ÿWPCU x€Ý•¹ ÿôÔàЧrÒU–BÛV©ÓÑæpúQ§¼¨õŒn­’án¹}`M¥ðñ)i]·zŸýQ#óo¥µ[Ä­Éh^‚c¬ ŠEo¡¨h`L©c¬Þ°JöðúY ïL,²E^rIʆÀ{nòâé𣘸“Ç4íóÎf–#»”ÌE¢5uÞêìMnŠ«±ï\QjmÊÞNÑwÈíp†ûOï»$ìÎâ¸;+¹ê²Ýß’©ÃêÂ2LÎ…Dî zË6Šx•wVJûéßå MË~¼Ws ÁOK‰…ÎÆ±^æ6!†íò¥fŠ}£•á?å‘•ºNiYÁ×'ðÛÄÒ B°-}V8AÂë~öhÓme3zéã…4}Vt¶ÉÏPéô¦…¾\ ÓˆïQÅgï þDû ?E*¨F§¯*ø¼¹1èý©‘z†çêŽg}É…½àÐþ•S/Ý9coú¹;•1°qQ­¼2Õˆ½®p!ïSÅ?YäÝ4@)&u~ˆMU™9eôwÃùUâ;sÀ©“²9æü€èÀÞ³ø@^6Á#ÚcV sx¨«Ó•¹N*|yûb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ 4‘ ÆÅ Æ‹ÆQÆ 0DÝN!UN#AqE²²Î´2‚‚‚–´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´bJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ 0ëRRRR B== 0¤Z D3þ D-1 0K^^ AS©Æü 0¤Â 0Df A«ª»Ø¢þ*â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularHEô*  ¢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.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0 *Ý ƒRÓ|$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô–ù ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Before€this€matter€went€to€trial,€Ô_ÔHobbsÔ_Ô€died,€and€this€action€was€revived€by€Plaintiffs€against€the€estate€ofÐ e ÐHoover€Ô_ÔHobbsÔ_Ô€and€its€co„administrators,€Sandra€Ô_ÔHobbsÔ_Ô€Mann€and€Lisa€Montgomery.€€For€simplicityððs€sake,€we€referÐ )Ä Ðto€Hoover€Ô_ÔHobbsÔ_Ô€as€the€Defendant.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular 7Ý ƒRÓ|$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô–ù ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔAlthoughÔ_Ô€Plaintiff€Ô_ÔKuderewskiÔ_Ô€testified€that€two€of€his€corporate€charters€were€amended€to€reflect€nameÐ e Ðchanges€for€the€Project,€the€record€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ôcontains€onlyÔ_Ô€one€Articles€of€Amendment€to€Charter€of€Incorporation€for€one€ofÐ )Ä ÐPlaintiff€Ô_ÔKuderewskiÔ_Ôððs€existing€corporations€which€covers€Ô_ÔFasinationÔ_Ô€Station,€Inc. ÄÝ ƒRÓ|$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô–ù ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€It€is€unclear€from€the€record€on€appeal€how€Sandra€Ô_ÔHobbsÔ_Ô€Mann€obtained€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔfromÔ_Ô€Defendant€prior€to€his€deathÐ e Ðin€1998€Ô_Ôthe€power€to€sell€the€Property.Ô_Ô KUDEREWSKIHOBBS ŒÝ ƒRÓ|$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô–ù ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔAccordingÔ_Ô€to€Plaintiff€Sanchezððs€trial€testimony,€Defendant€arrived€in€Las€Vegas€with€his€then„Ô_ÔfiancÔ_Ô,€GwenÐ e ÐÔ_ÔHobbsÔ_Ô,€but€immediately€got€on€another€plane€to€leave€Las€Vegas€due€to€an€argument€he€had€with€Gwen€Ô_ÔHobbsÔ_Ô.€- ù-(|G2Ó|$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ü»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôeò»»Ô d(|3ú$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ü»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ú$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ü»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€D»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑe°ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼;á»»»ÔÑ8€kTXXdê»»d 8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î/`;áÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ e Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼;á»îî/`#ԈР‹& ÐÓ  ÓMay€9,€2001€SessionÔ‡X~-X»¼;áÔÐ ±L ÐÌò òÔ#†¼;á»XX~-é#ÔPETER€KUDEREWSKI,€òòet€al.