ÿWPCÖ |tõÐi7%i#ÏWD#ƒŽˆ¤tÇê¹ñüûPÑ!+îÆrh{A¿ FÕ‹FXÏšÜm‘Dº‹¿Þ^!ñ“çûõ‰z›~m—mè3ö”ÚJÃD¤ô{úݲ¯t÷Y›¿u•äÿ ­pŽ+‰uÌ^õ Fµ ÑM±Ê”C_QÛ~ÍÇ:F—˪œ–÷¤…7F[”ñRש[6ÌPlsT¥¤¨PšZ_º§¬ êí‘AíÚr"CŽÉ‰úé@)Çæ[Š)/dÂ<ºO8Gñ²ÍB\¹Yt¥ÔX^C§!ÿ¶íÈ¡ÀµdÐ ÕßÌóÛ"SóÌ(Æ]66_±Ú>ƒñ_Ïxaü2ïÏš'VÏÙ×ó%L¨a€K[„sq” ÏÛ4áWyXssn¼`ÁocÏm'S?þK Œ© Ó \Ì·ÃÑ&„qF6Ëíe•èb)ê8éq?`(Á–z´ª7&8-]¶cuÅów¢?oövÙjø5˜!>£w¿ï5Ká{,¸¹¥à^ägÒv*¾û¬“Ü ÉUzÒ'Ü­¼M“•f9øQFÝu tl,ãW3 ~Üã0GS,M írÈ¢/„o”¦GôDÍ;mÉM–îb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ ’Ð #Áb Æ# Æé Ư Æuð;N+ 0D- qE‘“ 1‡« 722 1ud 72Ù 0c  1‡n 72õ¤'''''''''''''''bËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËË 0ëÓÓÓÓ B¾¾ 0¤Û D3 D-² 0Kßß AS*Æ} 0¤C 0Dç A«+»}œ>,â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG* 'ʤ œ3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ cohabitatingSweetwaterStricklandJerri COAStricklands˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 æÝ ƒRoé$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®íò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSmithððs€divorce€was€final€on€February€1,€1999,€while€Rileyððs€divorce€was€granted€on€July€13,€1999.(%Ã$òòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó Ý ƒRoé$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®íò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Wanda€Strickland€is€Smithððs€daughter.€€Smith€brought€a€complaint€in€the€instant€case€against€the€Stricklands,Ð ° Ðalleging,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€they€had€refused€to€accept€the€house€payments€Smith€was€sending€to€them€via€certified€mail.€Ð tÄ ÐIn€their€answer,€the€Stricklands€agreed€to€accept€the€payments€through€their€attorney.€€The€Stricklandsðð€interest€in€thisÐ 8ˆ Ðcase€was€resolved€by€the€trial€court,€and€neither€Riley€nor€Smith€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€as€to€the€Stricklands.€Ð üL ÐThus,€while€the€Stricklands€are€parties€to€this€appeal,€no€issues€have€been€raised€as€to€them. Ý ƒRoé$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®íò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔRiley€granted€Smith€a€one„half€undivided€interest€in€three€boats,€two€automobiles,€a€tractor,€and€a€motor€home.Ð ° Ðà  à(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(EhCEKQW]cioAutoList2I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I. šÝ ƒRoé$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®íò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€cases€relied€upon€by€Riley€are€ò òòòSpellings€v.€Parksó óóó,€104€Tenn.€351,€58€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€126€(1900),€and€òòò òJohnson€v.Ð ° ÐÔ_ÔIssÔ_Ôó óóó,€114€Tenn.€114,€85€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€79€(1905).- ù-(|G2oé$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€µ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô®íò»»Ô d(|3r$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€µ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3r$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€µ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€µ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼µ»»»ÔÑ8€ByXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îÔµÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼µ»îîÔ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€October€22,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡XByX»¼µÔÌò òÔ#†¼µ»XXBy#ÔTHELMA€AGNES€SMITHòòóó€v.