ÿWPC= Ð cè’£ð\úêX2ýÓPÁíä7ié”\ÇW¢d ÔLG?©÷àç0”< ;¢V+G#¸ª½îßÙdzê²`J¿ž'Àä‘ñÆ·6IzÚöI:+¼]B_¸í‹q_ÔOL2UŒ~g_mýx÷»<ÿÂiQ²TI_ æËú&³x$•[aÜ@:ZþHPÕÚÙ¼y+äGõóW¼®eV¶{ôªL;NOøÜ'ávÜG¢]^¤èð«/b®Óþ¨BÜÿm«M2’&$'box;Þ°`Ë$!.‰‡X}YÇÛßÁªÆž„ß[=^¼¦}$–‚äì$ßo#8ðŒ`hà•&ŽÍÂ8V!+îé4Í0˱¼ v{ {jŸ Ž íænIY€ztdž¾$¦}h÷‚Êg_õ¦¡8·çÑ ñú¾BF©óÇ–rx°÷Î` j–Š>x?\í´otu»IHË¿#¹DGXX‘óCèÕI\ô¢®®ËžS¬ïçZ“0Rª2¸¿òü|vwã`”&z§tRw,Ø,°Ü}’cy_ÍuOÿ/4Ô܉’UðD ÿw(Ä&)~ 'K$í¥0Ãú\ÌW5i:Yˆ¤Ú“]Ô"zÚ>FVk^Ÿë2~è\-à.Á˾c %j^ p 0ˆ|UNwR4Vj zyÒóÅ mÇ #ÁÞ ƒŸ Æ" Æè Æ®Æt 0D:N~~b€Eâä 0Uì 0éA 0æ* 0ã 0àó 0ÝÓ 0Ú° 0׊ 0Ôa 0C5 0×x 0ÔO 0Ñ# 0Îô 0Ë 0È 0ÅU 0À 0@Ú 0Ô 0Ñî 0ο!b" 0Ë•" 0È`# 0Å($ 0Âí$ 0½¯% 00l& 0<œ& 0¾Ø& 0>–' 0vÔ' 0`J( 0`ª( 0` ) 0`j) 0`Ê) 08** 0Òb* 024+ 0üf+ 0:b, 0Yœ, 0_õ, 0 T- 0j^. 0„È/ B*L1 D/v1 0„¥1 D/)3 0ÎX3 06&4 0\4 0:d5 0^ž5 0<ü5 0ë86 AM#7 0Np7U6¾7 Bô7U>8 0¤O8 D3ó8 D-&9 0KS9U*ž9 ASÈ9Æ: 0¤á: 0D…; A«É;t<»}‹%-â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*<²¥8¡¢3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0 yÝ ƒRõ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¬¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThere€is€a€dispute€as€to€whether€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkins€received€any€stock.€€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkins€was€a€minorÐ ° Ðat€all€relevant€times€and€there€is€further€dispute€over€whether€any€stock€he€may€have€received€was€effectively€transferred.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó XÝ ƒRõ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¬¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Other€objections€to€certain€testimony€and€the€admissibility€of€exhibits€were€made€on€the€same€basis€and€wereÐ ° Ðlikewise€ruled€inadmissible€hearsay€by€the€Trial€Court€for€the€reasons€set€forth€above. *+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..à*G+M ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*D+M ÿÿ(_24Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*A+M ÿÿ(_23Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>+M ÿÿ(_22Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;+M ÿÿ(_21Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8+M ÿÿ(_20Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5+M ÿÿ(_19Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*2+M ÿÿ(_18Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó* ÿÿ(_17Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô€*GM ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*DM ÿÿ(_15Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*AM ÿÿ(_14Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>M ÿÿ(_13Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;M ÿÿ(_12Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8M ÿÿ(_11Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5M ÿÿ(_10Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(2M ÿÿ&_9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó( ÿÿ&_8Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(GM ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(DM ÿÿ&_6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(AM ÿÿ&_5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-(>M ÿÿ&_4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(;M ÿÿ&_3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(8M ÿÿ&_2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(5M ÿÿ&_1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó&2M ÿÿ$_Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(''ÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ  Ô(ÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡ôôôÔ(ÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡U<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Wô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡U<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Wô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡U<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Wô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/Ó<š®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€I(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡\%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Wô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7Ó&ÿÿ  d dH)1dxd<š®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€K(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡\%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Wô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓH)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡U<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡Wô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡U<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Wô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô(|G2õ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ý»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¬¥ò»»ÔX[ZA<< cÿÿ(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ<þ6X9`(‹Courier New dô\  `‹&Times New Roman(|3?~$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ý»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó%ä2¼A`‹Arial^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?~$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ý»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK Ý ƒRõ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¬¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€We€believe€the€same€could€be€said€for€the€200€shares€of€stock€Guy€Jenkins€claims€to€have€ð ðgivenðð€AubreyÐ ° ÐAllen€Jenkins.€€Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ý»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼ý»»»ÔÑ8€H1XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î¼î»¼ýÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼ý»îî¼ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJune€24,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ_ÔÔ‡XH1X»¼ýÔÌÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌò òÔ#†¼ý»XXH1#ÔGUY€R.€JENKINS,€òòet€Ô_Ôal.óó€v.€DAN€GIBBSÔ‡XH1X»¼ýÔó óÐ æ 6 ÐÌÔ#†¼ý»XXH1²#ÔÔ€XH1X»¼ýÔà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ æ 6 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€142261„3€€€€€€Sharon€Bell,€ChancellorÐ Ò " ÐÌFILED€SEPTEMBER€5,€2002€Ð ªú  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` AßÐ –æ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„01802„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CVÐ ‘á  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÓ  ÓÌÌAfter€a€dispute€arose€over€the€ownership€of€1000€shares€of€stock€in€City€Bonding€Company€(ð ðCityÐ P  ÐBondingðð),€Guy€Jenkins€and€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkins€(ð ðPlaintiffsðð)€sued€Dan€Gibbs€(ð ðDefendantðð)Ð <Œ Ðseeking€a€determination€as€to€how€many€shares€of€stock€were€owned€by€the€various€parties.