óó€v.€ESTATE€OF€HOOVER€HOBBSÔ‡X~-X»¼;áÔòò,€Ô#†¼;á»àX~-|#Ôet€al.Ô‡X~-X.¼;áÔóóó óÐ ¯J ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Sullivan€CountyÐ ¯ J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€27731„B€€€€€€Richard€E.€Ladd,€Chancellor,€by€InterchangeÐ › 6 ÐÌFILED€JULY€30,€2001Ð s   Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<^` AßÐ _ú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„02515„COA„R3„CVÐ Zõ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<1` Aßó óÐ 2Í  ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓÓÓPeter€Kuderewski€and€David€Sanchez€(ð ðPlaintiffsðð)€sued€Hoover€Hobbs€(ð ðDefendantðð),€alleging€Ð -È  Ðthey€had€an€implied€partnership€during€the€beginning€phases€of€a€now„defunct€plan€to€open€a€familyÐ ´ Ðfun€center€in€Kingsport,€Tennessee€(ð ðProjectðð).€€Plaintiff€argues€the€parties€had€agreed€to€useÐ   Ðproperty€(ð ðPropertyðð)€already€owned€by€Defendant€for€the€Project.€€A€portion€of€the€Property€wasÐ ñŒ Ðlater€sold,€and€Plaintiffs€sought€to€recover€50%€of€the€sale€price€pursuant€to€their€claimed€respectiveÐ Ýx Ðpartnership€interests.€€Alternatively,€Plaintiffs€claim€they€were€entitled€to€recover,€under€a€theory€ofÐ Éd Ðunjust€enrichmentÔ#†¼;á»XX~-É#ÔÔ‡X~-X»¼;áÔ€money€spent€toward€improving€Defendantððs€Property€in€anticipation€of€theÐ µP ÐProject.€€After€a€bench€trial,€the€Trial€Court€denied€both€of€Plaintiffsðð€claims.€€Plaintiffs€appeal.€€WeÐ ¡< Ðaffirm.Ð ( ÐÓñÓÓÓÓÓÌÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed.ó óÐ Qì ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼;á»àX~-7#ÔÔ‡X~-X.¼;áÔD.€Michael€Swiney,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.óó€andÐ ° ÐòòCharles€d.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.Ð  œ ÐÌKenneth€R.€Worley,€Kingsport,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellants,€Peter€Kuderewski€and€David€Sanchez.Ð Ù!t! ÐÌDavid€S.€Haynes,€Bristol,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellees,€Estate€of€Hoover€Hobbs,€and€its€co„Ð ±#L# Ðadministrators,€Sandra€Hobbs€Mann€and€Lisa€Montgomery.Ð $8 $ ÐÓz ÓÌÌÌÓÓà@66'ìàò òÔ#†¼;á»XX~-+ #ÔÔ€X~-X»¼;áÔOPINIONó óˆÐ +¬&+ ÐÌà@ÛÛ%ìàò òòòBackgroundóóó óˆÐ é,„(- ÐÐ Õ-p).ý Ðà  àà ` àIn€1994,€Plaintiff€Kuderewski€and€Defendant€discussed€building€a€family€fun€centerÐ e Ðcomposed€of€activities€like€putt„putt€golf,€go„cart€race€track,€arcade€games,€and€a€deli€on€theÐ Qì ÐProperty.€€It€is€disputed€whose€idea€the€Project€was€originally.€€The€family€fun€center€was€to€beÐ =Ø Ðlocated€on€Defendantððs€Property€in€Kingsport,€Tennessee,€which€Defendant€purchased€for€$250,000Ð )Ä Ðin€1993.€€The€Property€contained€two€structures,€including€an€old€Elkððs€building€("Elkððs€Building"),Ð ° Ðand€approximately€8.5€acres.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Thereafter,€Kuderewski€contacted€his€nephew,€Sanchez,€who€was€inÐ  œ Ðthe€vending€machine€business€in€New€York,€and€asked€him€to€participate€in€and€contribute€moneyÐ í ˆ Ðtoward€the€Project.