€DAVID€PHILLIP€RILEYòòóóÔ‡XByX»¼µÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Monroe€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€12,586€€€€€€Jerri€S.€Bryant,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌFILED€JANUARY€30,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¾   Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„00828„COA„R3„CV€Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` Aßó óÓ  ÓÐ }Í  ÐÓ›ÓÌÓ  ÓThe€plaintiff,€Thelma€Agnes€Smith,€lived€with€the€defendant€out€of€wedlock€for€several€years.€€WhenÐ xÈ  Ðthe€relationship€ended,€she€brought€this€action€seeking€to€enforce€two€written€agreements€with€himÐ d´ Ðregarding€the€sale€and€assignment€of€property€to€her.€€The€trial€court€enforced€the€agreements€andÐ P  Ðdivided€the€parties'€property.€€The€defendant€appeals,€arguing€that€the€agreements€lack€considerationÐ <Œ Ðand€are€void€as€against€public€policy.€€We€affirm.Ð (x ÐÓÍÓÓÓÌÓÓò òÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ P ÐAffirmed;€Case€Remandedó óÐ ì< ÐÓ4ÓÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼µ»àXBy{#ÔÔ‡XByX.¼µÔCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHouston€M.€Goddard,Ð Ä ÐP.J.,óó€and€òòD.€Michael€Swiney,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ° ÐÌRobert€W.€White,€Maryville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€David€Phillip€Riley.Ð ˆØ ÐÌJ.€Reed€Dixon,€Sweetwater,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Thelma€Agnes€Smith.Ð `° ÐÌSteve€Merritt,€Maryville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Jerry€Strickland€and€Wanda€Strickland.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÓÝÓà@ìì*ìàˆÌÌÌò òÓ  ÓOPINIONó óÔ#†¼µ»XXBy #ÔÔ‡XByX»¼µÔÐ è$8 $ ÐÓJ ÓÌòòóóÔ#†¼µ»XXByƒ #ÔÔ‡XByX»¼µÔÓ  ÓÓ  Óà @ àI.Ð À&"& ÐÌÓ Óà  àThelma€Agnes€Smith€and€David€Phillip€Riley,€both€of€whom€then€resided€in€Florida,Ð ˜(è#( Ðseparated€from€their€respective€spouses€in€1997€and€began€a€romantic€relationship.€€In€early€1998,Ð „)Ô$) Ðthe€two€moved€to€TennesseeÔ#†¼µ»XXByñ #ÔÔ€XByX»¼µÔ€and€began€cohabitating.€€They€were€both€then€still€married.Ð p*À%* ÐÌà  àSmith€and€Riley€opened€a€joint€checking€account€in€March,€1998.€€Over€time,€SmithÐ H,˜', Ðdeposited€into€that€account€$9,500€ð!ð€the€proceeds€from€an€insurance€settlement€and€monies€receivedÐ 4-„(-ý Ðwhen€her€divorce€later€became€final;€she€also€deposited€her€monthly€social€security€check€of€$337Ð ° Ðinto€the€same€account.€€Smith€continued€to€deposit€her€social€security€check€in€the€joint€account€untilÐ œì ÐDecember,€1998,€when€she€opened€her€own€checking€account.€€Riley€also€contributed€to€the€jointÐ ˆØ Ðaccount.€€He€placed€a€settlement€of€$84,000€from€the€Veteranððs€Administration€into€the€account.€€InÐ tÄ Ðaddition,€he€deposited€his€monthly€pension€check€of€$2,036€into€the€same€account.Ð `° ÐÌà  àSmith€and€Riley€had€met€with€an€attorney€in€the€spring€of€1998€to€discuss€the€possibility€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðpooling€their€money€to€purchase€real€property.€€They€inquired€about€the€potential€effect€that€such€aÐ $ t Ðpurchase€might€have€on€their€then„pending€divorces,׃×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòi.e.óó,€whether€their€spouses€would€be€entitledÐ  ` Ðto€share€in€their€respective€interests.€€Despite€their€attorneyððs€ambivalence€about€their€intendedÐ ü L  Ðcourse€of€action,€Smith€and€Riley€persisted€with€their€plans€to€purchase€property€in€a€manner€whichÐ è 8  Ðwould,€in€the€attorneyððs€words,€€ð ðleave€no€public€trail.ðð€€On€July€31,€1998,€Riley€entered€into€a€leaseÐ Ô$  Ðwith€Jerry€Strickland€and€Wanda€Strickland׃T×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€with€respect€to€a€residence€owned€by€them;€the€leaseÐ À  Ðwas€accompanied€by€an€option€to€purchase.€€Almost€four€months€later,€on€November€20,€1998,Ð ¬ü  ÐSmith€and€Riley€returned€to€their€attorneyððs€office,€at€which€time€the€attorney€prepared€a€bill€of€saleÐ ˜è  Ðand€an€assignment.€€In€the€bill€of€sale,€Riley€transferred€a€one„half€undivided€interest€in€seven€itemsÐ „Ô  Ðof€personal€property,׃ð×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€with€a€right€of€survivorship€as€to€the€one„half€interest€retained€by€Riley.€€RileyÐ pÀ Ðalso€assigned€to€Smith€a€one„half€undivided€interest€in€the€lease€and€option€to€purchase€with€theÐ \¬ ÐStricklands,€€which€interest€included€a€right€of€survivorship€in€the€one„half€interest€retained€by€RileyÐ H˜ Ðas€well.€€The€property€Riley€sold€and€assigned€to€Smith€in€the€two€agreements€was€stated€in€each€toÐ 4„ Ðbe€ð ð[Ô_Ôf]orÔ_Ô€and€in€consideration€of€the€sum€of€One€Dollar€($1.00)€and€other€and€good€and€valuableÐ  p Ðconsideration,€the€sufficiency€of€which€is€hereby€acknowledged....ððÐ  \ ÐÌà  àWhen€Smith€and€Riley€separated€in€April,€1999,€Smith€filed€suit€against€Riley€in€the€trialÐ ä4 Ðcourt,€seeking€the€dissolution€of€their€ð ðdomestic€partnership.ðð€€Smith€alleged€that€she€and€Riley€hadÐ Ð  Ðbeen€living€together€for€several€years€without€the€benefit€of€Ô_ÔmarriageÔ_Ô€and€had€acquired€both€real€andÐ ¼  Ðpersonal€property,€some€of€which€Riley€had€assigned€to€her.€€As€a€result,€she€asked€the€court€to€awardÐ ¨ø Ðher€50€percent€of€the€ð ðpartnershipðð€assets,€leaving€the€other€50€percent€to€Riley.€€Smith€also€soughtÐ ”ä Ða€restraining€order€to€keep€Riley€from€removing€or€disposing€of€any€of€the€partiesðð€personal€property.€Ð €Ð ÐThe€trial€court€granted€the€restraining€order€on€April€6,€1999.€€However,€subsequent€to€the€issuanceÐ l¼ Ðof€the€restraining€order,€Riley€moved€two€automobiles,€a€tractor,€and€a€motor€home€to€Florida.€€€AtÐ X ¨ Ðthe€final€hearing,€Riley€asserted€that€his€actions€were€prompted€by€òòóóa€bank€repossession€and€a€FloridaÐ D!” Ðrestraining€order€with€respect€to€the€vehicles.Ð 0"€  Їà  àAt€the€final€hearing€on€November€1,€2000,€Riley€testified€that€he€was€too€ill€on€NovemberÐ ° Ð20,€1998,€to€have€knowingly€signed€the€documents€that€gave€Smith€a€50€percent€interest€in€the€realÐ œì Ðand€personal€property.€€However,€in€issuing€its€ruling,€the€trial€court€addressed€Riley€and€stated,€inÐ ˆØ Ðpertinent€part,€as€follows:Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[Y]ou€knew€what€you€were€doing€when€you€went€to€[your€attorneyððs]Ð L œ Ðoffice.€€You€know€you€did.€€You€know€you€did,€and€Iððm€finding€that,Ð 8 ˆ Ðfinding€you€were€not€sick.€€And€even€if€you€were€sick€you€knew€whatÐ $ t Ðyou€were€doing.Ð `` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àEverybody€knew€what€was€going€on€in€this€case.€€Even€theÐ è 8  ÐStricklands€knew€what€was€going€on€in€this€case,€and€theyððre€certainlyÐ Ô$  Ðnot€here€in€an€easy€situation.ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌThe€trial€court€went€on€to€find€that€this€was€not€a€case€involving€the€dissolution€of€a€domesticÐ ˜è  Ðpartnership.€€The€trial€court€stated,€ð ð[i]tððs€not€a€divorce,€and€itððs€not€a€partnership€dissolution;€itððsÐ „Ô  Ða€mess.ðð€€The€court€held€Riley€in€contempt€for€his€violation€of€the€restraining€order.€€The€trial€courtÐ pÀ Ðthen€entered€a€judgment€dividing€the€personal€property€between€Riley€and€Smith.€€Because€Riley€hadÐ \¬ Ðremoved€the€four€vehicles€in€question€to€Florida,€the€court€awarded€Smith€the€three€boats,€amongÐ H˜ Ðother€items€of€personal€property.€€Riley€was€awarded€the€two€automobiles,€the€tractor,€and€the€motorÐ 4„ Ðhome,€among€other€things.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àAs€for€the€partiesðð€residence,€the€court€ordered€that€the€house€be€sold.€€From€the€proceeds€ofÐ øH Ðthe€sale,€the€Stricklands€were€to€be€paid€the€remainder€of€what€they€were€owed.€€After€the€paymentÐ ä4 Ðto€the€Stricklands,€the€court€ordered€that€Smith€be€repaid€for€all€payments€she€had€made€on€theÐ Ð  Ðhouse,€including€principal€and€interest,€as€well€as€for€all€taxes€and€insurance€payments€she€made€onÐ ¼  Ðthe€property.€€The€court€also€ordered€that€Smith€receive€$33,500,€to€equalize€the€value€of€the€specificÐ ¨ø Ðproperty€awarded€by€the€court.€€If€any€money€remained,€the€court€decreed€it€was€to€be€divided€equallyÐ ”ä Ðbetween€the€parties.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àWith€respect€to€Rileyððs€contention€that€there€was€no€consideration€for€the€assignment€and€billÐ X ¨ Ðof€sale,€the€court€stated:Ð D!” ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€consideration€I€find€for€these€assignments€and€bill€of€sale€was€theÐ #l! Ðsociety€and€consortium€as€well€as€the€cash€that€Ms.€Smith€put€intoÐ $X" Ðthis€agreement,€put€into€this€relationship€and€assets....€I€find€that€Mr.Ð ô$D # ÐRiley€intended€this€house€and€his€personal€property€dealt€with€in€theÐ à%0!$ Ðbill€of€sale€and€the€assignment€were€intended€to€be€a€place€for€himÐ Ì&"% Ðand€Ms.€Smith€to€live,€that€he€did€make€a€promise€to€take€care€of€her,Ð ¸'#& Ðthat€he€has€not€done€so,€and€by€the€consideration€that€sheððs€given€inÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthis€relationship€that€she€is€entitled€to€her€half€of€what€was€on€there.Ð)à$(` x` x Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àRiley€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€ruling,€arguing€that€the€trial€court€erred€(1)€by€finding€validÐ ° Ðâ âconsideration€to€enforce€the€contract,€and€(2)€by€failing€to€find€the€contract€to€be€void€due€to€publicÐ œì Ðpolicy.Ð ˆØ ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ€ (Eh83ÓØ! !ØII.Ð `° ÐÌÓ  Óà  àOur€review€of€this€non„jury€case€is€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€the€proceedingsòò€óóbelow;Ð 8 ˆ Ðhowever,€that€record€comes€to€us€with€a€presumption€that€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings€are€correct.€Ð $ t ÐòòóóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€ò òòòWright€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleó óóó,€898€S.W.2d€177,€181€(Tenn.€1995).€€We€mustÐ  ` Ðhonor€this€presumption€unless€we€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòò òUnionÐ ü L  ÐCarbide€Corp.€v.€Huddlestonó ó,€óó854€S.W.2d€87,€91€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€trial€courtððs€conclusions€of€law,Ð è 8  Ðhowever,€are€not€accorded€the€same€deference.òòóó€€ò òòòCampbell€v.€Florida€Steel€Corp.ó óóó,€919€S.W.2d€26,Ð Ô$  Ð35€(Tenn.€1996).Ð À  ÐÌÓ  ÓIII.Ð ˜è  ÐÌA.Ð pÀ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àRiley€first€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€bill€of€sale€and€assignment€areÐ H˜ Ðsupported€by€valid€consideration.€€Specifically,€Riley€relies€on€Smithððs€statements€at€trial€that€sheÐ 4„ Ðconsidered€their€pending€engagement€and€the€funds€she€deposited€into€their€joint€account€to€beÐ  p Ðconsideration€for€their€agreements.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àIt€is€a€well„settled€principle€of€contract€law€that€in€order€for€a€contract€to€be€binding,€it€must,Ð ä4 Ðamong€other€things,€be€supported€by€sufficient€consideration.€€òòSee€ò òDoe€v.€HCA€Health€Services€ofÐ Ð  ÐTennessee,€Inc.ó óóó,€46€S.W.3d€191,€196€(Tenn.€2001).€€In€expounding€on€the€adequacy€ofÐ ¼  Ðconsideration,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€stated€thatÐ ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[Ô_Ôi]tÔ_Ô€is€not€necessary€that€the€benefit€conferred€or€the€detrimentÐ €Ð Ðsuffered€by€the€promisee€shall€be€equal€to€the€responsibility€assumed.€Ð l¼ ÐAny€consideration,€however€small,€will€support€a€promise.€€In€theÐ X ¨ Ðabsence€of€fraud,€the€courts€will€not€undertake€to€regulate€the€amountÐ D!” Ðof€the€consideration.€€The€parties€are€left€to€contract€for€themselves,Ð 0"€  Ðtaking€for€granted€that€the€consideration€is€one€valuable€in€the€eyes€ofÐ #l! Ðthe€law.Ð$X"` x` x ÐÌòòò òÔ_ÔDanheiserÔ_Ô€v.€Germania€Sav.€Bank€&€Trust€Co.ó óóó,€137€Tenn.€650,€660„61,€194€S.W.€1094,€1096Ð à%0!$ Ð(1917).€€Quoting€the€United€States€Supreme€Court,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€went€on€to€stateÐ Ì&"% Ðthat€ð ð[a]€stipulation€in€consideration€of€$1€is€just€as€effectual€and€valuable€a€consideration€as€a€largerÐ ¸'#& Ðsum€stipulated€for€or€paid.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€(quoting€ò òòòLawrence€v.€McCalmontó óóó,€43€U.S.€(2€How.)€426,€452,€11Ð ¤(ô#' ÐL.€Ed.€326€(1844)).€€Indeed,€the€consideration€of€love€and€affection€has€been€deemed€sufficient€toÐ )à$( Ðsupport€a€conveyance.€€òòSee€ò òThomas€v.€Hedgesó óóó,€27€Tenn.€App.€585,€593,€183€S.W.2d€14,€17€(1944).Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àBoth€the€bill€of€sale€and€the€assignment€recite€that€they€are€undertaken€ð ð[f]or€and€inÐ ° Ðconsideration€of€the€sum€of€One€Dollar€($1.00)€and€other€and€good€and€valuable€consideration,€theÐ œì Ðsufficiency€of€which€is€hereby€acknowledged....ðð€€Facially,€the€documents€are€therefore€supportedÐ ˆØ Ðby€sufficient€consideration,€as€clearly€recognized€by€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòò òÔ_ÔDanheiserÔ_Ôóóó ó,€194€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€atÐ tÄ Ð1096.€€Moreover,€Smithððs€ð ðsociety€and€consortiumðð€ð!ð€a€concept€comparable€to€the€love€and€affectionÐ `° Ðalluded€to€in€ò òòòThomasó óóó,€183€S.W.2d€at€17€ð!ð€is€further€evidence€of€sufficient€consideration€to€supportÐ L œ Ðthese€conveyances.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àRiley€calls€our€attention€to€Smithððs€statement€at€trial€that€she€considered€the€funds€sheÐ  ` Ðdeposited€into€their€joint€account€to€be€consideration€for€the€conveyances.€€If€this€were€the€onlyÐ ü L  Ðconsideration€involved€in€this€case,€Rileyððs€argument€regarding€past€consideration€supporting€aÐ è 8  Ðpresent€transaction€might€have€some€merit.€€However,€the€recitals€of€nominal€consideration€that€areÐ Ô$  Ðpresent€in€both€agreements,€as€well€as€the€consideration€of€Smithððs€love€and€affection,€are€adequateÐ À  Ðconsideration€and€will€support€the€conveyances€represented€by€the€assignment€and€bill€of€sale.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÓ  ÓB.Ð „Ô  ÐÓ+@ÓÌà  àRiley€next€argues€that€the€bill€of€sale€and€assignment€to€Smith€are€void€as€against€publicÐ \¬ Ðpolicy.€€In€support€of€his€argument,€Riley€relies€on€two€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€cases€from€theÐ H˜ Ðearly€1900s€that€found€a€promise€to€marry€and€a€promise€of€marriage€as€an€inducement€for€sexualÐ 4„ Ðintercourse€are€both€void€as€against€pubic€policy.׃×Ý ƒ%ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€It€is€Rileyððs€contention€that€the€facts€of€these€twoÐ  p ÐSupreme€Court€cases€are€closely€analogous€to€the€facts€of€this€case,€since€the€agreements€now€beforeÐ  \ Ðus€were€signed€while€both€parties€were€still€married€to€others€and€while€they€were€engaged€to€oneÐ øH Ðanother.€€Therefore,€Riley€argues,€the€agreements€he€entered€into€with€Smith€should€be€declared€voidÐ ä4 Ðas€against€public€policy,€and€the€parties€should€be€placed€in€the€positions€they€occupied€before€theÐ Ð  Ðexecution€of€the€contracts.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àIt€is€our€opinion€that€Rileyððs€reliance€on€these€cases€is€misplaced.€€Smith€did€not€sue€RileyÐ ”ä Ðfor€breach€of€a€promise€to€marry.€€Rather,€Smith€sued€Riley€to€enforce€the€agreements€for€a€one„halfÐ €Ð Ðinterest€in€Rileyððs€real€and€personal€property.€€Certainly,€there€is€no€prohibition€against€twoÐ l¼ Ðunmarried€parties€entering€into€a€contract€while€they€are€married€to€others.€€If€that€were€the€state€ofÐ X ¨ Ðthe€law,€no€married€person€could€ever€enter€into€a€contract€with€anyone€other€than€his€or€her€spouse.€Ð D!” ÐAs€this€case€does€not€involve€a€breach€of€promise€to€marry,€we€find€that€Rileyððs€public€policyÐ 0"€  Ðargument€is€without€merit.Ð #l! ÐÌà@)ìàC.ˆÐ ô$D # ÐÌà  àIn€the€instant€case,€the€parties€entered€into€agreements€with€the€rather€clear€intent€of€defeatingÐ Ì&"% Ðor€at€least€hindering€the€interests€of€their€then„respective€spouses.€€A€similar€situation€arose€in€theÐ ¸'#& Ðcase€of€ò òòòThomas€v.€Hedgesó óóó,€27€Tenn.€App.€585,€183€S.W.2d€14€(1944),€in€which€a€father,€who€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcontemplating€divorce,€deeded€a€farm€to€his€two€sons.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€588,€183€S.W.2d€at€15.€€Once€hisÐ ° Ðmarital€problems€were€resolved,€the€father€asked€his€sons€to€reconvey€the€farm€to€him,€but€theyÐ œì Ðrefused.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€588„89,€183€S.W.2d€at€15.€€After€the€father€died,€his€other€surviving€children€suedÐ ˆØ Ðthe€brothers,€requesting€that€the€farm€be€placed€back€in€their€fatherððs€estate.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€587,€183€S.W.2dÐ tÄ Ðat€15.€€The€trial€court€found€for€the€plaintiffs,€but€the€Court€of€Appeals€reversed,€holding€that,€asÐ `° Ðthere€were€no€intervening€creditorððs€rights€to€the€property,€ð ðthe€deed€was€good€as€between€the€partiesÐ L œ Ðand€their€privies.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€590,€591,€183€S.W.2d€at€15,€16.€€The€court€went€on€to€say:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAnd€it€is€settled€in€this€state€by€an€unbroken€line€of€decisions€that€aÐ  ` Ðparty€guilty€of€fraud€is€not€entitled€to€be€relieved€from€itsÐ ü L  Ðconsequences.€ò òòòó óóóÐè 8 ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€rationale€of€the€rule€is€to€be€found€in€the€two€maxims:€ð ðHe€whoÐ À  Ðcomes€into€equity€must€come€with€clean€handsðð;€and€ð ðNo€one€canÐ ¬ü  Ðtake€advantage€of€his€own€wrongs.ðð€Ð˜è ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€fact€that€the€bill€as€amended€charges€that€the€defendantsÐ pÀ Ðparticipated€in€the€fraud€avails€the€complainants€nothing.€€TheÐ \¬ Ðapplicable€maxim€is€that€ð ðWhere€parties€are€equally€in€the€wrong,€theÐ H˜ Ðcondition€of€the€defendants€is€the€stronger.ðð€€In€such€a€case,€a€courtÐ 4„ Ðof€equity€declines€to€intervene,€not€by€way€of€favoring€the€defendant,Ð  p Ðbut€because€public€policy€requires€that€the€court€be€not€used€to€enableÐ  \ Ða€party€to€reap€the€benefit€of€his€own€fraud.ÐøH` x` x ÐÌò òòòThomasó óóó,€27€Tenn.€App.€at€592,€183€S.W.2d€at€16„17€(citations€omitted).€€If,€as€appears€from€theÐ Ð  Ðrecord€before€us,€Smith€and€Riley€were€attempting€to€play€a€rather€sophisticated€game€of€ð ðkeep„Ð ¼  Ðawayðð€from€their€respective€spouses,€we€would€be€disinclined€to€undo,€as€between€the€parties,€whatÐ ¨ø Ðthey€clearly€intended€to€do.€€However,€since€this€particular€issue€was€not€raised€below,€we€do€notÐ ”ä Ðresolve€this€case€based€on€the€rationale€of€ò òòòThomasó óóó€but€rather€for€the€reasons€and€on€the€basesÐ €Ð Ðpreviously€stated.Ð l¼ ÐÌÓ  ÓIV.ò òòòóóó óÐ D!” ÐÌÓ TÓà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€This€case€is€remanded€for€enforcement€of€theÐ #l! Ðjudgment€and€for€collection€of€costs€assessed€below,€all€pursuant€to€applicable€law.€€Costs€on€appealÐ $X" Ðare€taxed€to€the€appellant,€David€Phillip€Riley.Ð ô$D # ÐÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÔ_Ô_______________________________Ô_ԀР|*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCHARLES€D.€SUSANO,€JR.,€JUDGE