€GuyÐ (x ÐJenkins€also€claimed€Gibbs€unlawfully€procured€the€breach€of€a€contract€Guy€Jenkins€had€with€CityÐ d ÐBonding.€€The€Trial€Court€granted€Gibbs€summary€judgment€on€the€unlawful€procurement€of€breachÐ P Ðof€contract€claim.€€After€a€trial€on€the€remaining€issues,€the€Trial€Court€determined€Gibbs€owned€490Ð ì< Ðshares€of€stock,€Guy€Jenkins€owned€255€shares,€and€the€remaining€255€shares€were€unissued.€€AllÐ Ø( Ðparties€appealed€the€Trial€Courtððs€determination€with€respect€to€ownership€of€the€stock.€€Guy€JenkinsÐ Ä Ðalso€appealed€the€granting€of€summary€judgment€on€his€claim€against€Gibbs€for€unlawfulÐ ° Ðprocurement€of€breach€of€contract.€€We€vacate€the€summary€judgment€granted€to€Gibbs€and€affirmÐ œì Ðthe€judgment€in€all€other€respects.Ð ˆØ ÐÌÌà@üü ìàò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€ChanceryˆÐ L œ Ðà@’ ’ ìàCourt€Vacated€in€Part€and€Affirmed€in€Part;€Case€Remandedó ó.ˆÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÌÌòòD.€Michael€Swiney,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.,€óóandÐ $P# ÐòòJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€Sp.€J.,€óójoined.Ð ì$< $ ÐÌÌJames€S.€MacDonald,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellants€Guy€R.€Jenkins€and€Aubrey€AllenÐ °'#' ÐJenkins.Ð œ(ì#( ÐÌJohn€A.€Lucas,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee€Dan€Gibbs.Ð  t*Ä%*ý° Ðà@66'ìàò òOPINIONˆÐ ° ÐÌà@ÛÛ%ìàòòBackgroundó óóóˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€filed€this€lawsuit€seeking€corporate€records€and€other€documents€pertainingÐ `° Ðto€City€Bonding€which€were€in€Gibbsðð€control.€€Plaintiffs€further€claimed€there€was€a€dispute€as€toÐ L œ Ðthe€ownership€of€the€1000€shares€of€stock€in€City€Bonding€and€sought€a€declaratory€judgment€askingÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€Trial€Court€to€declare€the€ownership€Ô_ÔinterestsÔ_Ô€of€the€respective€parties.€€The€Trial€Court€dismissedÐ $ t Ðthe€portion€of€the€complaint€seeking€production€of€corporate€records€for€failure€to€comply€withÐ  ` Ðstatutory€requirements.€€An€Amended€Complaint€was€filed€seeking€essentially€the€same€relief€as€wellÐ ü L  Ðas€setting€forth€a€cause€of€action€against€Gibbs€based€on€Guy€Jenkinsðð€claim€that€he€had€a€contractÐ è 8  Ðwith€City€Bonding€for€compensation€in€the€amount€of€$1,139.24€per€month€and€this€contractualÐ Ô$  Ðobligation€was€breached.€€Guy€Jenkins€claimed€this€was€an€unlawful€procurement€of€breach€ofÐ À  Ðcontract€by€Gibbs€in€violation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„50„109,€thereby€entitling€him€to€trebleÐ ¬ü  Ðdamages.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àGibbs€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€the€procurement€of€breach€of€contractÐ pÀ Ðclaim.€€Gibbs€asserted€that€on€June€8,€1999,€City€Bonding€adopted€a€resolution€terminating€theÐ \¬ Ðmonthly€payments€it€was€making€on€behalf€of€Guy€Jenkins.€€The€parties€submitted€affidavits€andÐ H˜ Ðdeposition€testimony€setting€forth€their€version€of€the€facts€on€this€issue.€€The€Trial€Court€grantedÐ 4„ ÐGibbððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€the€procurement€of€breach€of€contract€claim,€leaving€forÐ  p Ðtrial€the€primary€issue€of€the€ownership€interests€of€the€respective€parties€in€City€Bonding.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€trial,€the€parties€stipulated€City€Bonding€was€formed€in€1982€and€1000€shares€ofÐ ä4 Ðstock€were€issued€at€that€time,€of€which€Frank€Harper€received€600€shares.€€The€remaining€400Ð Ð  Ðshares€were€issued€to€Joe€Jenkins€or€to€Joe€Jenkins€and€Aubrey€Jenkins€jointly.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€January€of€1984,Ð ¼  Ðthe€stock€certificates€were€turned€in€and€the€stock€was€reissued€with€Joe€Jenkins€receiving€490Ð ¨ø Ðshares,€Guy€Jenkins€receiving€255€shares,€and€John€Pollock€receiving€255€shares.€€This€is€where€anyÐ ”ä Ðagreement€between€the€parties€ends.€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àGibbs€testified€that€in€1985,€Guy€Jenkins€gave€him€250€shares€of€stock€in€CityÐ X ¨ ÐBonding,€although€no€stock€certificate€was€ever€given€to€Gibbs€and€there€is€no€documentationÐ D!” Ðverifying€this€gift€actually€took€place€or€that€it€was€completed.€€Gibbs€further€claims€he€purchasedÐ 0"€  Ð490€shares€of€stock€from€Joe€Jenkins€for€$13,500.00€on€January€3,€1986.€€Gibbs€identified€theÐ #l! Ðcancelled€check€dated€January€3,€1986,€for€$13,500,€and€also€identified€a€notation€on€the€checkÐ $X" Ðwhich€stated€ð ðfor€four€hundred€and€ninety€shares€of€City€Bonding€Company.ðð€€Since€purchasing€theÐ ô$D # Ðstock,€Gibbs€has€served€as€general€manager€of€City€Bonding€taking€care€of€the€day„to„day€operations.€Ð à%0!$ ÐHe€began€making€a€salary€of€approximately€eight€hundred€dollars€per€week€sometime€after€this€stockÐ Ì&"% Ðpurchase.€€After€purchasing€the€490€shares,€Gibbs€received€advances€on€his€salary€from€City€BondingÐ ¸'#& Ðin€order€to€pay€off€money€he€borrowed€in€order€to€purchase€the€stock.€€Gibbs€claims€Guy€Jenkins€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðaware€of€this€arrangement€for€paying€off€the€money€Gibbs€borrowed.€€Gibbs€never€heard€anyoneÐ ° Ðclaim€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkins€owned€any€shares€of€stock,€and€he€is€not€aware€of€any€corporate€recordsÐ œì Ðreflecting€any€ownership€interest€on€behalf€of€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkins.€€The€first€time€Gibbs€heardÐ ˆØ Ðanyone€claim€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkins€owned€any€stock€was€in€1999,€and€he€heard€this€from€GuyÐ tÄ ÐJenkinsðð€attorney.€Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àPart€of€the€day„to„day€operations€of€City€Bonding€involved€preparing€semi„annualÐ 8 ˆ Ðfinancial€statements€on€behalf€of€the€shareholders€and€filing€these€statements€and€appearance€bondsÐ $ t Ðwith€various€courts€in€the€counties€in€which€City€Bonding€conducted€business.€€Gibbs€testified€theÐ  ` Ðdocuments€filed€with€the€Knox€County€Criminal€Court€since€1986€show€Guy€Jenkins€owning€750Ð ü L  Ðshares€of€stock€and€Gibbs€owning€the€remaining€250€shares.€€According€to€Gibbs,€Guy€Jenkins€hadÐ è 8  Ðvery€little€to€do€with€the€day„to„day€operations€of€City€Bonding.€€Gibbs€stated€when€these€financialÐ Ô$  Ðstatements€were€first€prepared,€his€ownership€interest€was€limited€to€the€250€shares€that€had€beenÐ À  Ðgiven€to€him€and€they€were€accurate.€€These€same€figures€were€just€copied€and€used€on€later€financialÐ ¬ü  Ðstatements€even€though€he€had€purchased€the€additional€490€shares.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àGibbs€testified€City€Bonding€paid€approximately€$1,500€per€month€on€a€personal€noteÐ pÀ Ðof€Guy€Jenkins.€€This€payment€continued€to€be€made€by€City€Bonding€up€until€the€time€the€presentÐ \¬ Ðlawsuit€was€filed.€€Gibbs€stated€in€addition€to€the€$1,500€per€month,€Guy€Jenkins€also€received€cashÐ H˜ Ðat€various€times€and€City€Bonding€paid€the€majority€of€the€payments€on€a€Mercedes€owned€by€GuyÐ 4„ ÐJenkins.€€None€of€the€payments€made€to€Guy€Jenkins€or€to€Gibbs€were€corporate€stock€dividends.€Ð  p ÐThroughout€City€Bondingððs€history,€the€company€compensated€officers€and€employees€by€payingÐ  \ Ðsome€of€their€bank€debts.€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àà ` àAttorney€Jerome€Templeton€(ð ðTempletonðð)€testified€by€way€of€deposition.€€TempletonÐ Ð  Ðhad€nothing€to€do€with€the€formation€of€City€Bonding€or€the€original€issuance€of€stock.€€He€becameÐ ¼  Ðinvolved€with€City€Bonding€when€it€was€being€acquired€by€Guy€Jenkins.€€When€asked€if€he€hadÐ ¨ø Ðoccasion€to€inform€himself€about€who€owned€how€much€stock,€Templeton€responded€his€recollectionÐ ”ä Ðwas€vague€but€after€looking€at€his€files€he€did€have€ð ðsomething€to€do€with€that.ðð€€Templeton€wentÐ €Ð Ðon€to€add€he€really€did€not€have€any€independent€recollection€of€most€of€the€matters€involved€withÐ l¼ Ðthe€corporation.€€During€his€initial€representation€of€City€Bonding,€Templeton€received€a€letter€andÐ X ¨ Ðother€information€from€Norman€Williams€(ð ðWilliamsðð),€the€attorney€who€represented€City€BondingÐ D!” Ðat€the€time€of€incorporation.€€Based€on€the€information€contained€in€this€letter,€Templeton€madeÐ 0"€  Ðnumerous€handwritten€notes€at€that€time.€€There€was€a€lengthy€argument€at€trial€over€whetherÐ #l! ÐWilliamsðð€letter€and€Templetonððs€handwritten€notes€based€on€the€letter€constituted€hearsay.€Ð $X" ÐPlaintiffsðð€counsel€argued€it€was€a€business€record€and€fell€within€the€applicable€hearsay€exception.€Ð ô$D # ÐDefendantsðð€counsel€disagreed€for€several€reasons,€one€being€Templetonððs€handwritten€notes€wereÐ à%0!$ Ðmade€well€after€the€events€described€in€the€letter€took€place€(i.e.,€when€the€stock€was€originallyÐ Ì&"% Ðissued),€and,€therefore,€were€not€made€at€or€near€the€time€of€the€event.€Defendantððs€counsel€claimedÐ ¸'#& ÐÔ_ÔTempletonÔ_Ô€had€no€personal€knowledge€of€the€events€described€in€Williamsðð€letter€because€he€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðnot€even€involved€in€the€corporate€matters€at€that€time.€€The€Trial€Court€concluded€this€evidence€wasÐ )à$( Ðhearsay€and€did€not€constitute€a€business€record.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àÔ_ÔTempletonÔ_Ô€also€was€questioned€about€notes€he€made€at€a€meeting€in€January€of€1986Ð ° Ðwhen€stock€apparently€was€received€by€Guy€Jenkins.€€Templeton€stated€the€stock€was€either€givenÐ œì Ðto€Guy€Jenkins€or€he€paid€for€it.€€Templeton€then€added:€ð ðI€donððt€know€about€that.€.€.€.€I€canððt€recallÐ ˆØ Ðthat,€I€donððt€know€that€I€knew€at€the€time.ðð€€The€Trial€Court€again€ruled€this€was€inadmissibleÐ tÄ Ðhearsay,€and€that€it€did€not€qualify€under€the€past€recollection€recorded€exception€because€TempletonÐ `° Ðnever€knew€about€the€subject€matter€to€begin€with.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Templeton€testified€the€stock€composition€inÐ L œ Ð1984€was€Joe€Jenkins€490€shares,€Guy€Jenkins€255€shares,€and€John€Pollock€255€shares.€€TempletonÐ 8 ˆ Ðlater€attempted€to€testify€regarding€his€handwritten€notes€setting€forth€the€stock€composition€in€laterÐ $ t Ðyears.€€When€asked€where€these€figures€came€from€or€why€he€was€writing€them€down,€TempletonÐ  ` Ðresponded€ð ðI€do€not€know.ðð€€He€went€on€to€add€he€did€not€know€whether€ð ðitððs€something€that€wasÐ ü L  Ðdone€or€whether€it€was€something€that€I€thought€should€be€done.ðð€€Templeton€then€pointed€out€heÐ è 8  Ðhad€no€independent€recollection€at€all€on€that€matter.€€Some€of€this€testimony€was€likewise€excluded.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àGuy€Jenkins€testified€it€was€after€this€lawsuit€was€filed€before€he€first€learned€GibbsÐ ¬ü  Ðclaimed€to€have€purchased€490€shares€of€stock€from€Joe€Jenkins.€€Guy€Jenkins€denied€ever€givingÐ ˜è  Ðapproval€for€Gibbs€to€use€borrowed€corporate€funds€to€repay€a€personal€loan€he€made€in€order€toÐ „Ô  Ðpurchase€the€stock.€€Guy€Jenkins€was€approached€by€his€father€to€oversee€City€Bonding,€and€agreedÐ pÀ Ðto€assist€only€if€he€(i.e.€Guy€Jenkins)€had€ð ðfull€control.ðð€€According€to€Guy€Jenkins,€when€the€stockÐ \¬ Ðwas€initially€issued€Frank€Harper€had€600€shares,€and€Joe€and€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkins€jointlyÐ H˜ Ðcontrolled€the€other€400€shares.€€In€1984,€all€of€the€stock€was€reissued€with€255€shares€being€ownedÐ 4„ Ðby€Guy€Jenkins,€255€shares€being€owned€by€John€Pollock,€and€490€shares€being€owned€by€JoeÐ  p ÐJenkins.€€John€Pollock€then€turned€in€his€stock€and€the€255€shares€became€treasury€shares.€€GuyÐ  \ ÐJenkins€did€not€know€his€brother,€Joe€Jenkins,€sold€his€490€shares€to€Gibbs€and€has€no€personalÐ øH Ðknowledge€about€that€alleged€transaction.€€According€to€Guy€Jenkins,€in€January€of€1986,€all€theÐ ä4 Ðstock€owners€essentially€turned€in€their€stock€and€it€was€once€again€reissued€with€the€new€stockÐ Ð  Ðcomposition€being:€€Guy€Jenkins€owning€550€shares,€Gibbs€owning€250€shares,€and€Aubrey€AllenÐ ¼  ÐJenkins€owning€200€shares.€€Guy€Jenkins€testified€he€gave€Gibbs€these€250€shares€of€stock.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€deposition€of€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkins€was€offered€into€evidence€at€trial.€€AubreyÐ €Ð ÐAllen€Jenkins€was€19€years€old€at€the€time€of€his€deposition.€€He€first€learned€he€supposedly€was€aÐ l¼ Ðstockholder€in€City€Bonding€from€his€uncle,€Guy€Jenkins.€€He€learned€this€about€a€year€before€hisÐ X ¨ Ðdeposition€took€place€ð ðbut€that€was€scratchyðð.€€He€heard€more€about€his€supposed€stock€ownershipÐ D!” Ðin€the€two€months€prior€to€his€deposition.€€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkins€testified€he€had€no€personalÐ 0"€  Ðknowledge€about€whether€or€not€he€actually€owned€any€stock€in€City€Bonding,€and€he€has€never€seenÐ #l! Ða€stock€certificate€evidencing€his€ownership€of€stock.€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àà ` àJoe€Jenkins€also€testified€via€deposition.€€Joe€Jenkins€is€the€brother€of€Guy€JenkinsÐ à%0!$ Ðand€father€of€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkins.€According€to€Joe€Jenkins,€in€1984€he€owned€490€shares€of€stock,Ð Ì&"% ÐGuy€Jenkins€owned€255€shares,€and€John€Pollock€owned€the€remaining€255€shares.€€Joe€Jenkins€doesÐ ¸'#& Ðnot€recall€his€son€Aubrey€ever€being€a€shareholder€in€City€Bonding.€€Joe€Jenkins€stated€he€never€putÐ ¤(ô#' Ðany€stock€in€his€sonððs€name€and€never€saw€a€certificate€of€stock€showing€Aubrey€as€an€owner.€€JoeÐ ° ÐJenkins€claimed€the€first€time€he€ever€heard€anything€about€his€son€Aubrey€owning€any€stock€wasÐ œì Ðð ð[a]fter€all€this€lawsuit€started.ðð€€Joe€Jenkins€acknowledged€he€sold€his€490€shares€of€stock€to€DanÐ ˆØ ÐGibbs€for€$13,500.00.€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àJohn€Walker€(ð ðWalkerðð)€was€called€as€an€expert€witness.€€Walker€is€a€licensedÐ L œ Ðattorney€in€Knoxville.€€Walker€testified€to€his€experience€as€an€attorney€handling€corporate€lawÐ 8 ˆ Ðmatters.€€Walker€testified€the€corporate€records€of€City€Bonding€were€ð ðsubstantially€incomplete,ðð€butÐ $ t Ðhe€reviewed€what€records€were€available€including€the€corporate€minute€book,€stock€certificates,€andÐ  ` Ðother€records.€€He€also€reviewed€the€depositions€of€Gibbs€and€the€various€members€of€the€JenkinsÐ ü L  Ðfamily.€€Walker€testified€the€reconstructed€stock€transfer€ledger€prepared€by€counsel€for€GibbsÐ è 8  Ðshowing€what€Gibbs€believed€to€be€the€stock€ownership€was€reconstructed€in€a€manner€consistentÐ Ô$  Ðwith€generally€accepted€corporate€law€principles€and€procedures.€€Walker€also€stated€he€questionedÐ À  Ðwhether€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkins€ever€had€any€interest€in€the€stock.€€Walker€based€this€conclusionÐ ¬ü  Ðprimarily€upon€the€depositions€of€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkins€and€Joe€Jenkins.€€Walker€went€on€to€addÐ ˜è  Ðeven€if€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkins€did€own€stock,€it€was€conveyed€away€by€his€father€Joe€Jenkins€whoÐ „Ô  Ðhad€ð ðfull€power€and€right€to€transfer€the€interest€of€his€son€in€those€shares.ðð€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€a€trial,€the€Trial€Court€issued€its€opinion€as€to€the€respective€ownership€interestsÐ H˜ Ðof€the€parties.€€After€hearing€further€argument,€the€Trial€Court€issued€a€Supplemental€OpinionÐ 4„ Ðrevising€some€of€its€initial€findings.€€In€the€Supplemental€Opinion,€the€Trial€Court€found€as€follows:Ð  p ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(1)€€Phase€one€represents€the€ownership€of€six€hundred€(600)Ð øH Ðshares€by€Mr.€Harper,€and€four€hundred€shares€ownership€betweenÐ ä4 ÐJoe€Jenkins€and€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkins€as€of€September,€1983.ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(2)€€Phase€two€is€the€reissue€to€Joe€Jenkins€of€four€hundredÐ ¨ø Ðninety€(490)€shares,€to€Guy€Jenkins€of€two€hundred,€fifty„five€(255)Ð ”ä Ðshares,€and€to€John€Pollock€of€two€hundred,€fifty„five€(255)€shares€inÐ €Ð ÐJanuary,€1984.€€Ðl¼` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(3)€€Respectfully,€the€Court€cannot€find€by€a€preponderance€ofÐ D!” Ðthe€evidence€that€any€of€the€issuance€of€shares€in€phase€two€cameÐ 0"€  Ðfrom€any€particular€stock,€just€that€it€came€from€the€pool€of€stockÐ #l! Ðfrom€phase€one.€Ð$X"` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(4)€€The€Court€cannot,€despite€its€earlier€finding,€determineÐ à%0!$ Ðthat€the€shares€of€the€then€minor,€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkins,€wereÐ Ì&"% Ðconveyed€away€from€him€without€authority,€and€cannot€place€aÐ ¸'#& Ðconstructive€trust€on€the€shares€in€phase€two.€€Ð¤(ô#'` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à€€The€reasons€for€this€finding€are€that€the€theory€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðconstructive€trust€was€not€plead€nor€argued,€and€even€if€it€had€been,Ð h+¸&* Ðthere€is€no€evidence€that€the€defendant€had€any€knowledge€of€anÐ ° Ðadverse€claim.€€Ðœì` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(5)€€Joe€Jenkins€sold€his€four€hundred,€ninety€(490)€shares€toÐ tÄ Ðthe€defendant€in€January,€1986,€thereby€vesting€ownership€in€saidÐ `° Ðstock€in€defendant.€€ÐL œ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(6)€€As€to€the€two€hundred,€fifty€shares€purportedly€transferredÐ $ t Ðto€the€defendant€by€Guy€Jenkins€in€approximately€January,€1986,€theÐ  ` ÐCourt€finds€that€the€transfer€was€intended€as€a€gift,€but€that€the€giftÐ ü L  Ðfailed€for€want€of€delivery,€so€that€Guy€Jenkins€remained€owner€ofÐ è 8  Ðthose€shares.€€ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(7)€€The€remaining€two€hundred,€fifty„five€shares€signed€overÐ ¬ü  Ðto€the€corporation€by€John€Pollock€have€not€been€reissued,€so€thatÐ ˜è  Ðthey€are€found€to€be€unissued€treasury€shares.€€Ð„Ô ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€and€Gibbs€appeal€the€Trial€Courtððs€determination€with€regard€to€theÐ \¬ Ðrespective€ownership€interests€of€the€parties€in€City€Bonding.€€Plaintiffs€also€appeal€the€exclusionÐ H˜ Ðof€various€portions€of€Templetonððs€deposition.€€Plaintiff€Guy€Jenkins€appeals€the€granting€ofÐ 4„ Ðsummary€judgment€to€Gibbs€on€his€procurement€of€breach€of€contract€claim.€Ð  p ÐÌà@))%ìàò òòòDiscussionóóó óˆÐ øH ÐÌà  àà ` àFirst,€we€will€discuss€Guy€Jenkinsðð€appeal€of€the€granting€of€summary€judgment€onÐ Ð  Ðhis€claim€against€Gibbs€for€procurement€of€breach€of€contract.€€The€standard€for€review€of€a€motionÐ ¼  Ðfor€summary€judgment€is€set€forth€in€òòStaples€v.€CBL€&€Associates,€Inc.óó,€15€S.W.3d€83€(Tenn.€2000):Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€standards€governing€an€appellate€courtððs€review€of€aÐ €Ð Ðmotion€for€summary€judgment€are€well€settled.€€Since€our€inquiryÐ l¼ Ðinvolves€purely€a€question€of€law,€no€presumption€of€correctnessÐ X ¨ Ðattaches€to€the€lower€courtððs€judgment,€and€our€task€is€confined€toÐ D!” Ðreviewing€the€record€to€determine€whether€the€requirements€of€Tenn.Ð 0"€  ÐR.€Civ.€P.€56€have€been€met.€€òòSee€Hunter€v.€Brownóó,€955€S.W.2d€49,Ð #l! Ð50„51€(Tenn.€1997);€òòCowden€v.€Sovran€Bank/Central€Southóó,€816Ð $X" ÐS.W.2d€741,€744€(Tenn.€1991).€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Civil€ProcedureÐ ô$D # Ð56.04€provides€that€summary€judgment€is€appropriate€where:€(1)€thereÐ à%0!$ Ðis€no€genuine€issue€with€regard€to€the€material€facts€relevant€to€theÐ Ì&"% Ðclaim€or€defense€contained€in€the€motion,€òòsee€Byrd€v.€Hallóó,€847Ð ¸'#& ÐS.W.2d€208,€210€(Tenn.€1993);€and€(2)€the€moving€party€is€entitledÐ ¤(ô#' Ðto€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law€on€the€undisputed€facts.€€òòSeeÐ )à$( ÐAnderson€v.€Standard€Register€Co.óó,€857€S.W.2d€555,€559€(Tenn.Ð |*Ì%) Ð1993).€€The€moving€party€has€the€burden€of€proving€that€its€motionÐ h+¸&* Ðsatisfies€these€requirements.€€òòSee€Downen€v.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.óó,€811Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€523,€524€(Tenn.€1991).€€When€the€party€seeking€summaryÐ œì Ðjudgment€makes€a€properly€supported€motion,€the€burden€shifts€to€theÐ ˆØ Ðnonmoving€party€to€set€forth€specific€facts€establishing€the€existenceÐ tÄ Ðof€disputed,€material€facts€which€must€be€resolved€by€the€trier€of€fact.€Ð `° ÐòòSee€Byrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€215.ÐL œ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àTo€properly€support€its€motion,€the€moving€party€must€eitherÐ $ t Ðaffirmatively€negate€an€essential€element€of€the€non„moving€partyððsÐ  ` Ðclaim€or€conclusively€establish€an€affirmative€defense.€€òòSee€McCarleyÐ ü L  Ðv.€West€Quality€Food€Serv.óó,€960€S.W.2d€585,€588€(Tenn.€1998);Ð è 8  ÐòòRobinson€v.€Omeróó,€952€S.W.2d€423,€426€(Tenn.€1997).€€If€the€movingÐ Ô$  Ðparty€fails€to€negate€a€claimed€basis€for€the€suit,€the€non„movingÐ À  Ðpartyððs€burden€to€produce€evidence€establishing€the€existence€of€aÐ ¬ü  Ðgenuine€issue€for€trial€is€not€triggered€and€the€motion€for€summaryÐ ˜è  Ðjudgment€must€fail.€€òòSee€McCarley€v.€West€Quality€Food€Serv.óó,€960Ð „Ô  ÐS.W.2d€at€588;€òòRobinson€v.€Omeróó,€952€S.W.2d€at€426.€€If€the€movingÐ pÀ Ðparty€successfully€negates€a€claimed€basis€for€the€action,€the€non„Ð \¬ Ðmoving€party€may€not€simply€rest€upon€the€pleadings,€but€must€offerÐ H˜ Ðproof€to€establish€the€existence€of€the€essential€elements€of€the€claim.Ð4„` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€standards€governing€the€assessment€of€evidence€in€theÐ  \ Ðsummary€judgment€context€are€also€well€established.€€Courts€mustÐ øH Ðview€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€partyÐ ä4 Ðand€must€also€draw€all€reasonable€inferences€in€the€nonmovingÐ Ð  Ðpartyððs€favor.€€òòSee€Robinson€v.€Omeróó,€952€S.W.2d€at€426;€òòByrd€v.Ð ¼  ÐHallóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€210„11.€€Courts€should€grant€a€summaryÐ ¨ø Ðjudgment€only€when€both€the€facts€and€the€inferences€to€be€drawnÐ ”ä Ðfrom€the€facts€permit€a€reasonable€person€to€reach€only€oneÐ €Ð Ðconclusion.€€òòSee€McCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.Ð l¼ Ð1995);€òòCarvell€v.€Bottomsóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).ÐX ¨` x` x ÐÌòòStaplesóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€88„89.€A€fact€is€ð ðmaterialðð€for€summary€judgment€purposes,€if€it€ð ðmust€beÐ 0"€  Ðdecided€in€order€to€resolve€the€substantive€claim€or€defense€at€which€the€motion€is€directed.ðð€€òòLutherÐ #l! Ðv.€Comptonóó,€5€S.W.3d€635,€639€(Tenn.€1999)(quoting€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€211).Ð $X" ÐÌà  àà ` àGibbs€denied€the€existence€of€any€contract€with€Guy€Jenkins€entitling€him€to€monthlyÐ à%0!$ Ðpayments.€€In€his€affidavit,€Gibbs€stated:€ð ðòòAfter€Mr.€Jenkins€filed€this€suit€against€meóó,€I€consultedÐ Ì&"% Ðwith€my€counsel€regarding€whether€the€Company€was€obligated€to€continue€making€monthly€loanÐ ¸'#& Ðpayments€ð8ð€on€behalf€of€Mr.€Jenkins.ðð€€(emphasis€added).€€Based€on€this€discussion,€GibbsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðconcluded€Guy€Jenkins€would€only€be€entitled€to€receive€dividends€if€any€were€paid.€€Since€noÐ )à$( Ðdividends€were€ever€paid,€he€could€discontinue€the€payments.€€He€also€was€informed€corporateÐ |*Ì%) Ðemployees€could€receive€salaries,€but€since€Guy€Jenkins€was€not€an€employee,€he€was€not€entitledÐ h+¸&* Ðto€the€payments€as€a€salary€either.€€Therefore,€ð ðthe€Company€elected€[pursuant€to€a€corporateÐ ° Ðresolution]€to€terminate€the€monthly€payments€to€Home€Federal€Bank€that€the€Company€had€beenÐ œì Ðmaking€on€Mr.€Jenkinsðð€behalf.ðð€€According€to€Gibbs,€he€was€acting€on€behalf€of€the€corporationÐ ˆØ Ðwhen€terminating€these€payments,€and€he€is,€therefore,€entitled€to€immunity.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àGuy€Jenkins€testified€he€has€received€$1,000.00€per€month€ð ðin€lieu€of€salary,€directorÐ L œ Ðfees,€consultant€fees,€committee€fees,€dividends€or€other€forms€of€corporate€remunerationðð€sinceÐ 8 ˆ Ðearly€1986.€€This€amount€was€later€increased€to€$1,500.00€per€month.€€While€Guy€JenkinsÐ $ t Ðacknowledged€there€was€no€written€contract,€he€claimed€ð ðat€all€times€there€existed€an€oral€contractÐ  ` Ðbetween€himself€and€the€corporation€ð8ð€said€contract€between€the€Affiant€and€the€corporation€wasÐ ü L  Ðnegotiated€directly€with€Gibbs,€ð8ð€Gibbs€confirmed€this€contract€between€Guy€R.€Jenkins€and€CBIÐ è 8  Ðdirectly€to€a€Mr.€Wes€Goddard€at€Home€Federal€Bank€some€two€to€three€years€ago.ð8ððð€AccordingÐ Ô$  Ðto€Guy€Jenkins,€he€received€these€payments€until€Gibbs€unilaterally,€arbitrarily,€and€maliciouslyÐ À  Ðterminated€them€in€June€of€1999.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àAlthough€the€Trial€Court€granted€summary€judgment€on€the€claim€for€procurementÐ „Ô  Ðof€breach€of€contract,€the€Trial€Court,€unfortunately,€did€not€set€forth€its€reason€as€to€why€summaryÐ pÀ Ðjudgment€was€appropriate.€€Thus,€we€do€not€know€whether€the€Trial€Court:€(1)€determined€there€wasÐ \¬ Ðno€contract€between€City€Bonding€and€Guy€Jenkins;€(2)€determined€there€was€a€contract€but€thereÐ H˜ Ðwas€no€breach;€or€(3)€determined€there€was€a€contract€and€a€breach,€but€Gibbs€negated€an€essentialÐ 4„ Ðelement€of€the€claim€or€was€immune.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€believe€the€affidavits€of€Guy€Jenkins€and€Gibbs€create€a€genuine€issue€of€materialÐ øH Ðfact€regarding€whether€there€was€a€contract€between€City€Bonding€and€Guy€Jenkins€for€the€paymentÐ ä4 Ðof€$1,500.00€per€month.€€Guy€Jenkins€testified€he€was€entitled€to€these€payments€not€just€becauseÐ Ð  Ðof€his€ownership€interest€in€City€Bonding€but€also€because€he€was€liable€for€several€million€dollarsÐ ¼  Ðon€various€bonds.€€Gibbs€argues€on€appeal€that€these€two€situations€do€not,€by€themselves,€legallyÐ ¨ø Ðentitle€Guy€Jenkins€to€monthly€payments,€and€we€agree.€€This,€however,€does€not€mean€an€oralÐ ”ä Ðcontract€was€not€voluntarily€entered€into€to€compensate€him€for€his€ownership€or€potential€liabilityÐ €Ð Ðon€the€bonds.€€In€a€nutshell,€we€believe€the€testimony€set€forth€above€creates€a€genuine€issue€ofÐ l¼ Ðmaterial€fact€regarding€whether€there€was€an€oral€contract€between€Guy€Jenkins€and€City€Bonding.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àEven€if€there€was€a€contract,€Gibbs€still€would€be€entitled€to€summary€judgment€ifÐ 0"€  Ðthe€undisputed€material€facts€demonstrate€that€there€was€no€breach,€or€that€Gibbs€negated€an€essentialÐ #l! Ðelement€of€the€claim,€or€that€Gibbs€has€a€defense€to€the€claim,€such€as€his€claim€of€immunity.€€OnÐ $X" Ðappeal,€we€cannot€determine€if€there€was€a€breach€of€contract€without€knowing€what€the€terms€of€thatÐ ô$D # Ðcontract,€if€one€exists,€are,€a€factual€determination€not€made€by€the€Trial€Court.€€Therefore,€weÐ à%0!$ Ðcannot€affirm€the€granting€of€summary€judgment€unless€the€undisputed€material€facts€demonstrateÐ Ì&"% Ðthat€Gibbs€negated€an€essential€element€of€the€procurement€of€breach€of€contract€claim€or€establishedÐ ¸'#& Ðhe€is€entitled€to€immunity.€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àà ` àGibbs€bases€his€claim€to€immunity€on€language€found€in€òòForrester€v.€Stockstillóó,€869Ð |*Ì%) ÐS.W.2d€328€(Tenn.€1994).€€In€òòForresteróó,€our€Supreme€Court€quoted€with€approval€the€followingÐ h+¸&* Ðfrom€Thomas€G.€Fischer,€Annotation,€òòLiability€of€Corporate€Director,€Officer,€or€Employee€forÐ ° ÐTortious€Interference€with€Corporation's€Contract€with€Another,óó€72€A.L.R.4th€492,€501€(1989):Ð œì ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àSome€courts€have€recognized€that€generally€a€corporate€director,Ð tÄ Ðofficer,€or€employee€is€not€liable€for€tortiously€interfering€with€aÐ `° Ðcorporate€contract,€because€he€is€considered€a€party€to€the€contract,€asÐ L œ Ðlong€as€he€is€acting€to€serve€the€corporate€interests,€or€unless€hisÐ 8 ˆ Ðactivity€involves€individual€separate€tortious€acts.€€Courts€have€alsoÐ $ t Ðrecognized,€however,€that€a€corporate€director,€officer,€or€employeeÐ  ` Ðmay€be€liable€for€tortiously€interfering€with€a€corporate€contract€if€heÐ ü L  Ðis€acting€outside€the€scope€of€his€authority,€acting€with€malice,€orÐ è 8  Ðacting€to€serve€his€own€interests.ÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌòòForresteróó,€869€S.W.2d€at€333.€€The€òòForresteróó€Court€noted€a€claim€for€wrongful€interference€with€anÐ ¬ü  Ðemployment€contract€by€a€third€person€was€actionable€only€if€that€person€stood€as€a€third€party€to€theÐ ˜è  Ðemployment€relationship.€€òòIdóó.€at€331.€The€Court€in€òòForresteróó€later€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ôadded:Ô_ÔÐ „Ô  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA€corporation€can€act€only€upon€the€advice€of€its€officers€and€agents,Ð \¬ Ðand€its€officers€and€directors€have€a€duty€to€serve€the€corporation.€Ð H˜ ÐImportant€societal€interests€are€served€by€corporations€having€theÐ 4„ Ðclear€and€candid€advice€of€their€officers€and€agents.€€Fear€of€personalÐ  p Ðliability€would€tend€to€limit€such€advice.€€Consequently,€when€anÐ  \ Ðofficer,€director,€or€employee€of€a€corporation€acts€within€the€generalÐ øH Ðrange€of€his€authority,€and€his€actions€are€substantially€motivated€byÐ ä4 Ðan€intent€to€further€the€interest€of€the€corporation,€in€claims€ofÐ Ð  Ðintentional€interference€with€employment,€the€action€of€the€officer,Ð ¼  Ðdirector,€or€employee€is€considered€to€be€the€action€of€the€corporationÐ ¨ø Ðand€is€entitled€to€the€same€immunity€from€liability.Дä` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€334„35.€€Although€the€present€case€does€not€involve€a€claim€for€interference€with€anÐ l¼ Ðemployment€contract,€we€believe€òòForresteróó€is€nevertheless€applicable€because€the€ð ðsocietal€interestsððÐ X ¨ Ðdiscussed€in€òòForresteróó€apply€with€equal€force€regardless€of€whether€the€underlying€claim€is€forÐ D!” Ðinterference€with€an€employment€contact€or€procurement€of€breach€of€a€non„employment€contract.Ð 0"€  ÐIn€the€present€case,€we€believe€Gibbs€is€immune€from€liability€on€the€procurement€of€breach€ofÐ #l! Ðcontract€claim€if€he€acted€within€the€general€range€of€his€authority€and€his€actions€were€substantiallyÐ $X" Ðmotivated€by€an€intent€to€further€the€interest€of€the€City€Bonding.€€òòForresteróó,€869€S.W.2d€at€334„35.€Ð ô$D # ÐIn€his€affidavit,€Gibbs€candidly€acknowledged€he€met€with€his€attorney€to€determine€if€the€paymentsÐ à%0!$ Ðcould€be€stopped€only€ð ð[a]fter€Mr.€Jenkins€filed€this€suit€against€me.ðð€€In€our€opinion,€a€genuine€issueÐ Ì&"% Ðof€material€fact€exists€as€to€whether€Gibbs€was€substantially€motivated€by€an€intent€to€further€theÐ ¸'#& Ðinterest€of€City€Bonding€or€whether€he€was€substantially€motivated€to€serve€his€own€interest€byÐ ¤(ô#' Ðretaliating€against€Guy€Jenkins€for€filing€this€lawsuit.€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àIn€light€of€the€foregoing,€we€vacate€the€grant€of€summary€judgment€to€Gibbs€on€theÐ ° Ðâ âclaim€for€procurement€of€breach€of€contract€and€remand€this€claim€for€further€proceedings€consistentÐ œì Ðwith€this€opinion.€€In€so€doing,€we€express€no€opinion€on€whether€there€actually€was€a€contractÐ ˆØ Ðbetween€City€Bonding€and€Guy€Jenkins€and,€if€so,€what€its€terms€were€or€if€it€was€breached.€€We€alsoÐ tÄ Ðexpress€no€opinion€on€whether€Gibbs€unlawfully€procured€a€breach€of€contract,€if€one€exists,€orÐ `° Ðwhether€Gibbs€is€entitled€to€immunity.€€We€hold€only€that€summary€judgment€on€this€claim€on€theÐ L œ Ðrecord€before€us€was€inappropriate€for€the€reasons€set€forth€above.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àWith€regard€to€the€remaining€issues€on€appeal,€the€factual€findings€of€the€Trial€CourtÐ  ` Ðare€accorded€a€presumption€of€correctness,€and€we€will€not€overturn€those€factual€findings€unless€theÐ ü L  Ðevidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòBogan€v.€Boganóó,€60€S.W.3d€721,Ð è 8  Ð727€(Tenn.€2001).€€With€respect€to€legal€issues,€our€review€is€conducted€ð ðunder€a€pure€òòde€novoóóÐ Ô$  Ðstandard€of€review,€according€no€deference€to€the€conclusions€of€law€made€by€the€lower€courts.ðð€Ð À  ÐòòSouthern€Constructors,€Inc.€v.€Loudon€County€Bd.€Of€Educ.óó,€58€S.W.3d€706,€710€(Tenn.€2001).Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àNext,€we€address€the€Trial€Courtððs€exclusion€of€portions€of€Templetonððs€depositionÐ „Ô  Ðand€accompanying€exhibits€as€hearsay.€€Plaintiffs€argue€Templeton€had€personal€knowledge€of€theÐ pÀ Ðmatters€which€were€excluded€or€they€were€admissible€through€one€of€the€various€exceptions€to€theÐ \¬ Ðhearsay€rule.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àAdmissibility€of€evidence€is€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge.€€ð ðWhenÐ  p Ðarriving€at€a€determination€to€admit€or€exclude€even€that€evidence€which€is€considered€relevant€trialÐ  \ Ðcourts€are€generally€accorded€a€wide€degree€of€latitude€and€will€only€be€overturned€on€appeal€whereÐ øH Ðthere€is€a€showing€of€abuse€of€discretion.ðð€€òòTompkins€v.€Annieððs€Nannies,€Inc.óó,€59€S.W.3d€669,€674„Ð ä4 Ð675€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000)(quoting€òòOtis€v.€Cambridge€Mut.€Fire€Ins.€Co.óó,€850€S.W.2d€439,€442Ð Ð  Ð(Tenn.€1992)).€€Templetonððs€recollection€as€to€the€events€he€testified€to€was€extremely€vague,€at€best.€Ð ¼  ÐHe€admitted€either€being€unable€to€recall€numerous€matters€or€not€having€any€knowledge€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðevents€when€they€took€place.€€During€the€course€of€the€trial,€the€Trial€Court€carefully€listened€to€bothÐ ”ä Ðsides€when€ruling€on€the€admissibility€of€this€evidence.€€After€reviewing€the€entire€deposition€ofÐ €Ð ÐTempleton,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€the€Trial€Court€erred€when€it€made€the€various€rulingsÐ l¼ Ðexcluding€portions€of€Templetonððs€testimony.€€We,€therefore,€affirm€the€evidentiary€rulings€of€theÐ X ¨ ÐTrial€Court€regarding€the€exclusion€of€portions€of€Templetonððs€testimony.€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€also€argue€Defendant€waived€the€right€to€object€to€the€admissibility€of€theÐ #l! Ðexcluded€portions€of€Templetonððs€testimony.€€Prior€to€the€deposition,€the€parties€stipulated€"[a]llÐ $X" Ðobjections€except€as€to€the€form€of€the€questions€are€reserved€to€on€or€before€the€hearing."€€PlaintiffsÐ ô$D # Ðclaim€because€Defendant€did€not€object€during€the€deposition,€the€objections€were€waived.€€WeÐ à%0!$ Ðaddressed€a€very€similar€issue€recently€in€òòPerry€v.€Winn„Dixie€Stores,€Inc.óó,€No.€E„2001„00523„COA„Ð Ì&"% ÐR3„CV,€2002€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€160€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Feb.€28,€2002)(no€Rule€11€app.€for€perm.€toÐ ¸'#& Ðappeal€filed).€€òòPerryóó€involved€a€virtually€identical€stipulation,€and€we€concluded€the€Trial€CourtÐ ¤(ô#' Ðproperly€concluded€an€objection€made€at€trial€regarding€improper€foundation€was€not€to€the€ð ðformÐ )à$( Ðof€the€question.ðð€€We€went€on€to€add:€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTo€accept€Plaintiff's€argument€would€require€us€to€completely€ignoreÐ ° Ðthe€express€stipulation€the€parties€made€at€the€deposition.€This€weÐ œì Ðwill€not€do.€€Stipulations€are€agreements€between€counsel€regardingÐ ˆØ Ðbusiness€before€the€court€which€are€entered€into€mutually€andÐ tÄ Ðvoluntarily€between€the€parties.€€òòOverstreet€v.€Shoney's,€Inc.óó,€4Ð `° ÐS.W.3d€694,€701€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€While€parties€may€notÐ L œ Ðstipulate€to€questions€of€law,€they€may€stipulate€"within€the€range€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðpossibly€true€facts€and€valid€legal€strategies€...."€€òòIdóó.€€On€appeal,Ð $ t Ðstipulations€are€binding€on€the€parties€and€may€not€be€altered.€òòIdóó.€atÐ  ` Ð702€(citing€òòBearman€v.€Camatsosóó,€215€Tenn.€231,€236,€385€S.W.2dÐ ü L  Ð91,€93€(1964);€òòFirst€Southern€Trust€Co.€v.€Sowellóó,€683€S.W.2d€680,Ð è 8  Ð681€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984)).€€The€stipulation€entered€into€between€theÐ Ô$  Ðparties€involved€a€valid€legal€strategy€and€is€the€type€of€stipulationÐ À  Ðallowed€under€the€law.€It€is,€therefore,€binding€upon€the€parties.€WeÐ ¬ü  Ðhold€that€the€stipulation€permitted€Defendant€to€make€an€objection€atÐ ˜è  Ðtrial€regarding€whether€a€proper€foundation€had€been€laid€ð8ð.€Ð „Ô  ÐPlaintiff€cannot€use€the€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€as€a€shield€to€wardÐ pÀ Ðoff€an€objection€which€he€expressly€stipulated€was€reserved€for€trial.€Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔòòPerryóó,Ô_Ô€2002€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€160€at€*€17„18.€€We€believe€the€same€result€is€merited€in€the€presentÐ 4„ Ðcase.€€Defendantððs€various€objections€to€the€testimony€of€Templeton€were€not€merely€objections€toÐ  p Ðthe€form€of€the€question.€€We€conclude€Defendant€did€not€waive€his€right€to€object€to€this€testimonyÐ  \ Ðas€hearsay,€or€any€other€basis€which€did€not€involve€simply€an€objection€based€on€the€form€of€theÐ øH Ðquestion.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffððs€main€argument€on€appeal€attacks€the€Trial€Courtððs€determination€of€theÐ ¼  Ðrespective€ownership€interests€of€the€parties.€€Plaintiffs€claim€the€Trial€Court€erred€when€it€concludedÐ ¨ø ÐGibbs€owned€490€shares€of€stock€and€further€erred€when€it€held€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkins€was€not€theÐ ”ä Ðowner€of€200€shares.€€The€conclusions€reached€by€the€Trial€Court€on€these€issues€by€necessityÐ €Ð Ðcentered€around€credibility€determinations.€€In€resolving€the€factual€issues€presented€for€appeal,€weÐ l¼ Ðmust€keep€in€mind€the€Trial€Court€heard€the€conflicting€testimony€from€the€witnesses€regarding€theirÐ X ¨ Ðclaimed€ownership€interest€in€City€Bonding.€€ð ðUnlike€this€Court,€the€trial€court€observed€the€mannerÐ D!” Ðand€demeanor€of€the€witnesses€and€was€in€the€best€position€to€evaluate€their€credibility.ðð€€òòUnionÐ 0"€  ÐPlanters€Natððl€Bank€v.€Island€Mgmt.€Auth.,€Inc.óó,€43€S.W.3d€498,€502€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).€€TheÐ #l! Ðtrial€courtððs€determinations€regarding€credibility,€as€to€those€witnesses€who€testified€live,€areÐ $X" Ðaccorded€considerable€deference€by€this€Court.€€òòId.óó;òò€Davis€v.€Liberty€Mutual€Ins.€Co.óó,€38€S.W.3d€560,Ð ô$D # Ð563€(Tenn.€2001).€€ð ððð[A]ppellate€courts€will€not€re„evaluate€a€trial€judgeððs€assessment€of€witnessÐ à%0!$ Ðcredibility€absent€clear€and€convincing€evidence€to€the€contrary.ðððð€òòWells€v.€Tennessee€Bd.€of€Regentsóó,Ð Ì&"% Ð9€S.W.3d€779,€783€(Tenn.€1999).Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€cannot€say€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€weighs€against€the€Trial€CourtððsÐ )à$( Ðfinding€that€Gibbs€purchased€490€shares€of€stock€from€Joe€Jenkins.€€Given€the€testimony€of€GibbsÐ |*Ì%) Ðthat€he€purchased€490€shares,€the€testimony€of€Joe€Jenkins€that€he€sold€Gibbs€490€shares,€as€well€asÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€cancelled€check€evidencing€same,€we€cannot€conclude€there€was€any€reversible€error€with€regardÐ ° Ðto€the€Trial€Courtððs€conclusion€that€Gibbs€owned€490€shares€of€stock.€€Likewise,€the€preponderanceÐ œì Ðof€the€evidence€does€not€weigh€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€conclusion€that€Pollockððs€255€shares€remainÐ ˆØ Ðunissued€treasury€shares€given€Pollockððs€testimony€he€turned€his€stock€back€in€to€the€corporation€andÐ tÄ Ðthe€disputed€evidence€concerning€what,€if€anything,€happened€to€this€stock€thereafter.€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€further€argue€the€Trial€Court€erred€when€it€failed€to€establish€a€constructiveÐ 8 ˆ Ðtrust€on€behalf€of€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkins€for€the€200€shares€of€stock€he€supposedly€held€in€1982.€€WeÐ $ t Ðbelieve€the€issue€of€whether€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkins€actually€held€any€stock€and€whether€a€constructiveÐ  ` Ðtrust€should€be€imposed€also€are€factually€driven.€€The€Trial€Court€apparently€believed€Aubrey€AllenÐ ü L  ÐJenkins€at€one€point€did€own€200€shares,€notwithstanding€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkinsðð€own€testimony€thatÐ è 8  Ðhe€never€knew€he€owned€any€stock.€€Having€concluded€he€did€own€200€shares€at€one€time,€the€issueÐ Ô$  Ðthen€became€whether€a€constructive€trust€should€be€imposed.€€Plaintiffs€rely€on€the€followingÐ À  Ðlanguage€found€in€òòGibsonððs€Suits€in€Chanceryóó,€ðð€383€ò òCases€of€Constructive€Trustó ó€(7òòthóó€ed.€1988):Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò òðð€383.€€Cases€of€Constructive€Trusts.ó ó€€ð!ð€Constructive€trusts€are€soÐ ˆØ  Ðcalled€because€they€are€òòconstructedóó€by€the€Courts€of€Equity€in€orderÐ xÈ Ðto€satisfy€the€demands€of€justice,€without€reference€to€any€presumableÐ d´ Ðintention€of€the€parties.€€They€include€cases:€(1)€where€a€personÐ P  Ðprocures€the€legal€title€to€property€in€violation€of€some€duty,€expressÐ <Œ Ðor€implied,€to€the€true€owner;€or€(2)€where€title€to€property€is€obtainedÐ (x Ðby€fraud,€duress,€or€other€inequitable€means;€or€(3)€where€a€personÐ d Ðmakes€use€of€some€relation€of€influence€or€confidence€to€obtain€theÐ P Ðlegal€title€upon€more€advantageous€terms€than€could€otherwise€haveÐ ì< Ðbeen€obtained;€or,€(4)€where€a€person€acquires€property€with€noticeÐ Ø( Ðthat€another€is€entitled€to€its€benefits.€€In€all€such€cases,€Equity,€forÐ Ä Ðthe€purpose€of€doing€justice€in€the€most€efficient€manner,€constructsÐ ° Ða€trust€out€of€the€transaction,€and€makes€a€trustee€of€the€person€thusÐ œì Ðacquiring€the€title.ð8ðЈØ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àWhile€the€facts€certainly€are€in€dispute€about€whether€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkins€everÐ ` ° Ðowned€any€stock€in€City€Bonding,€the€Trial€Court€apparently€concluded€that€he€did€and€that€hisÐ L!œ Ðfather,€Joe€Jenkins,€possessed€the€authority€to€sell€this€stock.€€The€preponderance€of€the€evidenceÐ 8"ˆ  Ðdoes€not€weigh€against€this€conclusion.€€Joe€Jenkins€testified€he€sold€his€490€shares€of€stock€to€DanÐ $#t! ÐGibbs.€€Gibbs€testified€he€purchased€the€490€shares€from€Joe€Jenkins.€€The€cancelled€check€for€thisÐ $`" Ðpurchase€was€admitted€into€evidence.€€Both€Gibbs€and€Joe€Jenkins€testified€they€were€not€awareÐ ü$L # ÐAubrey€Allen€Jenkins€ever€owned€any€stock.€€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkins€himself€testified€he€was€notÐ è%8!$ Ðaware€he€owned€any€stock€until€shortly€before€his€deposition€and€many€years€after€the€fact.€€GuyÐ Ô&$"% ÐJenkins€is€the€only€party€who€testified€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkins€ever€owned€any€stock,€and€he€testifiedÐ À'#& Ðat€least€at€one€point€this€stock€was€ð ðjointlyðð€owned€by€Joe€Jenkins€and€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkins.€€TheÐ ¬(ü#' Ðevidence€in€the€record€certainly€supports€the€Trial€Courtððs€conclusion€there€was€a€valid€sale€of€stockÐ ˜)è$( Ðbetween€Gibbs€and€Joe€Jenkins€as€well€as€the€Trial€Courtððs€conclusion€that€Gibbs€and€Joe€JenkinsÐ „*Ô%) Ðwere€unaware€of€any€potential€adverse€claim€to€the€stock€that€was€sold.€€There€was€no€testimony€thatÐ p+À&* ÐJoe€Jenkins€or€Gibbs€knew€about€any€potential€ownership€of€stock€by€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkins.€€NoneÐ ° Ðof€the€four€situations€for€establishing€a€constructive€trust€apply€in€this€case€since€there€is€no€evidenceÐ œì Ðthat€Gibbs€violated€any€duty,€exercised€fraud,€took€advantage€of€any€relationship,€or€otherwiseÐ ˆØ Ðengaged€in€any€inappropriate€conduct€when€purchasing€this€stock.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€theÐ tÄ ÐTrial€Court€did€not€commit€reversible€error€when€it€declined€to€establish€a€constructive€trust€onÐ `° Ðbehalf€of€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkins€for€the€200€shares€of€stock.€€In€light€of€this€holding,€we€pretermit€theÐ L œ Ðissue€of€whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€when€it€refused€to€establish€a€constructive€trust€because€thisÐ 8 ˆ Ðwas€not€properly€plead€at€trial.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€appeal,€Gibbs€argues€not€only€is€he€entitled€to€the€490€shares€of€stock€heÐ ü L  Ðpurchased€from€Joe€Jenkins,€but€he€also€claims€entitlement€to€the€additional€250€shares€which€GuyÐ è 8  ÐJenkins€admits€to€ð ðgivingðð€him€prior€to€the€purchase€of€the€490€shares.€€Given€the€fact€Guy€JenkinsÐ Ô$  Ðactually€possessed€much€less€stock€than€he€thought€he€did,€it€certainly€is€doubtful€whether€heÐ À  Ðintended€to€make€a€gift€to€Gibbs€of€stock€he€might€not€have€possessed€to€begin€with.€€Nevertheless,Ð ¬ü  ÐGibbs€admitted€no€stock€certificate€was€ever€issued€to€him€documenting€this€gift€and€there€was€noÐ ˜è  Ðdocumentary€evidence€verifying€he€ever€received€this€gift.€€The€formal€requirements€of€a€gift€are€ð ðtheÐ „Ô  Ðintention€by€the€donor€to€make€a€present€gift€coupled€with€the€delivery€of€the€subject€of€the€gift€byÐ pÀ Ðwhich€complete€dominion€and€control€of€the€property€is€surrendered€by€the€donor.ðð€€òòHansel€v.Ð \¬ ÐHanselóó,€939€S.W.2d€110,€112€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€Regardless€of€what€the€parties€may€haveÐ H˜ Ðintended€to€do€with€these€250€shares,€the€facts€certainly€do€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€CourtððsÐ 4„ Ðconclusion€this€supposed€gift€of€250€shares€to€Gibbs€failed€for€lack€of€delivery.׃b×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Accordingly,€weÐ  p Ðaffirm€the€Trial€Courtððs€conclusion€on€this€issue€as€well.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€only€remaining€issue€is€Plaintiffsðð€claim€the€Trial€Court€improperly€includedÐ ä4 Ðcertain€documents€in€the€record€on€appeal.€€Since€we€have€disposed€of€the€issues€on€appeal€withoutÐ Ð  Ðrelying€on€these€documents,€this€issue€is€moot.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà@  %ìàò òòòConclusionóóó óˆÐ ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€vacate€the€decision€of€the€Trial€Court€granting€summary€judgment€to€Gibbs€onÐ l¼ ÐGuy€Jenkinsðð€claim€that€Gibbs€unlawfully€procured€a€breach€of€contract.€€The€rest€of€the€judgmentÐ X ¨ Ðof€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed€in€all€other€respects.€€This€case€is€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court€forÐ D!” Ðfurther€proceedings€as€necessary€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€taxed€one„half€toÐ 0"€  Ðthe€Appellants€Guy€R.€Jenkins€and€Aubrey€Allen€Jenkins,€and€their€surety,€and€one„half€to€theÐ #l! ÐAppellee€Dan€Gibbs.Ð $X" ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_____________________________________Ð ¸'#& Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€Ô_ÔSWINEYÔ_Ô