Ð Ù t ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€exact€chronology€of€events€is€somewhat€unclear€from€the€record.€€During€AugustÐ ± L  Ð1994,€according€to€Plaintiffs,€the€parties€agreed€to€make€the€following€contributions:€€DefendantÐ  8  Ðwould€contribute€the€Property;€Plaintiff€Kuderewski,€already€the€owner€of€another€restaurantÐ ‰$  Ðbusiness,€would€contribute€his€labor€and€expertise;€and€Plaintiff€Sanchez€would€make€a€cashÐ u  Ðcontribution€in€the€amount€of€$250,000.€€Ð aü  ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€contend€the€parties€agreed€to€form€a€partnership€in€which€Defendant€wouldÐ 9Ô  Ðhave€a€50%€interest€and€each€Plaintiff€would€have€a€25%€interest.€€Around€this€time,€DefendantððsÐ %À Ðthen„fiance,€Gwen€Hobbs,€who€did€bookkeeping€for€the€Project,€prepared€a€document€entitledÐ ¬ Ðð ðLIMITED€PARTNERSHIPðð€(ð ðLimited€Partnership€Documentðð)€which€is€consistent€with€PlaintiffsððÐ ý˜ Ðcontention€regarding€each€partyððs€relative€partnership€interest.€€The€Limited€Partnership€Document,Ð é„ Ðhowever,€is€neither€dated€nor€signed€by€any€of€the€parties.€Moreover,€the€Property€remained€inÐ Õp ÐDefendantððs€name€throughout€the€partiesðð€dealings.Ð Á\ ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€August€24,€1994,€the€parties,€with€the€assistance€of€an€attorney,€amended€theÐ ™4 Ðcorporate€charter€of€one€of€Plaintiff€Kuderewskiððs€existing€corporations€to€rename€it€FasinationÐ …  ÐStation,€Inc.׃Ü×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€parties€however,€did€not€follow€any€corporate€formalities€such€as€issuing€stockÐ q  Ðor€naming€a€board€of€directors.€€Defendant€filed€an€Application€for€Employer€Identification€Number,Ð ]ø Ða€Form€SS„4,€for€Fasination€Station,€Inc.,€in€which€he€listed€himself€as€the€ð ðprincipal€officer,€generalÐ Iä Ðpartner,€grantor,€owner€or€trustorðð€and€indicated€that€the€business€was€a€corporation.€€Thereafter,€theÐ 5Ð Ðparties€opened€a€checking€account€with€a€local€bank€for€Fasination€Station,€Inc.Ð !¼ ÐÌà  àà ` àIt€appears€from€the€record€that€during€August€and€September€1994,€the€partiesÐ ù ” Ðâ âtraveled€to€Florida€to€visit€other€family€fun€centers,€attended€a€games€convention€in€Las€Vegas,€andÐ å!€  Ðattended€auctions€in€Tennessee€and€Texas€where€they€purchased€game€and€restaurant€equipment.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рe Ðâ âThe€record€shows€that€this€equipment€was€purchased€using€Sanchezððs€cash€and€checks€drawn€on€theÐ Qì Ðaccount€of€Fasination€Station,€Inc.,€and€another€account€belonging€to€another€business€owned€byÐ =Ø ÐDefendant.€€Kuderewski€testified€that€the€parties€had€purchased€approximately€seven€tractor„trailerÐ )Ä Ðloads€of€equipment€for€the€Project.€€The€parties€also€began€making€improvements€to€the€PropertyÐ ° Ðusing€Sanchezððs€money.€€Plaintiffs€claim€that€Sanchez€contributed€$220,000€toward€the€Project,€aÐ  œ Ðportion€of€which€was€cash€or€cashierððs€checks.€€Ð í ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€Plaintiff€Kuderewskiððs€insistence,€the€parties€obtained€the€services€of€an€architectÐ Å ` Ðto€determine€the€estimated€cost€of€improving€the€Property€for€the€Project.€€Kuderewski€testified€atÐ ± L  Ðtrial€that€he€learned€from€his€past€restaurant€business€experience€to€obtain€a€forecast€of€cost€beforeÐ  8  Ðentering€into€a€project.€€The€proof€in€the€record€shows€that€Defendant€estimated€that€the€ProjectÐ ‰$  Ðwould€cost€approximately€$370,000.€€The€architect's€report€received€by€the€parties€in€DecemberÐ u  Ð1994,€however,€put€the€cost€at€no€less€than€$1.2€million.€€The€parties€stopped€the€Project€due€to€thisÐ aü  Ðunexpectedly€high€cost€estimate.€€Ð Mè  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€late€December€1994,€Defendant€presented€a€document€entitled€ð ðAgreementðð€to€Ð %À ÐPlaintiff€Kuderewski€in€which€Defendant€referred€to€the€Property€as€his€but€also€acknowledged€theÐ ¬ Ðdebt€owed€to€Sanchez€for€improvements€made€to€his€Property.€€Defendant€did€not,€however,Ð ý˜ Ðacknowledge€the€existence€of€a€partnership€or€that€he€owed€any€money€to€Plaintiff€Sanchez€for€theÐ é„ Ðpurchase€of€equipment.€€The€Agreement€states€that€it€was€the€intent€of€the€parties€ð ðto€incorporate€aÐ Õp Ðfamily€fun€center€known€as€Fasination€Station,€Inc.€.€.€.€,ðð€on€Defendantððs€Property.€€Defendant€andÐ Á\ ÐPlaintiff€Kuderewski€signed€the€Agreement,€but€Plaintiff€Sanchez€did€not.€€Ð ­H ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€the€parties€abandoned€the€Project,€Plaintiff€Sanchez€recovered€$7,500€from€theÐ …  ÐProjectððs€assets€and€$19,000€from€the€sale€of€equipment.€€At€trial,€Plaintiff€Kuderewski€testified€heÐ q  Ðwas€unable€to€sell€all€of€the€equipment€that€was€purchased€for€the€Project€and€has€had€to€store€it€sinceÐ ]ø Ðthe€parties€abandoned€the€Project€in€late€1994.Ð Iä ÐÌà  àà ` àOne€of€the€co„administrators€of€Defendantððs€estate,€Sandra€Hobbs€Mann,€sold€theÐ !¼ ÐElkððs€Building€to€a€third€party,€Williams€Electric,€in€late€1997€for€$250,000.€€Mann€testified€at€trialÐ  ¨ Ðthat€Williams€Electric€gutted€and€completely€remodeled€the€Elkððs€Building.€€In€November€1998,Ð ù ” ÐDefendant€died.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð å!€  ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€claim€that€pursuant€to€the€purported€partnership€agreement,€they€each€areÐ ½#X" Ðentitled€to€receive€25%,€or€50%€total,€of€the€proceeds€from€the€sale€of€the€Elkððs€Building€and€theÐ ©$D # Ðremaining€partnership€property.€€Plaintiffs€alternatively€contend€that€they€are€entitled€to€recoveryÐ •%0!$ Ðunder€the€theory€of€unjust€enrichment€for€the€amount€of€improvements€they€made€to€the€Property.€Ð &"% ÐDefendant€filed€a€Counterclaim€for€damages€resulting€from€Plaintiffsðð€failure€to€promptly€removeÐ e Ðthe€equipment€from€Defendantððs€Property€and€from€another€building€that€Defendant€owned.€Ð Qì ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€a€bench€trial,€the€Trial€Court€held€that€the€parties€did€not€have€a€partnership,Ð )Ä Ðeither€express€or€implied,€and€that€even€if€a€partnership€existed,€the€partnership€did€not€have€anyÐ ° Ðassets.€The€Trial€Court,€when€rendering€its€opinion€from€the€bench,€instead€held€that€the€parties€wereÐ  œ Ðð ðgoing€to€have€a€corporation€.€.€.€.ðð€€With€respect€to€Plaintiffs'€unjust€enrichment€claim,€the€TrialÐ í ˆ ÐCourt€held€that€although€there€was€unjust€enrichment€to€Defendant,€there€was€no€proof€of€anyÐ Ù t Ðenhancement€of€the€value€of€the€Property€or€any€other€proof€of€damages.€€The€Trial€Court€awardedÐ Å ` Ðnominal€damages€in€the€amount€of€$1€for€Plaintiffsðð€unjust€enrichment€claim.€€The€Trial€Court€alsoÐ ± L  Ðheld€that€the€remaining€equipment€belonged€to€Plaintiff€Sanchez.€€Defendantððs€Counterclaim€wasÐ  8  Ðdismissed€by€the€Trial€Court.€€Plaintiffs€appeal.€€We€affirm.Ð ‰$  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð àÌà@))%ìàò òòòDiscussionó óóóˆÐ aü  ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€address€the€following€issues€on€appeal:€1)€the€Trial€Court€erred€inÐ 9Ô  Ðdetermining€that€there€was€no€partnership€between€the€parties€because€the€proof€shows€that€theÐ %À Ðpartiesðð€actions€support€a€finding€that€a€partnership€existed;€and€2)€€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€denyingÐ ¬ ÐPlaintiffsðð€claim€for€unjust€enrichment€since€the€Elkððs€Building€was€sold€in€1997€for€the€same€priceÐ ý˜ Ðthat€Defendant€paid€for€the€entire€Property€in€1993.€€Defendant€raises€no€issues€on€appeal.€Ð é„ ÐÌÓü ÓÓ  Óà  àà ` àð ð[W]hat€will€constitute€a€partnership€is€a€matter€of€law,€but€whether€a€partnershipÐ Á\ Ðexists€under€conflicting€evidence€is€one€of€fact.ðð€€òòWyatt€v.€Brownóó,€281€S.W.2d€64,€68€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ­H Ð1955);€òòMesser€Griesheim€Indus.,€Inc.€v.€Cryotech€of€Kingsport,€Inc.óó,€45€S.W.€3d€588,€605€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð ™4 ÐApp.€2001).€€Accordingly,€since€we€are€asked€by€Plaintiffs€to€review€the€Trial€Courtððs€determinationÐ …  Ðthat€there€was€no€partnership€between€the€parties,€our€review€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record,Ð q  Ðaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€of€the€Trial€Court,€unless€theÐ ]ø Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€Tenn.€Rule€App.€P.€13(d);òò€Alexander€v.€€Inman,€óó974Ð Iä ÐS.W.2d€689,€692€(Tenn.€1998).€€The€Trial€Courtððs€conclusions€of€law€are€subject€to€a€òòde€novoóó€reviewÐ 5Ð Ðwith€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòGanzevoort€v.€€Russell,€óó949€S.W.2d€293,€296€(Tenn.€1997).ò òòòÐ !¼ Ðó óóóÌà  àà ` àThe€Uniform€Partnership€Act€defines€a€partnership€as€ð ðan€association€of€two€(2)€orÐ ù ” Ðmore€persons€to€carry€on€as€coowners€a€business€for€profit€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€61„1„105(a).Ð å!€  ÐA€partnership€agreement€does€not€have€to€be€written€but€can€be€implied.€€òòIn€re€Taylor€&€Assoc.,€L.P.óó,Ð Ñ"l! Ð249€B.R.€474,€479€(E.D.€Tenn.€1998).€€General€principles€of€contract€law€apply€to€partnershipÐ ½#X" Ðagreements€since€to€be€ð ðððan€enforceable€contract€[,]€it€must,€among€other€elements,€result€from€òòaóóÐ ©$D # Ðòòmeeting€of€the€minds€in€mutual€assent€to€termsóó,€must€be€based€upon€sufficient€consideration,€andÐ •%0!$ Ðòòmust€be€sufficiently€definiteóó.ððððòòóó€òòId.óó€€(quoting€òòWheeler€v.€Haleyóó,€No.€91„267„I,€1993€WL€398489,€atÐ &"% Ð*€5€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Oct.€1,€1993))€(alterations€in€original).€€When€a€partnership€agreement€is€notÐ m'#& Ðwritten,€the€proponent€of€the€partnership€must€prove€the€existence€of€the€partnership€by€clear€andÐ Y(ô#' Ðconvincing€evidence.€€òòId.óó;€òòsee€also€Wheeler€v.€Haleyóó,€1993€WL€398489,€at€*€4€(holding€that€ð ðððtheÐ E)à$( Ð[triers]€of€fact€are€required€to€carefully€scrutinize€and€weigh€the€evidence,€and€should€be€satisfiedÐ 1*Ì%) Ðof€its€existence€by€clear€and€convincing€proofðððð)€(quoting€òòJohnson€v.€Gravesóó,€15€Tenn.App.€466,€481Ð +¸&* Ð(1933)).Ð  ,¤'+ Їà  àà ` àWhen€ascertaining€whether€a€partnership€existed,€courts€must€determine€the€intentionÐ e Ðof€the€parties€ð ðand€the€controlling€intention€in€this€regard€is€that€ascertainable€from€the€acts€of€theÐ Qì Ðparties.ðð€òòBass€v.€Bassóó,€814€S.W.2d€38,€41€(Tenn.€1991).€€Our€Supreme€Court€has€provided€theÐ =Ø Ðfollowing€explanation€regarding€formation€of€a€partnership:Ð )Ä ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€determining€whether€one€is€a€partner,€no€one€fact€or€circumstanceÐ  œ Ðmay€be€pointed€to€as€a€conclusive€test,€but€each€case€must€be€decidedÐ í ˆ Ðupon€consideration€of€all€relevant€facts,€actions,€and€conduct€of€theÐ Ù t Ðparties.ÐÅ `` x` x Ðà@CC%ìà*€*€*€*€*€*ˆÐ ± L  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[I]t€is€not€essential€that€the€parties€actually€intend€to€become€partnersÐ  8  Ð.€.€.€.€€The€existence€of€a€partnership€is€not€a€question€of€the€partiesððÐ ‰$  Ðundisclosed€intention€or€even€the€terminology€they€use€to€describeÐ u  Ðtheir€relationship,€nor€is€it€necessary€that€the€parties€have€anÐ aü  Ðunderstanding€of€the€legal€effect€of€their€acts€.€.€.€.€€It€is€the€intent€toÐ Mè  Ðdo€the€things€which€constitute€a€partnership€that€determines€whetherÐ 9Ô  Ðindividuals€are€partners,€regardless€if€it€is€their€purpose€to€create€orÐ %À Ðavoid€the€relationship€.€.€.€.€€Stated€another€way,€the€existence€of€aÐ ¬ Ðpartnership€may€be€implied€from€the€circumstances€where€it€appearsÐ ý˜ Ðthat€the€individuals€involved€have€entered€into€a€business€relationshipÐ é„ Ðfor€profit,€combining€their€property,€labor,€skill,€experience,€orÐ Õp Ðmoney.ÐÁ\` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€(citations€omitted).Ð ™4 ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€contend€there€was€a€partnership.€€Defendant€contends€there€was€only€anÐ q  Ðagreement€to€investigate€the€feasability€of€the€Project,€and€to€proceed€as€a€corporation€if€the€ProjectÐ ]ø Ðwas€feasible.€€The€proof€in€the€record€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€determinationÐ Iä Ðthat€no€partnership€existed.€òòóó€Kuderewskiððs€testimony€establishes€that€whether€the€Project€wasÐ 5Ð Ðactually€going€to€get€off€of€the€ground€was€contingent€upon€the€architectððs€report.€€òòSee€Thompson,Ð !¼ ÐVentulett,€Stainback€&€Assoc.,€Inc.€v.€The€Bob€Evans€Group,€Inc.óó,€952€F.2d€403,€1992€WL€1680,€atÐ  ¨ Ð*€2„3€(6òòthóó€Cir.€Jan.€7,€1992)€(per€curiam)€(finding€that€under€Tennessee€law,€the€parties€did€not€haveÐ ù ” Ða€partnership€or€a€joint€venture€since€the€project€at€issue€was€contingent€upon€financing€despiteÐ å!€  Ðplaintiff€having€performed€a€substantial€amount€of€work€toward€the€project).€€We€find€no€error€withÐ Ñ"l! Ðthe€Trial€Courtððs€determination€that€the€parties€had€no€partnership€but,€instead,€intended€to€operate,Ð ½#X" Ðif€at€all,€as€a€corporation.€€The€proof€in€the€record€shows€that€the€Project€was€to€be€operated€as€aÐ ©$D # Ðcorporation€òòóóif,€and€only€if,€the€Project€was€feasible.Ð •%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€understand€Plaintiff€Sanchezððs€frustration€expressed€at€trial€regarding€the€loss€ofÐ m'#& Ðhis€money€for€a€project€which€never€came€to€fruition€and€for€the€purchase€of€equipment€that€heÐ Y(ô#' Ðcharacterized€as€ð ðjunk.ðð€€It€is€true€that€the€parties€improved€the€Property€and€purchased€equipmentÐ E)à$( Ðusing€funds€of€Plaintiff€Sanchez.€€This€proof,€nevertheless,€does€not€satisfy€Plaintiffsðð€burden€ofÐ 1*Ì%) Ðshowing€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€a€partnership€existed.€òòóó€Instead,€the€proof€in€the€recordÐ +¸&* Ðis€that€the€parties€had€a€corporate€entity€ready€for€use€òòif€óóthe€Project€was€feasible.€€In€fact,€PlaintiffÐ  ,¤'+ ÐKuderewski€testified€at€trial€that€he€insisted€upon€obtaining€an€estimate€from€an€architect€becauseÐ e Ðexperience€taught€him€first€to€determine€the€cost€of€a€project,€to€look€before€leaping€so€to€speak.€€InÐ Qì Ðaddition,€the€parties€had€opened€a€checking€account€in€the€corporationððs€name€and€used€the€checkingÐ =Ø Ðaccount€to€purchase€equipment.€€It€is€also€noteworthy€that€Defendent€never€transferred€the€Property.€Ð )Ä ÐÌà  àà ` à€At€most,€according€to€the€proof€in€the€record,€the€partiesðð€conduct€shows€they€hadÐ  œ Ða€corporation€to€use€for€the€Project€òòifóó€it€went€forward.€€We€find€no€error€by€the€Trial€Court€on€thisÐ í ˆ Ðissue.€€We€hold€that€the€evidence€in€the€record€on€appeal€does€not€preponderate€against€the€TrialÐ Ù t ÐCourtððs€determination€that€Plaintiffs€failed€to€satisfy€their€burden€of€showing€that€the€parties€had€anÐ Å ` Ðimplied€partnership.€€In€fact,€we€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€the€Trial€CourtððsÐ ± L  Ðdetermination.Ð  8  Ѐ€Ð ‰$  Ðà  àà ` àWe€next€turn€to€Plaintiffsðð€claim€of€unjust€enrichment.€€To€establish€this€quasi„Ð u  Ðcontractual€theory€in€which€courts€will€ð ðimpose€a€contractual€obligation€where€one€does€not€existÐ aü  Ð.€.€.,ðð€there€must€be€proof€of€€the€following:Ð Mè  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€there€is€no€contract€between€the€parties€or€a€contract€has€becomeÐ %À Ðunenforceable€or€invalid;€andЬ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)€the€defendant€will€be€unjustly€enriched€absent€a€quasi„contractualÐ ý˜ Ðobligation.Ðé„` x` x ÐÌòòWhitehaven€Cmty.€Baptist€Church€v.€Hollowayóó,€973€S.W.2d€592,€596€(Tenn.€1998).€€In€addition,€a€Ð Á\ Ðplaintiffððs€recovery€for€unjust€enrichment€for€improvements€the€Plaintiff€made€to€another€personððs€Ð ­H Ðland€is€the€ð ðamount€by€which€the€improvements€enhance€the€value€of€the€land.ðð€€òòSimpson€v.€Davisóó,Ð ™4 ÐNo.€W1999„00689„COA„R3„CV,€2000€WL€1346609,€at€*€4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Sept.€15,€2000);€òòseeÐ …  Ðalso€Simpson€v.€Bicentennial€Volunteers,€Inc.óó,€No.€01A01„9809„CV„00493,1999€WL€430497,€at€*Ð q  Ð2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€June€29,€1999)€(holding€that€ð ð[t]he€amount€of€recovery€[in€an€unjust€enrichmentÐ ]ø Ðclaim]€is€the€value€of€the€benefit€conferred,€not€the€cost€to€the€furnisherðð).€€Courts€will€not€award€aÐ Iä Ðrecovery€for€unjust€enrichment€if€the€plaintiff€does€not€submit€proof€of€the€ð ðreasonable€value€of€theÐ 5Ð Ðgoods€or€servicesðð€provided.€€òòSee€Doe€v.€HCA€Health€Serv.€of€Tennessee,€Inc.óó,€46€S.W.3d€191,€198Ð !¼ Ð(Tenn.€2001).€€Ð  ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffs€contend€that€Defendant€was€unjustly€enriched€by€the€improvements€madeÐ å!€  Ðto€his€Property,€improvements€funded€by€Plaintiff€Sanchez.€€Plaintiffs€point€to€the€1997€sale€of€theÐ Ñ"l! ÐElkððs€Building€by€Sandra€Mann€for€the€same€price€that€Defendant€paid€for€the€entire€Property€inÐ ½#X" Ð1993,€$250,000,€as€proof€that€the€value€of€the€Property€increased€due€to€the€improvements.€€WeÐ ©$D # Ðdisagree.€€Ð •%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€proof€in€the€record€shows€that€any€improvements€made€to€the€Elkððs€Building€byÐ m'#& ÐPlaintiffs€did€not€enhance€the€value€of€the€building€since€the€purchaser€of€the€Elkððs€Building,Ð Y(ô#' ÐWilliams€Electric,€completely€gutted€and€remodeled€the€building.€€As€discussed,€the€measure€ofÐ E)à$( Ðdamages€in€this€unjust€enrichment€claim€is€the€amount€the€Propertyððs€value€was€enhanced€by€theÐ 1*Ì%) Ðimprovements,€not€the€amount€of€money€that€Plaintiff€Sanchez€spent€on€the€improvements.€€òòSeeóóÐ +¸&* ÐòòSimpson€v.€Davisóó,€2000€WL€1346609,€at€*€4.€€The€Trial€Court€found€that€Plaintiffs€failed€to€presentÐ  ,¤'+ Ðsufficient€evidence€to€show€any€increase€in€the€value€of€the€Property€resulting€from€theseÐ e Ðimprovements.€€After€a€complete€review€of€the€record,€we€hold€that€the€evidence€does€notÐ Qì Ðpreponderate€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€finding€that€Plaintiffs€failed€to€prove€the€improvementsÐ =Ø Ðenhanced€the€value€of€the€Property.€€òòóó€€Ð )Ä ÐÌà@  %ìàòòò òConclusionó óóóˆÐ  œ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed€and€this€cause€is€remanded€to€the€TrialÐ Ù t ÐCourt€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€be€required,€if€any,€consistent€with€this€Opinion,€and€forÐ Å ` Ðcollection€of€the€costs€below.€€The€costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€Appellants,€PeterÐ ± L  ÐKuderewski€and€David€Sanchez,€and€their€surety.Ð  8  ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¬ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGE