1992€š!š€well€after€the€six„year€limitations€period€hadŠ š@  Šexpired.€Thus,€Mr.€Earthman€established€a€prima€facie€defense€based€on€the€runningĻof€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations,€and€the€burden€shifted€back€to€Mr.€Ingram€toĻestablish€one€or€more€of€the€exceptions€to€a€statute€of€limitations€defense.€€Mr.ĻIngram€relied€on€two€exceptions.€€First,€he€asserted€that€Mr.€Earthman€was€estoppedĻto€assert€a€statute€of€limitations€defense.€€Second,€he€asserted€that€Mr.€EarthmanĻrevived€his€obligation€under€the€note€after€the€limitation€period€had€expired.ĢĢą ` ąIn€its€jury€instructions€concerning€the€partiesšš€respective€burdens€with€regardĻto€the€statute€of€limitations€defense,€the€trial€court€informed€the€jury€that€Mr.ĻEarthman€had€established€that€Mr.€Ingram€did€not€file€his€suit€until€after€the€six„yearĻlimitations€period€expired.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€Mr.ĻIngram€had€the€burden€of€establishing€either€that€Mr.€Earthman€was€estopped€toĻassert€the€statute€of€limitations€defense€or€that€Mr.€Earthman€had€revived€hisĻobligation€under€the€note€after€the€statute€of€limitations€had€run.€€The€trial€court€alsoĻincluded€a€question€on€the€jury€form€asking:€š šHas€Ingram€proven€facts€which€estopĻEarthman€from€relying€upon€the€statute€of€limitation€as€a€defense€or€which€excuseĻIngram€from€failing€to€file€suit€within€the€six€year€limitation€period.šš€€The€juryŠ Ō:$6B Šanswered€š šYesšš€to€this€question.€€Mr.€Earthman€now€argues€that€this€question€shouldĻhave€been€decided€in€his€favor€as€a€matter€of€law.€€ą  ąą x ąą Š ąą (# ąŠ T¤ Šą ` ąą ø ąą  ąĢą@ŁŁ.Dąņ ņB.ó óˆą p ąŠ œ ģ ŠĢą ` ąEstoppel€and€revival€are€complementary€responses€to€a€statute€of€limitationsĻdefense.€€A€defendant€will€be€estopped€to€assert€a€statute€of€limitations€defense€whenĻit€induces€a€plaintiff€to€refrain€from€filing€suit€during€the€applicable€limitationsĻperiod.€€ņņSee€Dukes€v.€Montgomery€County€Nursing€Homeóó,€639€S.W.2d€910,€912Š Š  Š(Tenn.€1982);€ņņAmerican€Mut.€Liability€Ins.€Co.€v.€Baxteróó,€210€Tenn.€242,€247,€357Š tÄ ŠS.W.2d€825,€827€(1962).€€Statements€or€conduct€that€support€an€estoppel€claimĻinclude€representations,€made€prior€to€the€expiration€of€the€limitations€period,€that€theĻdefendant€either€would€not€assert€a€statute€of€limitations€defense€or€that€the€disputeĻwould€be€amicably€resolved€without€filing€suit.€€ņņSee€Sparks€v.€Metropolitan€Govšštóó,Š T Š771€S.W.2d€430,€433€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989);€ņņWhitlow€v.€Hardin€Countyóó,€13€Tenn.Š Øų ŠApp.€347,€359€(1930).€€Persons€who€successfully€establish€the€estoppel€exception€toĻa€statute€of€limitations€defense€must€file€suit€within€a€reasonable€time€after€becomingĻaware€that€the€debtor€will€not€pay€the€debt.€€ņņSee€Neaterour€v.€Holtóó,€544€N.E.2d€846,Š ” ä" Š852€(Ill.€App.€Ct.€1989);€ņņCacdac€v.€Hilandóó,€561N.E.2d€758,€758€(Ind.€1990);Š 8"ˆ$ ŠņņReifschneider€v.€Nebraska€Methodist€Hosp.óó,€447€N.W.2d€622,€626€(Neb.€1989);Š Ü#,& ŠņņLeonard€v.€Eskewóó,€731€S.W.2d€124,€129€(Tex.€Ct.€App.€1987).€€Š €%Š ( ŠĢą ` ąSimilarly,€a€defendant€may€revive€a€plaintiffššs€remedy€that€had€been€barred€byĻthe€running€of€a€statute€of€limitations׃<ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś19Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀either€by€expressly€promising€to€pay€the€debtŠ l*¼%. Šor€by€acknowledging€the€debt€and€expressing€a€willingness€to€pay€it.€€ņņSee€Hall€v.Š ,`'0 ŠSkidmoreóó,€180€Tenn.€23,€27,€171€S.W.2d€274,€275€(1943),€ņņoverruled€on€otherŠ “-)2 Šgroundsóó,€ņņGraves€v.€Sawyeróó,€588€S.W.2d€542,€544€(Tenn.€1979);€ņņWarren€v.€Clevelandóó,Š X/Ø*4 Š111€Tenn.€174,€177,€76€S.W.€910,€910€(1903);€ņņCrowder€v.€Nicholóó,€17€Tenn.€(9€Yer.)Š ° Š453,€454€(1836).€€The€defendant€must€make€the€promise€or€give€the€acknowledgmentĻdirectly€to€the€plaintiff€or€someone€standing€in€such€a€close€relationship€with€theĻplaintiff€that€it€is€reasonable€to€infer€that€the€defendantššs€statements€will€reach€theĻplaintiff.€€ņņSee€Jones€v.€Milleróó,€173€Tenn.€360,€363,€117€S.W.2d€745,€746€(1938);Š @  ŠņņRoller€v.€Bachmanóó,€73€Tenn.€153,€157€(1880).€€Š ä 4  ŠĢą ` ąThe€expression€of€willingness€to€pay€the€debt€that€must€accompany€theĻacknowledgment€of€the€debt€may€be€implied€from€the€defendantššs€words€or€acts€but,Ļin€whatever€form,€the€words€or€acts€must€amount€to€a€recognition€of€the€continuingĻobligation.€€ņņSee€Hall€v.€Skidmoreóó,€180€Tenn.€at€27,€171€S.W.2d€at€275;€ņņC.A.€Hobbs,Š h ŠJr.,€Inc.€v.€Brainardóó,€919€S.W.2d€337,€338€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€Persons€whoŠ ¼  Šsuccessfully€establish€the€revival€exception€to€a€statute€of€limitations€defense€mustĻfile€suit€with€the€applicable€limitations€period€measured€from€when€the€conductĻconstituting€the€revival€occurred.€€ņņSee€Graves€v.€Sawyeróó,€588€S.W.2d€542,€544€(Tenn.Š Øų Š1979).ĢĢą@ÓÓ.Dąņ ņC.ó óˆŠ ” ä" ŠĢą ` ąThe€record€is€replete€with€evidence€of€numerous€instances€occurring€betweenĻApril€1982€and€December€1992€in€which€Mr.€Earthman€acknowledged€his€debt€to€Mr.ĻIngram€and€either€stated€or€indicated€a€willingness€to€repay€the€debt€or€to€enter€intoĻan€amicable€arrangement€to€discharge€the€debt.€€Mr.€Ingram€testified€that€Mr.ĻEarthman€told€him€during€a€conversation€in€April€1982€before€Mr.€Earthmanššs€noteĻcame€due€that€he€was€unable€to€pay€the€note€and€that€he€would€ask€United€AmericanĻBank€to€renew€the€loan€in€Mr.€Ingramššs€name.€€Similarly,€in€May€1983,€Mr.€EarthmanĻacknowledged€his€continuing€obligation€to€repay€Mr.€Ingram€when€he€asked€Mr.ĻIngram€to€pay€Banque€dššl€Union€Europeene€$2,729,675.95€in€order€to€preventĻCommerce€Union€Bank€from€being€called€upon€to€repurchase€Mr.€Ingramššs€note.ĢĢą ` ąIn€April€and€May€1987,€Messrs.€Earthman€and€Ingram€discussed€the€possibilityĻthat€Mr.€Ingram€might€forgive€Mr.€Earthmanššs€indebtedness.€€Mr.€Earthman€sent€Mr.ĻIngram€three€proposals€that€in€essence€involved€canceling€the€debt€in€order€toĻdischarge€Mr.€Earthmanššs€compensation€claims€involving€two€of€Mr.€IngramššsŠ Ō:$6B Šcompanies.€€When€Mr.€Ingram€categorically€rejected€these€proposals,€Mr.€EarthmanĻacknowledged€his€continuing€obligation€to€repay€the€loan,€and€the€two€men€discussedĻhow€Mr.€Earthman€could€earn€sufficient€income€from€other€business€ventures€toĻenable€him€to€repay€Mr.€Ingram.ĢĢą ` ąThe€first€venture€Messrs.€Ingram€and€Earthman€discussed€involved€the€sale€ofĻArcata€Corporation€to€Japanese€investors€which,€if€accomplished,€would€result€in€aĻsizeable€commission€for€Mr.€Earthman.€€In€April€1988,€just€as€the€statute€ofĻlimitations€was€about€to€run€on€the€note,€Mr.€Earthman€told€Mr.€Ingram€that€he€wasĻstill€unable€to€repay€the€debt€but€that€he€hoped€to€be€able€to€do€so€from€the€anticipatedĻcommission€from€the€Arcata€sale.€€Later,€in€September€1988€during€a€trip€to€Tokyo,ĻMr.€Earthman€and€Mr.€Ingram€agreed€that€any€commission€earned€would€be€used€toĻrepay€Mr.€Earthmanššs€debt€to€Mr.€Ingram€before€Mr.€Earthman€received€anything.€€ĢĢą ` ąIn€April€1991€after€the€Arcata€transaction€fell€through,€Mr.€Earthman€offeredĻto€discharge€his€debt€to€Mr.€Ingram€by€providing€Mr.€Ingram€a€40%€interest€in€aĻventure€to€bottle€and€market€springwater€from€Mr.€Earthmanššs€Beersheba€SpringsĻfarm.€€The€venture€never€got€off€the€ground€after€Coca„Cola€Corporation€expressedĻno€interest€in€it.€€Mr.€Ingram€did€not€agree€to€accept€Mr.€Earthmanššs€offer€when€heĻsensed€that€Mr.€Earthman€was€losing€interest€in€the€project.ĢĢą ` ąThe€final€discussion€between€Messrs.€Earthman€and€Ingram€concerning€Mr.ĻEarthmanššs€debt€occurred€in€December€1992€when€the€two€men€met€in€the€DallasĻairport.€€According€to€Mr.€Ingram,€Mr.€Earthman€acknowledged€the€debt€andĻindicated€that€he€remained€willing€but€unable€to€pay€it.€€He€also€told€Mr.€Ingram€thatĻhe€would€assist€Mr.€Ingram€in€his€efforts€to€induce€Commerce€Union€Bank€to€pay€aĻportion€of€the€debt€because€of€the€way€it€had€managed€Mr.€Ingramššs€United€AmericanĻBank€and€Banque€dššl€Union€Europeene€loans.€€Mr.€Ingram€filed€suit€against€Mr.ĻEarthman€in€March€1994.ĢĢą ` ąStatute€of€limitations€defenses€can€be€factually€troublesome.€€ņņSee€Hibner€v.€St.Š č581< ŠPaul€Mercury€Ins.€Co.óó,€619€S.W.2d€109,€110€(Tenn.€1981).€€Accordingly,€the€juryŠ Œ7Ü2> Šshould€normally€decide€whether€a€defendant€should€be€prevented€from€asserting€aĻstatute€of€limitations€defense.€€ņņSee€Apperson€v.€Pattisonóó,€79€Tenn.€484,€486€(1883);Š Ō:$6B ŠņņFrazor€v.€Osborneóó,€57€Tenn.€App.€10,€20,€414€S.W.2d€118,€123€(1966),€ņņoverruled€onŠ ° Šother€groundsóó,€ņņStanbury€v.€Bacardióó,€953€S.W.2d€671,€675€(Tenn.€1997).€€TheŠ T¤ Šquestion€should€be€withdrawn€from€the€jury€only€when€the€trial€court€determines€thatĻreasonable€persons€could€reach€only€one€conclusion€based€on€the€evidence.€€OurĻreview€of€the€evidence€convinces€us€that€a€jury€question€existed€concerning€whetherĻMr.€Earthman€induced€Mr.€Ingram€to€delay€filing€suit€by€continuing€to€acknowledgeĻhis€debt€and€by€expressing€his€willingness€but€inability€to€repay€it.ĢĢą@ÓÓ.Dąņ ņV.ó óˆŠ Š  Šą ` ąĢą ` ąMr.€Earthman€also€takes€issue€with€the€jury€instructions.€€Specifically,€heĻasserts€that€the€trial€courtššs€instructions€contain€two€misstatements€of€the€law€and€thatĻthe€trial€court€erroneously€declined€to€give€four€of€his€requested€instructions.€€WeĻhave€determined€that€the€trial€court€did€not€commit€reversible€error€by€denying€Mr.ĻEarthmanššs€requested€instructions€and€that€the€trial€courtššs€instructions,€taken€as€aĻwhole,€fairly€defined€the€issues€in€the€case€and€did€not€mislead€the€jury.ĢĢą@ÓÓ.Dąņ ņA.ó óˆŠ ” ä" ŠĢą ` ąJuries€have€the€exclusive€duty€to€decide€all€the€disputed€factual€issuesĻsubmitted€to€them,€ņņsee€McCormic€v.€Smithóó,€668€S.W.2d€304,€306€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Š €%Š ( Š1984);€ņņFinks€v.€Gillumóó,€38€Tenn.€App.€304,€311„12,€273€S.W.2d€722,€726„27€(1954),Š $'t"* Šbased€on€the€law€as€explained€by€the€trial€court.€€ņņSee€McCorry€v.€Kingššs€Heirsóó,€22Š Č($, ŠTenn.€(3€Hum.)€267,€277„78€(1842);€ņņLadd€v.€Honda€Motor€Co.óó,€939€S.W.2d€83,€93Š l*¼%. Š(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€Thus,€the€trial€courtššs€instructions€are€the€juryššs€sole€sourceĻof€the€legal€principles€used€to€guide€their€deliberations.€€ņņSee€State€ex€rel.€Myers€v.Š “-)2 ŠBrownóó,€209€Tenn.€141,€148„49,€351€S.W.2d€385,€388€(1961);€ņņGrissom€v.Š X/Ø*4 ŠMetropolitan€Govšštóó,€817€S.W.2d€679,€685€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€€Š ü0L,6 ŠĢą ` ąTrial€courts€have€a€duty€to€give€substantially€accurate€instructions€with€regardĻto€every€fact€and€theory€raised€by€the€pleadings€and€supported€by€the€proof.€€ņņSeeŠ č581< ŠStreet€v.€Calvertóó,€541€S.W.2d€576,€584€(Tenn.€1976);€ņņSouter€v.€Cracker€Barrel€OldŠ Œ7Ü2> ŠCountry€Store,€Inc.óó,€895€S.W.2d€681,€684€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994);€ņņTuggle€v.€RaymondŠ 09€4@ ŠCorp.óó,€868€S.W.2d€621,€626€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€These€instructions€should€beŠ Ō:$6B Šcouched€in€plain€terms€easily€understood€by€lay€persons.€€ņņSee€Betty€v.€MetropolitanŠ ° ŠGovšštóó,€835€S.W.2d€1,€10€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992);€ņņMartin€v.€Castner„Knott€Dry€GoodsŠ T¤ ŠCo.óó,€27€Tenn.€App.€421,€431,€181€S.W.2d€638,€642€(1944).Š ųH ŠĢą ` ąInstructions€should€not€contain€inaccurate€or€inapplicable€statements€of€legalĻprinciples€that€might€tend€to€confuse€the€jury.€€ņņSee€Lantroop€v.€Morelandóó,€849€S.W.2dŠ ä 4  Š793,€798€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€However,€instructions€are€not€expected€to€be€perfect.€ĻņņIn€re€Estate€of€Elamóó,€738€S.W.2d€169,€174€(Tenn.€1987);€ņņBenson€v.€Tennessee€ValleyŠ ,|  ŠElec.€Coop.óó,€868€S.W.2d€630,€642„43€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€Our€task€on€appeal€isŠ Š  Što€review€the€instructions€in€their€entirety,€ņņsee€Otis€v.€Cambridge€Mut.€Fire€Ins.€Co.óó,Š tÄ Š850€S.W.2d€439,€446€(Tenn.€1992);€ņņAbbott€v.€American€Honda€Motor€Co.óó,€682Š h ŠS.W.2d€206,€209€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984),€and€to€examine€the€challenged€instructionĻin€context€to€determine€whether€the€instructions,€as€a€whole,€fairly€and€accuratelyĻembody€the€partiesšš€theories.€€ņņSee€Gorman€v.€Earhartóó,€876€S.W.2d€832,€836€(Tenn.Š T Š1994);€ņņMid„South€Pavers,€Inc.€v.€Whitakeróó,€53€Tenn.€App.€584,€593,€385€S.W.2d€284,Š Øų Š288€(1964).€€ĢĢą ` ąAppellate€courts€review€the€entire€charge€just€like€a€jury€would,€ņņsee€MemphisŠ ” ä" ŠSt.€Ry.€v.€Wilsonóó,€108€Tenn.€618,€620,€69€S.W.€265,€265€(1902);€ņņAbbott€v.€AmericanŠ 8"ˆ$ ŠHonda€Motor€Co.óó,€682€S.W.2d€at€209,€rather€than€through€the€practiced€eye€of€aŠ Ü#,& Šjudge€or€lawyer.€€ņņSee€Ladd€v.€Honda€Motor€Co.óó,€939€S.W.2d€at€94.€€We€will€notŠ €%Š ( Šinvalidate€instructions€as€long€as€they€fairly€define€the€legal€issues€in€the€case€and€doĻnot€mislead€the€jury.€€ņņSee€Otis€v.€Cambridge€Mut.€Fire€Ins.€Co.óó,€850€S.W.2d€at€446;Š Č($, ŠņņSmith€v.€Parkeróó,€213€Tenn.€147,€156,€373€S.W.2d€205,€209€(1963)ņņóó;€ņņGrissom€v.Š l*¼%. ŠMetropolitan€Govšštóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€685.€€An€erroneous€instruction€will€notŠ ,`'0 Šnecessarily€be€considered€reversible€error€if€the€trial€court€later€explains€or€correctsĻthe€instruction€or€if€the€trial€court€adequately€explains€the€issues€in€the€case€in€otherĻportions€of€its€charge.€€ņņSee€In€re€Estate€of€Elamóó,€738€S.W.2d€at€174;€ņņSmith€v.€Parkeróó,Š ü0L,6 Š213€Tenn.€at€156,€373€S.W.2d€at€209;€ņņLadd€v.€Honda€Motor€Co.óó,€939€S.W.2d€at€94,Š  2š-8 Š103.ĢĢą ` ąTrial€courts€should€carefully€consider€requested€instructions€because€theĻrequesting€parties€are€entitled€to€them€(1)€if€they€are€supported€by€the€evidence,€(2)Ļif€they€embody€a€theory€relied€on€the€party,€(3)€if€they€are€correct€statements€of€theŠ Ō:$6B Šlaw,€and€(4)€if€their€substance€is€not€already€contained€in€other€portions€of€the€charge.€ĻņņSee€Ladd€v.€Honda€Motor€Co.óó,€939€S.W.2d€at€103;€ņņSpellmeyer€v.€Tennessee€FarmersŠ T¤ ŠMut.€Ins.€Co.óó,€879€S.W.2d€843,€846€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€However,€trial€courtsŠ ųH Šmay€decline€to€give€a€requested€instruction€(1)€if€it€is€not€supported€by€the€evidence,Š œ ģ Šņņsee€Payne€v.€Nashville,€C.€&€St.€L.€Ry.óó,€106€Tenn.€167,€173„74,€61€S.W.€86,€87Š @  Š(1900);€ņņHartsell€v.€Fort€Sanders€Regššl€Med.€Ctr.óó,€905€S.W.2d€944,€949€(Tenn.€Ct.Š ä 4  ŠApp.€1995),€(2)€if€its€substance€is€already€covered€in€the€charge,€ņņsee€Jack€M.€Bass€&Š ˆŲ  ŠCo.€v.€Parkeróó,€208€Tenn.€38,€49,€343€S.W.2d€879,€884€(1961);€ņņTuggle€v.€RaymondŠ ,|  ŠCorp.óó,€868€S.W.2d€621,€626€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992),€or€(3)€if€it€is€incorrect€orŠ Š  Šincomplete€in€any€respect.€€ņņSee€Otis€v.€Cambridge€Mut.€Fire€Ins.€Co.óó,€850€S.W.2d€atŠ tÄ Š445;€ņņMorton€v.€Martin€Aviation€Corp.óó,€205€Tenn.€41,€53„54,€325€S.W.2d€524,€530Š h Š(1959).€€Ģą@ŁŁ.Dąņ ņB.ó óˆŠ `° ŠĢą ` ąWe€turn€first€to€Mr.€Earthmanššs€requested€jury€instructions.€€Of€the€fourĻinstructions€denied€by€the€trial€court,€two€related€to€Mr.€Ingramššs€status€as€a€holderĻor€owner€of€Mr.€Earthmanššs€note,€while€the€remaining€two€involved€Mr.€EarthmanššsĻstatute€of€limitations€defense.ĢĢą@  Dąņņņ ņThe€Proposed€Instructions€Concerning€Mr.€Ingramššs€Statusó óóóˆŠ Ü#,& ŠĢą ` ąMr.€Earthman€requested€instructions€concerning€the€legal€significance€of€anĻendorsement€in€blank€and€the€consequences€of€transferring€an€instrument.€€BothĻinstructions€were€based€on€the€Uniform€Commercial€Code€and€were€premised€on€Mr.ĻEarthmanššs€assertion€that€Mr.€Ingram€was€no€longer€the€owner€or€holder€of€the€noteĻbecause€he€had€endorsed€it€in€blank€and€had€assigned€it€to€Mr.€von€Meiss.€€While€theĻtrial€court€could€properly€have€instructed€the€jury€concerning€the€legal€effect€ofĻtransferring€the€note,€it€did€not€err€by€declining€to€give€these€instructions.ĢĢą ` ąRequested€instructions€must€be€supported€by€the€evidence€and€must€be€correctĻstatements€of€the€applicable€law.€€These€two€instructions€were€not€correct€statementsĻof€the€law€because€the€Uniform€Commercial€Code€did€not€govern€Mr.€EarthmanššsĻā ānote.€€This€note€was€not€negotiable€and,€therefore,€the€rights€and€liabilities€of€theŠ 09€4@ Šparties€to€the€note€must€be€found€in€the€common€law€of€bills€and€notes€and€in€contractĻlaw.Ģā āĢą ` ąThe€instructions€were€also€not€supported€by€the€evidence.€€Mr.€Ingram€did€notĻendorse€the€note€in€blank€but€rather€executed€a€separate€assignment€form€with€theĻspace€for€the€name€of€the€assignee€left€blank.€€The€consequences€of€these€acts€differĻbecause€the€assignment€document€was€not€so€firmly€affixed€to€the€note€as€to€becomeĻpart€thereof.׃%ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś20Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€While€non„negotiable€notes€may€be€transferred€or€assigned,€ņņsee€WolfeŠ ,|  Šv.€Tyleróó,€48€Tenn.€(1€Heisk.)€313,€316€(1870),€whether€an€assignment€has€occurredŠ Š  Šdepends€on€the€intention€and€mutual€assent€of€the€assignor€and€the€assignee.€€ņņSeeŠ tÄ ŠPatton€v.€Gleavesóó,€206€Tenn.€541,€544,€334€S.W.2d€946,€948€(1960);€ņņHutsell€v.Š h ŠCitizensšš€Natššl€Bankóó,€166€Tenn.€598,€603,€64€S.W.2d€188,€190€(1933).€€The€evidenceŠ ¼  Šdoes€not€establish€that€Mr.€Ingram€intended€to€assign€all€his€interest€in€the€note€to€Mr.Ļvon€Meiss.€€At€most,€Mr.€Ingramššs€unrebutted€testimony,€buttressed€by€the€separateĻassignment€form€with€the€name€of€the€assignee€left€blank,€establishes€that€Mr.€vonĻMeiss€was€holding€the€note€as€Mr.€Ingramššs€agent€until€Mr.€Ingram€decided€what€toĻdo€with€the€note.ĢĢÓ€Óą@Ń Ń Dąą@@  Dąņņņ ņThe€Proposed€Instructions€Concerning€the€Statute€ˆŠ 8"ˆ$ Šą@77$Dąof€Limitations€Defenseó óóóˆŠ P# % ŠĢĢÓ€Óą ` ąMr.€Earthman€also€requested€two€instructions€regarding€his€statute€ofĻlimitations€defense.€€The€first€instruction€would€have€informed€the€jury€thatĢÓ€Óą8 ` ąą8ø ` (#` (#ąIn€order€to€revive€the€debt,€the€burden€of€proof€is€on€theĻPlaintiff,€Ingram,€to€prove€by€a€preponderance€of€theĻevidence€that€the€Defendant,€Earthman,€made€anĻunconditional€promise€to€pay€Ingram€on€or€after€March€24,Ļ1988,€or€that€on€or€after€March€24,€1988,€EarthmanĻengaged€in€conduct€that€would€induce€an€ordinarilyĻprudent€person€not€to€file€suit€to€collect€the€note.Š ø Š ø Š  ŠÓ€$IÓĢThe€second€requested€instruction€would€have€informed€the€jury€thatĢÓ€Óą8 ` ąą8ø ` (#` (#ąą  ąStatements€or€conduct,€like€payments€on€a€note,Ļreaffirming€the€debt,€must€be€made€to€the€holder€of€theĻnote€to€toll€the€Statute€of€Limitations.€€If€you€find€thatŠ 7P29 ŠIngram€was€not€holding€the€$1.7€million€note,€theĻstatements€or€conduct€by€Earthman€toward€Ingram€duringĻsuch€times€as€Ingram€was€not€holding€the€$1.7€millionĻnote,€will€not€bar€or€estop€Earthman€from€relying€upon€theĻStatute€of€Limitations,€as€a€defense€to€payment€of€the€$1.7Ļmillion€note.Š ø Š ø Š  ŠĢĢÓ€Óą ` ąThe€trial€court€properly€declined€to€give€Mr.€Earthmanššs€requested€instructionĻthat€statements€acknowledging€a€debt€will€not€revive€a€cause€of€action€on€a€noteĻunless€they€are€made€directly€to€the€holder.€€This€proposed€instruction€is€faulty€forĻtwo€reasons.€€First,€it€is€legally€incorrect€because€the€statements€of€acknowledgmentĻneed€not€be€made€directly€to€the€holder.€€They€may€also€be€made€to€persons€whoseĻrelationship€with€the€holder€is€so€close€that€it€is€reasonable€to€presume€that€theĻstatements€found€their€way€back€to€the€holder.€€ņņSee€Jones€v.€Milleróó,€173€Tenn.€at€363,Š H˜ Š117€S.W.2d€at€746;€ņņRoller€v.€Bachmanóó,€73€Tenn.€at€157.€€Second,€it€is€not€supportedŠ ģ< Šby€the€evidence€because€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€create€a€jury€questionĻconcerning€Mr.€Ingramššs€status€as€the€owner€or€holder€of€the€note.׃,ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś21Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׊ 4„ ŠĢą ` ąLikewise,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€declining€to€give€Mr.€EarthmanššsĻproposed€instruction€concerning€the€substance€of€the€statements€required€to€revive€aĻdebt.€€This€proposed€instruction€was€unduly€narrow€because€a€cause€of€action€on€aĻnote€can€be€revived€not€only€by€an€š šunconditional€promise€to€payšš€but€also€by€anĻacknowledgement€of€the€debt€coupled€with€an€expression€of€willingness€to€pay.€€ņņSeeŠ  &\!& ŠHall€v.€Skidmoreóó,€180€Tenn.€at€27,€171€S.W.2d€at€275;€ņņWarren€v.€Clevelandóó,€111Š °'#( ŠTenn.€at€177,€76€S.W.€at€910.€€ņņóóThe€substance€of€the€requested€instruction€was€alsoŠ T)¤$* Šadequately€covered€in€other€portions€of€the€trial€courtššs€charge.€€Following€itsĻinstructions€on€estoppel,€the€trial€court€charged€the€jury€that€ĢÓ€Óą8 ` ąą8ø ` (#` (#ąą  ąA€debt,€a€collection€of€which€is€barred€by€the€statuteĻof€limitation,€may€also€be€revived.€€If€EarthmanĻacknowledged€the€debt€and€promised€to€pay€Ingram€afterĻthe€six„year€period€expired€then€the€debt€was€revived€andĻthe€suit€is€not€barred€by€the€six„year€statute€of€limitations.ĻIngram€has€the€burden€of€proving€the€revival€of€the€debt.Š ø Š ø Š  Šā āŌ_ŌŠ Š4 06 ŠÓ€Óą ` ąMr.€Earthmanššs€chief€objection€to€the€trial€courtššs€instructions€is€that€theyĻā āpermitted€the€jury€to€decide€that€statements€or€conduct€occurring€before€March€24,Ļ1988€could€prevent€him€from€asserting€a€statute€of€limitations€defense.€€We€agree€thatĻthe€instructions€permit€the€jury€to€draw€this€conclusion,€but€we€fail€to€see€the€error.€ĻPromises€and€statements€made€before€the€limitations€period€expired€will€support€anĻestoppel€claim,€just€as€promises€and€statements€made€after€the€limitations€periodĻexpired€will€support€a€revival€claim.€€The€trial€courtššs€estoppel€and€revivalĻinstructions,€taken€as€a€whole,€adequately€provided€the€jury€with€the€legal€principlesĻneeded€to€decide€Mr.€Earthmanššs€statute€of€limitations€defense.€€Accordingly,€the€trialĻcourt€did€not€err€by€denying€Mr.€Earthmanššs€requested€instructions.ĢĢą@ÓÓ.Dąņ ņC.ó óˆŠ ¼  ŠĢą ` ąMr.€Earthman€also€asserts€that€the€trial€court€gave€two€erroneous€instructionsĻthat€affected€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€The€first€instruction€involved€the€permissibleĻuses€of€the€evidence€involving€Mr.€Ingramššs€1977€criminal€conviction.€€The€secondĻinstruction€involves€the€elements€of€Mr.€Ingramššs€estoppel€claim.€€ĢĢą@ååDąņ ņņņThe€Instruction€Limiting€the€use€of€Mr.€Ingramššs€Convictionóóó óˆŠ 8"ˆ$ ŠĢą ` ąMr.€Earthmanššs€challenge€to€the€trial€courtššs€instruction€limiting€the€juryššsĻconsideration€of€Mr.€Ingramššs€1977€conviction€is€puzzling.€€This€instruction€followedĻthe€trial€courtššs€ruling€that€the€conviction€could€not€be€used€to€impeach€Mr.€IngramĻbut€that€it€could€be€used€to€illustrate€the€relationship€between€Messrs.€Ingram€andĻEarthman€and€to€provide€background€information€concerning€the€loan€transactionĻitself.€€Even€though€Mr.€Earthman€has€not€directly€challenged€the€trial€courtššsĻevidentiary€ruling,€he€takes€issue€with€the€instruction€necessitated€by€the€ruling.€€Mr.ĻEarthmanššs€failure€to€challenge€the€evidentiary€ruling€limiting€the€use€of€Mr.ĻIngramššs€criminal€conviction€prevents€him€from€taking€issue€with€the€limitingĻinstruction.ĢĢą ` ąWere€we€to€permit€Mr.€Earthman€to€collaterally€attack€the€evidentiary€ruling,Ļwe€would€find€that€the€trial€court€properly€determined€that€Mr.€Ingramššs€1977Ļconviction€could€not€be€used€to€impeach€his€credibility.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609€permitsŠ Ō:$6B ŠŃ*±÷%Ńā *āŃŃŃ  ŃŃXXŃā *āŃ  Ńusing€prior€convictions€to€impeach€a€witnessššs€credibility.€€However,€evidence€of€aĻconviction€that€is€more€than€ten€years€old€cannot€be€used€for€impeachment€unless€theĻcourt€first€determines€š šthat€the€probative€value€of€the€conviction,€supported€byĻspecific€facts€and€circumstances,€substantially€outweighs€its€prejudicial€effect.šš€€ņņSeeóóŠ œ ģ ŠTenn.€R.€Evid.€609(b).€€The€rule€discourages€the€use€of€stale€convictions€forĻimpeachment€because€they€may€no€longer€shed€light€on€a€witnessššs€credibility.€€ņņSeeóóŠ ä 4  ŠNeil€Cohen,€et€al.,€ņņTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceó󀚚€609.5€(3d€ed.€1995)€(š šTennesseeŠ ˆŲ  ŠLaw€of€Evidencešš).€€Thus,€as€a€practical€matter,€the€balancing€test€required€by€Tenn.ĻR.€Evid.€609(b)€ordinarily€results€in€the€exclusion€of€the€evidence€of€the€staleĻconviction.€€ņņSeeóó€Robert€E.€Burch,€ņņTrial€Handbook€for€Tennessee€Lawyersó󀚚€16.11,Š tÄ Šat€220€(2d€ed.€1995);€Tennessee€Law€of€Evidence,€šš€609.5,€at€372„73.ĢĢą ` ąLike€other€evidentiary€rulings,€appellate€courts€review€a€trial€courtššs€rulingĻunder€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609(b)€using€an€abuse€of€discretion€standard.€€ņņSee€State€v.Š T ŠBlantonóó,€926€S.W.2d€953,€959„60€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€The€reviewing€courtŠ Øų Šdoes€not€reweigh€or€re„evaluate€the€probative€value€and€prejudicial€effect€of€the€priorĻconviction.ņņ€€See€State€v.€Robertsóó,€943€S.W.2d€403,€408€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€TheŠ š@  Šparty€desiring€to€use€an€old€conviction€has€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€itsĻprobative€value€outweighs€its€prejudicial€effect.€€ņņSee€United€States€v.€Beahmóó,€664Š 8"ˆ$ ŠF.2d€414,€417„18€(4th€Cir.€1981).€€Mr.€Earthman€has€failed€to€carry€his€burden€ofĻproof€and€has€failed€to€demonstrate€how€the€trial€court€erred€by€preventing€him€fromĻusing€the€evidence€of€Mr.€Ingramššs€1977€conviction€to€impeach€his€credibility.ĢńK/ńÓĢL€ÓńK/ńĢńK/ńńJ/ńÓff€ÓńJ/ńńK/ńą ` ąIf€the€trial€court€decides€to€permit€the€introduction€of€evidence€of€a€convictionĻof€a€party€who€was€released€from€custody€more€than€ten€years€before€the€action€wasĻcommenced,€it€should€instruct€the€jury€concerning€the€permitted€use€of€the€evidence.€ĻņņSeeóó€Tennessee€Law€of€Evidence€šš€609.12.€€The€trial€court€did€precisely€that€when€itŠ t.Ä)0 Šinstructed€the€jury€that€ĢńK/ńńJ/ńÓ€ffhÓńJ/ńńK/ńńK/ńÓ€ĢLhÓńK/ńÓ€Óą8 ` ąą8ø ` (#` (#ą.€.€.€this€evidence€about€Mr.€Ingramššs€conviction€and€beingĻin€prison€is€being€admitted€because€it€goes€to€the€wholeĻquestion€of€the€loan€and€the€relationship€between€theĻparties€in€the€loan€and€any€provisions€that€were€or€were€notĻmade€for€paying€it€back.€€Š ø Š ø Š  ŠĢą8 ` ąą8ø ` (#` (#ąą  ąAnd€so€I€instruct€you€that€youššre€not€to€consider€thisĻevidence€about€this€conviction€in€Chicago€as€evidence€ofĻbad€character€on€the€part€of€Mr.€Ingram,€but€only€for€theĻlimited€purpose€of€helping€you€understand€the€transactionĻthat€is€involved€in€this€suit.Š:<Š7<ø Š ø Š  ЇÓ€ÓBecause€we€find€no€error€with€the€trial€courtššs€evidentiary€ruling,€we€find€no€errorĻwith€its€contemporaneous€limiting€instruction€regarding€the€use€of€the€evidence€ofĻMr.€Ingramššs€1977€conviction.ĢĢą@¢¢#Dąņ ņņņThe€Estoppel€Instructionóóó óˆŠ @  ŠĢą ` ąMr.€Earthman€also€takes€issue€with€the€portion€of€the€trial€courtššs€estoppelĻinstruction€in€which€the€trial€court€stated:ĢÓ€Óą8 ` ąą8ø ` (#` (#ąą  ąEarthman€may€also€be€estopped€from€relying€on€theĻstatute€of€limitations€if€during€the€six„year€period€.€.€.€heĻacknowledged€his€indebtedness€to€Ingram.€€AnĻacknowledgment€of€the€debt€constitutes€an€impliedĻpromise€to€pay€it.Š ø Š ø Š  ŠĢÓ€ÓHe€asserts€that€this€instruction€could€have€induced€the€jury€to€decide€that€he€wasĻestopped€to€assert€his€statute€of€limitations€defense€even€in€the€absence€of€evidenceĻthat€he€expressed€a€willingness€to€pay€the€debt.€€This€argument€reflects€confusionĻbetween€the€ingredients€for€an€estoppel€claim€and€a€revival€claim.€€ĢĢą ` ąEstoppel€claims€do€not€require€proof€that€the€debtor€has€expressed€aĻwillingness€to€pay.€€Rather,€they€require€proof€that€the€makerššs€statements€andĻconduct,€made€or€occurring€prior€to€the€expiration€of€the€limitations€period,€inducedĻthe€holder€of€the€note€to€believe€that€the€maker€either€would€not€assert€a€statute€ofĻlimitations€defense€or€that€the€dispute€would€be€settled€amicably€without€litigation.€ĻExpressions€of€willingness€to€pay€after€the€expiration€of€the€limitations€period€areĻnecessary€ingredients€of€a€claim€that€an€extinguished€cause€of€action€has€beenĻrevived.€€ņņSee€Hall€v.€Skidmoreóó,€180€Tenn.€at€27,€171€S.W.2d€at€275.€Š ,`'. ŠĢą ` ąDepending€on€the€circumstances,€a€makerššs€acknowledgment€of€a€debt€couldĻprovide€the€basis€for€an€estoppel€claim€if€the€manner€in€which€the€acknowledgmentĻwas€made€reasonably€induced€the€holder€to€forego€filing€suit€because€of€a€belief€thatĻthe€maker€would€not€assert€a€statute€of€limitations€defense€or€that€the€maker€intendedĻto€resolve€the€dispute€without€litigation.€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€juryĢÓ€Óą8 ` ąą8ø ` (#` (#ąą  ąA€party€by€his€conduct€or€words€may€be€estoppedĻfrom€relying€on€the€statute€of€limitation€as€a€defense.€€IfĻIngram€was€induced€to€believe€that€Earthman€was€going€toĻpay€the€debt,€or€otherwise€satisfy€the€debt,€or€reach€someĻother€amicable€settlement€of€the€debt€and,€in€reliance€onŠ ģ;<7@ Šthe€conduct€or€words,€Ingram€delayed€filing€the€suit€withinĻthe€applicable€limitation€period€then€Earthman€is€.€.€.Ļestopped€from€relying€on€the€statute€of€limitations€as€aĻdefense€or,€stated€another€way,€if€Earthman€by€his€conductĻor€words€induced€Ingram€to€believe€that€the€debt€would€beĻpaid,€or€otherwise€satisfied,€or€that€some€other€amicableĻsettlement€would€be€reached€then€.€.€.€Ingram€is€excusedĻfrom€failing€to€file€the€suit€within€the€six„year€limitationĻperiod.Š ø Š ø Š  ŠĢą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ą*ą  ąą p ą*ą Č ąą  ą*€Š  š  ŠĢą8 ` ąą8ø ` (#` (#ąą  ąIngram€must€prove€that€he€relied€on€EarthmanššsĻconduct€and€words€and€that€his€reliance€was€reasonable.€ĻWhether€any€reliance€was€reasonable€is€.€.€.€for€you,€theĻjury,€to€decide€from€all€the€facts€and€circumstancesĻintroduced€into€evidence.Š ø Š ø Š  ŠĢÓ€ÓWhile€the€statement€that€š š[a]n€acknowledgment€of€the€debt€constitutes€an€impliedĻpromise€to€pay€itšš€may€have€been€imprecise€enough€to€be€misinterpreted€by€the€jury,Ļit€should€not€be€considered€out€of€context.€€The€trial€courtššs€estoppel€instructions,Ļtaken€as€a€whole,€fairly€informed€the€jury€of€Mr.€Ingramššs€burden€of€proof€and€theĻessential€ingredients€of€his€estoppel€claim.€€Accordingly,€we€find€no€reversible€errorĻin€the€trial€courtššs€estoppel€instructions.ĢĢą@„„.Dąņ ņVI.ó óˆŠ Ü#,  ŠĢą ` ąMr.€Earthman€also€asserts€that€the€special€verdict€form€is€fatally€incomplete.€ĻHe€takes€the€trial€court€to€task€for€not€including€questions€concerning€whether€Mr.ĻIngram€was€the€holder€or€owner€of€the€note€and€whether€the€acts€found€by€the€jury€toĻexcuse€Mr.€Ingram€from€filing€suit€occurred€within€the€six„year€limitations€period.€ĻWe€find€no€reversible€errors€in€the€special€verdict€form.ĢĢą ` ąDecisions€regarding€the€use€of€a€special€verdict€form€and€the€questions€to€beĻincluded€on€the€form€are€discretionary.€€ņņSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€49;€ņņSmith€v.€Parkeróó,€213Š  2š-2 ŠTenn.€147,€159„60,€373€S.W.2d€205,€211€(1963).€€When€a€special€verdict€form€isĻused,€it€should€repeat€and€highlight€the€issues€covered€in€the€charge€and€should€beĻcouched€in€the€same€terms€as€the€jury€instructions.€€ņņSee€Concrete€Spaces,€Inc.€v.Š Œ7Ü28 ŠSenderóó,€No.€01A01„9607„CH„00288,€1998€WL€430165,€at€*6€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€JulyŠ 09€4: Š31,€1998)€(Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€pending).€€Instructions€and€special€verdictŠ Ō:$6< ŠŌ_Ōforms€should€be€considered€together€to€determine€whether€they€present€the€contestedĻissues€to€the€jury€in€an€unclouded€and€fair€manner.€€ņņSee€Morton€v.€City€of€Chicagoóó,Š T¤ Š676€N.E.2d€985,€990€(Ill.€App.€Ct.€1997);€ņņCapers€v.€The€Bon€Marcheóó,€955€P.2d€822,Š ųH Š825€(Wash.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€Reversal€is€required€only€when€the€special€verdict€formĻis€confusing€or€inconsistent€with€the€trial€courtššs€instructions.€€ņņSee€Helmar€v.Š @  ŠHarscheóó,€686€A.2d€766,€775€(N.J.€Super.€Ct.€App.€Div.€1996).Š ä 4  ŠĢą ` ąThe€trial€court€did€not€accept€Mr.€Earthmanššs€proposed€instruction€concerningĻMr.€Ingramššs€status€as€a€holder€or€owner€of€the€note€and€did€not€include€aĻcorresponding€question€on€the€special€verdict€form.€€We€have€already€found€that€theĻtrial€court€did€not€commit€reversible€error€by€declining€to€give€the€requestedĻinstruction.€€Now€we€find€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€declining€to€include€aĻquestion€concerning€Mr.€Ingramššs€status€as€a€holder€or€owner€of€the€note€on€theĻspecial€verdict€form.€€The€proof€simply€did€not€warrant€including€this€question.ĢĢą ` ąThe€facts€surrounding€the€dealings€between€Messrs.€Ingram€and€von€Meiss€inĻ1982€are€straightforward.€€Mr.€Ingram€sent€the€original€note€and€a€separate,Ļincomplete€assignment€form€to€Mr.€von€Meiss.€€By€doing€so,€Mr.€Ingram€did€notĻintend€to€relinquish€all€his€interest€in€the€note€but€rather€intended€that€Mr.€von€Meiss,Ļacting€as€his€agent,€would€hold€the€note€while€Mr.€Ingram€decided€what€he€wantedĻto€do€with€it.€€The€only€conclusion€that€a€reasonable€fact„finder€could€draw€from€thisĻevidence€was€that€Mr.€Ingram€retained€control€over€the€note€after€January€1982€andĻdid€not€lose€his€status€as€the€owner€or€holder€of€the€note.€€Therefore,€the€trial€courtĻproperly€declined€to€include€a€question€on€the€special€verdict€form€asking€the€jury€toĻdetermine€whether€Mr.€Ingram€was€the€holder€or€owner€of€the€note.ĢĢą@ww-Dąņ ņVII.ˆŠ X/Ø*4 ŠĢó óą ` ąIn€his€penultimate€issue,€Mr.€Earthman€asserts€that€the€trial€court€should€notŠ  2š-8 Šhave€submitted€Mr.€Ingramššs€claim€for€compound€interest€to€the€jury.€€He€argues€thatĻdetermining€whether€a€note€bears€simple€or€compound€interest€is€a€question€of€lawĻand€that€the€trial€court€should€have€concluded€that€the€October€14,€1980€note€requiredĻonly€simple€interest.€€We€disagree.€€The€meaning€of€the€interest€rate€provision€in€theĻnote€presented€a€jury€question.Š Ō:$6B Їą ` ąCompound€interest€is€permissible€in€Tennessee€as€long€as€the€parties€haveĻagreed€to€it.€€ņņSee€Woods€v.€Rankinóó,€49€Tenn.€(2€Heisk.)€46,€48€(1870);ņņ€Hale€v.€Haleóó,Š T¤ Š41€Tenn.€(1€Cold.)€233,€236€(1860);€ņņWaid€v.€Greeróó,€56€S.W.€1029,€1029€(Tenn.€App.Š ųH Š1900).€€In€cases€involving€a€promissory€note,€the€partiesšš€agreement€concerningĻinterest€should€be€reflected€in€the€note€itself.€€Thus,€the€first€place€to€look€for€theĻpartiesšš€agreement€concerning€interest€is€the€note.€€If€the€interest€provision€in€the€noteĻis€unambiguous€and€consistent€with€other€applicable€legal€requirements,€it€will€beĻenforced€as€written€as€a€matter€of€law.€€If,€however,€the€interest€provision€isĻambiguous,€the€fact„finder€must€look€elsewhere€to€ascertain€the€partiesšš€agreementĻconcerning€interest.ĢĢą ` ąThe€interest€rate€provision€in€the€October€14,€1980€note€prepared€by€Mr.ĻEarthman€is€far€from€clear.€€Read€literally,€it€obligates€Mr.€Earthman€to€pay€interestĻat€Mr.€Ingramššs€š šprime€ratešš€š!š€that€is,€the€rate€of€interest€that€Mr.€Ingram€charges€hisŠ T Šš šmost€credit€worthy€customers€for€90„day€unsecured€loans.šš€€The€record€contains€noĻevidence€establishing€what€Mr.€Ingramššs€š šPrime€Ratešš€was.€€Thus,€the€fact„finder€wasĻrequired€to€look€beyond€the€note€to€ascertain€the€partiesšš€agreement€concerningĻinterest€payments€on€this€loan.€€ĢĢą ` ąParol€evidence€cannot€be€used€to€contradict€or€alter€the€terms€of€a€writtenĻcontract€that€is€complete€and€unambiguous€on€its€face.€€ņņSee€Jones€v.€Brooksóó,€696Š €%Š ( ŠS.W.2d€885,€886€(Tenn.€1985);€ņņAirline€Constr.,€Inc.€v.€Barróó,€807€S.W.2d€247,€259Š $'t"* Š(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).€€However,€the€parol€evidence€rule€does€not€prevent€theĻintroduction€and€consideration€of€extraneous€evidence€to€explain€an€ambiguousĻcontractual€provision.€€ņņSee€Faulkner€v.€Ramseyóó,€178€Tenn.€370,€374„75,€158€S.W.2dŠ ,`'0 Š710,€711„12€(1942);€ņņFaithful€v.€Gardneróó,€799€S.W.2d€232,€235€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Š “-)2 Š1990).€€Likewise,€the€use€of€parol€evidence€to€explain€a€vague€contractual€term€doesĻnot€cause€an€otherwise€valid€written€agreement€to€run€afoul€of€the€Statute€ofĻLimitations€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€29„2„101€(Supp.€1998).€€ĢĢą ` ąThe€parties€disagreed€at€trial€concerning€the€meaning€of€the€interest€rateĻprovision€in€the€October€14,€1980€note.€€Mr.€Earthman€asserted€that€the€noteĻpermitted€only€simple€interest€because€it€did€not€explicitly€state€that€it€bore€compoundĻinterest.€€For€his€part,€Mr.€Ingram€testified€that€the€parties€agreed€that€Mr.€IngramŠ Ō:$6B Šwould€not€incur€any€additional€expense€if€he€agreed€to€make€the€$1,70,000€loan€toĻMr.€Earthman.€€Thus,€Mr.€Ingramššs€version€of€the€meaning€of€š šPrime€Ratešš€was€thatĻMr.€Earthman€agreed€to€reimburse€him€for€any€interest€expense€he€incurred€as€a€resultĻof€the€$1,700,000€loan.€€Mr.€Ingram€also€presented€evidence€that€the€loans€Mr.ĻEarthman€caused€to€be€procured€for€him€at€United€American€Bank€and€the€BanqueĻdššl€Union€Europeene€bore€compound€interest€which€he€was€eventually€required€toĻpay.ĢĢą ` ąThis€conflicting€evidence€created€a€jury€issue€with€regard€to€whether€theĻOctober€14,€1980€note€bore€compound€or€simple€interest.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€courtĻdid€not€err€by€submitting€this€issue€to€the€jury€for€resolution.ĢĢą@II-Dąņ ņVIII.ó óˆŠ `° ŠĢą ` ąIn€his€final€issue,€Mr.€Earthman€asserts€that€the€juryššs€$5,667,122.84€verdictĻis€excessive.€€He€argues€that€Mr.€Ingram€was€entitled,€at€most,€to€$2,729,675.95€š!š€theŠ Lœ Šsum€Mr.€Ingram€paid€to€the€Banque€dššl€Union€Europeene€in€May€1983€because€theirĻagreement€was€that€Mr.€Ingramššs€agreement€to€make€the€$1,700,000€loan€would€notĻcost€Mr.€Ingram€any€money.€€Thus,€he€insists€that€he€should€not€be€required€to€payĻMr.€Ingram€an€additional€$3,937,446.92€which€represents€the€simple€interest€on€theĻ$2,729,675.95€calculated€at€the€prime€rate€from€May€1983€to€May€1995.€€ĢĢą ` ąWe€find€that€Mr.€Earthmanššs€reliance€on€the€partiesšš€agreement€that€Mr.ĻIngram€would€incur€no€additional€expense€in€this€transaction€is€misplaced.€€At€theĻtime€they€entered€into€the€original€loan€transaction€in€1980,€the€parties€contemplatedĻthat€Mr.€Earthman€would€repay€Mr.€Ingramššs€United€American€Bank€loan€plusĻinterest€when€it€became€due€in€eighteen€months.€€They€did€not€contemplate€that€Mr.ĻEarthman€would€cause€the€note€to€be€renewed€or€to€be€sold€to€a€foreign€bank€or€thatĻMr.€Earthman€would€fail€to€repay€the€loan€for€over€twelve€years€after€its€original€dueĻdate.ĢĢą ` ąMr.€Earthman€conceded€that€he€expected€to€pay€Mr.€Ingram€principal€andĻinterest€when€he€first€borrowed€the€$1,700,000€in€October€1980.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ļšš€47„14„123€(1995)€permits€juries€to€award€prejudgment€interest€as€damages€š šinŠ Ō:$6B Šaccordance€with€the€principles€of€equity€at€any€rate€not€in€excess€of€a€maximumĻeffective€rate€of€ten€percent€(10%)€per€annum.šš€€The€juryššs€decision€to€award€Mr.ĻIngram€simple€interest€calculated€on€his€$2,729,675.95€payment€to€the€Banque€dššlĻUnion€Europeene€is€consistent€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€47„14„123€and€is€supportedĻby€the€evidence.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€the€juryššs€$5,667,122.84€verdict€is€notĻexcessive.ĢĢą@„„.Dąņ ņIX.ó óˆŠ ,|  ŠĢą ` ąWe€affirm€the€judgment׃Dׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś22Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀and€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€any€furtherŠ tÄ Šproceedings€that€may€be€required.€€We€tax€the€costs€of€this€appeal€to€William€F.ĻEarthman€and€his€surety€for€which€execution,€if€necessary,€may€issue.ĢĢĢÓ€Óą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ąą p ą_____________________________Ģą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ąą p ąWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEĢĢĢCONCUR:ĢĢĢ_________________________________ĢSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEĢĢĢ_________________________________ĢBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEńL/ń€ńL/ńŌ_ŌŌ_ŌńL/ńŠ  Č($( ŠńL/ńŌ_ŌŌ_ŌŌ‡ ¦ !»¼:­ŌńL/ńą@  Dąņ ņIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆŠ ° Šą@ZZ)DąAT€NASHVILLEńL/ńŌ#†¼:­» ! ¦N£#ŌńL/ńŌ‡„}ź„»¼:­ԈŠ ņB ŠŌ#†¼:­»„„}ź¹£#Ōó óĢĢFREDERIC€B.€INGRAM,ą Ą ąą  ą)Š d “ Šą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ą)Ģą ` ąPlaintiff/Appellee,ą Ą ąą  ą)Š ” ä Šą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ą)ą p ąDavidson€ChanceryŠ ¬ ü ŠVS.ą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ą)ą p ąNo.€94„842„IIIŠ Ä   Šą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ą)Ģą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ą)ą p ąAppeal€No.Š ōD  ŠWILLIAM€F.€EARTHMAN,ą Ą ąą  ą)ą p ą01A01„9510„CH„00439Š  \  Šą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą