ÿWPCž ä>ŠÞ—ááЂ}`Ó]üuv†6,tº•v÷]òЇ}ÃhÓ冻VŽ&*ׯ~LŠ+x¿ L±~s‚çÀÊØw§óž“1µªÙͪHrr$â%›µB›¿ËpbŸ@VÐ ì;Ïâ:&Ÿz]¬yÀÿd=·>•à +„·@eÌccYGçê(]áRýÿmé‰ü‹¸€Ž|áåX¦àë9;8a˜¯ò³\ì_" ÁE êíK²[™(܈7üm9Q¯¦žË?¨õr,–xŽ„bqŒÐ$²Tdä¦:Ê`Öî²Dä—4mÆ7;ÏyirI„Ò¾UP•°·ƒ`߈–¥¤kÕ|iø@JülØßÓ8”ƒ’pèJÅ…šñ}å}gÿºÉRC`‰Ö9¹¯C³®¤vwïœÈÞ´›±I´ýDFJxÆå_>wíõâ˜k‚ùá”Áر̘«§©•"Ki¥TÉN£îÀÅI²ÝÇ™n«ól]ÆÓÐfú«æ2W^ 6|l™D££ÝÆôF­d“÷v…?ÕrŠ[çNË1ÕV]$¼Á33N#ÂR¹b0}µ©„ŽœSotÜØ!¸ÜÔRæ¢#0g¶Ñ›Æ„ûŠ¿Þþ^Ö”qðÜBTb#É\ %% UN+ 0ˆy UN 1‡O 1uÖ zK ÒÅ 72— ^É ^ ' 0D3ÆwÆ=ÆÆÉwN“4•¾©Egix mzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzb‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ 0ë™™™™ B„„ 0¤¡ D5E D-z 0K§§ ASòÆE 0¤  0D¯ A«ó˜\\IB01S02\CLERKJACÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) ˜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.wpti) TÝ ƒRc×$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯\ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€parties€in€òòBassóó€were€married€in€1980,€but€were€subsequently€divorced€later€that€year.€€òòBassóó,€814€S.W.2dÐ ° Ðat€40.€€They€continued€to€live€together€following€the€divorce.€€òòIdóó.u†q1Ï (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 56hö0ê:i¢×+00 ´Ý ƒRc×$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯\ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€chancellorððs€original€order€stated€the€duration€of€the€restaurant€partnership€was€forty„three€months.€€TheÐ ° Ðchancellor€issued€a€consent€order€on€April€15,€2003,€correcting€the€original€judgment€so€that€it€reflected€a€partnershipÐ qÁ Ðof€forty„three€weeks€in€duration.€3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-(|G2c×$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€„É»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯\ò»»Ô d(|3?$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€„É»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€„É»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€‚U»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼‚U»»»ÔÑ8€ÉXXdé»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ò ò ìàÔ‡îyî‚UÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@òò%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼‚U»îîyî #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  ÓJUNE€22,€2004€SessionÐ öF ÐÔ‡XÉX»¼‚UÔÌò òÔ#†¼‚U»XXÉð#ÔMARY€ALLENE€STORY€v.€MALCOLM€EUGENE€LANIERòòóóÔ‡XÉX»¼‚UÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Lake€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€4703€€€€€€J.€Steven€Stafford,€ChancellorÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2003„02194„COA„R3„CV€„€Filed€November€17,€2004Ð ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X&jXXXÉÔThis€case€primarily€involves€a€dispute€over€the€proper€characterization€of€property€held€by€theÐ V¦  Ðparties€during€a€thirty€year€relationship.€€The€parties€lived€together€during€their€relationship,€butÐ ? Ðnever€married.€€Mary€Story€filed€suit€against€Malcolm€Lanier,€alleging€that€a€marriage€by€estoppelÐ (x Ðexisted€between€the€parties,€or€in€the€alternative,€that€an€implied€partnership€was€created,€justifyingÐ a Ðthe€equal€division€of€all€bank€accounts,€personal€property,€and€real€property€owned€by€the€parties.€Ð úJ ÐThe€chancellor€granted€Mr.€Lanierððs€Motion€to€Dismiss€Ms.€Storyððs€marriage€by€estoppel€claim€butÐ ã3 Ðallowed€her€to€proceed€on€an€implied€partnership€theory.€€Following€a€bench€trial,€the€chancellorÐ Ì Ðfound€that€an€implied€business€partnership€existed€in€a€restaurant€purchased€by€Mr.€Lanier€in€1974Ð µ Ðbut€not€in€any€real€property€or€bank€accounts.€€Both€parties€have€appealed€the€chancellorððs€rulingsÐ žî Ðregarding€the€division€of€the€partiesðð€assets.€€Ms.€Story€also€appeals€the€chancellorððs€denial€of€pre„Ð ‡× Ðjudgment€interest,€the€finding€that€no€resulting€or€constructive€trusts€existed€as€to€the€real€propertyÐ pÀ Ðand€bank€accounts,€and€a€ruling€regarding€Mr.€Lanierððs€pleadings.€€For€the€reasons€stated€below,€weÐ Y© Ðaffirm€the€decisions€of€the€chancery€court.€€ò òÐ B’ Ðó óÔ#†XÉXXX&j|#ÔÔ#†¼‚U»XXÉf#ÔÔ‡XÉX»¼‚UÔÌÓpÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmedó óÐ ýM ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼‚U»àXÉÞ #ÔÔ‡XÉX.¼‚UÔAlan€E.€Highers,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.óó€and€òòHollyÐ Ð! ! ÐM.€Kirby,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ¹" " ÐÌRalph€I.€Lawson,€Dyersburg,€TN,€for€AppellantÐ ‹$Û$ ÐÌJoe€H.€Byrd,€Jr.,€Jackson,€TN,€for€AppelleeÐ ]&­!& ÐÓ} ÓÌò òÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINIONó óÔ#†¼‚U»XXɬ #ÔÔ‡XÉX»¼‚UÔÐ «-û(.ý ЇòòóóÔ#†¼‚U»XXÉC #ÔÔ‡XÉX»¼‚UÔÓ  Óò òÔ‡X&jXXXÉÔà@‰‰ìàI.€€Facts€and€Procedural€HistoryˆÐ ° ÐÌó óÌà  àOn€February€4,€2000,€Mary€Allene€Story€(ð ðMs.€Storyðð€or€ð ðAppelleeðð)€filed€a€Petition€toÐ m½ ÐEstablish€Marriage€by€Implied€Partnership€and€Marriage€by€Estoppel€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€LakeÐ V¦ ÐCounty.€€Ms.€Story€alleged€that€since€1970,€she€and€Malcolm€Eugene€Lanier€(ð ðMr.€Lanierðð€orÐ ?  Ðð ðAppellantðð)€have€lived€together€as€husband€and€wife,€even€though€the€parties€never€formallyÐ ( x Ðmarried.€€Ms.€Story€further€alleged€in€her€petition€that€during€the€course€of€their€thirty€yearÐ  a Ðrelationship,€she€and€Mr.€Lanier€purchased€both€real€and€personal€property€together,€and€thatÐ ú J Ðthrough€her€contributions€to€the€relationship€Mr.€Lanier€was€able€to€amass€substantial€funds€in€hisÐ ã 3  Ðbank€accounts.€€€Ms.€Story€asked€the€chancery€court€to€find€that€a€marriage€by€estoppel,€or€in€theÐ Ì   Ðalternative€an€implied€partnership,€existed€between€the€parties€and€to€divide€the€property€equallyÐ µ  Ðbetween€them.€Ð žî  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àÌà  àNo€further€pleadings€were€filed€by€Mr.€Lanier€until€October€20,€2000,€when€he€filed€aÐ pÀ  ÐMotion€to€Dismiss.€€In€this€motion,€Mr.€Lanier€argued€that€Tennessee€does€not€recognize€commonÐ Y©  Ðlaw€marriage€or€marriage€by€estoppel,€that€there€were€insufficient€facts€to€establish€an€impliedÐ B’ Ðpartnership€between€the€parties,€and€that€Ms.€Storyððs€petition€was€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitationsÐ +{ Ðand/or€laches.€€On€July€24,€2001,€Ms.€Story€filed€a€Motion€to€Amend€Petition,€which€the€chancellorÐ d Ðgranted€on€January€19,€2002.€€In€her€amended€petition,€Ms.€Story€made€two€additional€assertionsÐ ýM Ðbeyond€the€allegations€made€in€her€original€petition.€€First,€she€asserted€that€she€and€Mr.€Lanier€wereÐ æ6 Ðpartners€in€a€fifty„eight€acre€farm€operation€which€should€be€held€in€a€constructive€trust€since€Mr.Ð Ï ÐLanier€obtained€title€to€it€by€fraud,€duress,€and€abuse€of€confidence.€€Second,€when€Mr.€LanierÐ ¸ Ðobtained€title€to€the€farm,€a€resulting€trust€was€created€when€he€allegedly€promised€that€they€wouldÐ ¡ñ Ðbe€joint€owners€in€the€property.€Ð ŠÚ ÐÌà  àOn€June€10,€2002,€the€chancellor€entered€an€order€granting€Mr.€Lanierððs€Motion€to€DismissÐ \¬ Ðas€to€Ms.€Storyððs€claims€for€common€law€marriage€and€marriage€by€estoppel,€but€allowed€Ms.€StoryÐ E• Ðto€proceed€with€her€implied€partnership€claim.€€Mr.€Lanier€filed€an€answer€to€Ms.€Storyððs€amendedÐ .~ Ðpetition€on€October€28,€2002,€denying€every€allegation€contained€therein.€Ð g ÐÌà  àOn€February€19€and€20,€2003,€the€chancery€court€heard€controverted€proof€presented€by€bothÐ é 9 Ðparties€concerning€the€exact€nature€of€the€partiesðð€relationship€from€1970€until€2000.€€The€chancellorÐ Ò!"  Ðheard€testimony€from€Mr.€Lanier,€Ms.€Story,€neighbors,€co„workers,€and€the€partiesðð€children€fromÐ »" ! Ðprevious€marriages.€€€Ms.€Storyððs€marriage€ended€in€divorce€in€1969,€while€Mr.€Lanierððs€marriageÐ ¤#ô" Ðended€in€divorce€in€1971.€€The€parties€began€dating€around€the€time€Mr.€Lanierððs€divorce€becameÐ $Ý# Ðfinal.€€Ms.€Story€€asserted€at€trial€that€in€1971,€Mr.€Lanier€began€living€with€her€and€her€threeÐ v%Æ $ Ðchildren€at€her€mobile€home€in€Tiptonville,€Tennessee,€a€fact€which€Mr.€Lanier€disputed.€€The€trialÐ _&¯!% Ðcourt€viewed€exhibits€presented€by€both€parties€relating€to€where€Mr.€Lanier€received€his€mail.€Ð H'˜"& ÐAccording€to€Ms.€Story,€during€their€relationship€Mr.€Lanier€would€pay€the€larger€bills,€while€sheÐ 1(#' Ðpaid€the€smaller€living€expenses.€€The€court€also€heard€testimony€regarding€other€relationshipsÐ )j$( Ðengaged€in€by€both€parties€while€the€were€involved€with€each€other.€€At€no€time€during€their€thirtyÐ *S%) Ðâ âyear€relationship€did€the€parties€commingle€their€funds€by€sharing€a€bank€account,€either€for€personalÐ ì*<&* Ðor€business€reasons.€€Ms.€Story€took€out€life€insurance€policies€on€the€parties,€with€each€being€aÐ ° Ðreciprocal€beneficiary€of€the€other€personððs€policy.€Ð ™é Ðâ âÌà  àIn€1971,€Ms.€Story€owned€fifty„eight€acres€of€farm€land€in€Lake€County,€which€representedÐ k» Ðher€share€of€an€inheritance€from€a€larger€tract€of€land€owned€by€her€deceased€father.€€The€land€wasÐ T¤ Ðsubject€to€the€life€estates€of€her€mother€and€grandmother€at€the€time.€€Ms.€Story€also€received€aÐ =  Ðcheck€representing€her€share€of€the€income€generated€from€the€land.€€During€her€previous€marriage,Ð & v ÐMs.€Storyððs€husband€secured€a€$5,700€loan€by€using€the€fifty„eight€acre€farm€and€her€residence€inÐ  _ ÐTiptonville€as€collateral.€€By€1972,€Ms.€Story€was€unable€to€make€payments€on€the€note,€and€theÐ ø H Ðbank€was€in€the€process€of€foreclosing€on€the€farm€and€her€home.€€Mr.€Lanier€contends€that€heÐ á 1  Ðattempted€to€assist€Ms.€Story€with€getting€a€loan€to€pay€off€the€mortgage,€but€that€the€bank€wouldÐ Ê   Ðnot€lend€her€the€money€due€to€the€life€estates€encumbering€the€property.€€Mr.€Lanier€subsequentlyÐ ³  Ðborrowed€the€money€necessary€to€pay€off€the€loan€in€exchange€for€Ms.€Story€executing€a€warrantyÐ œì  Ðdeed€of€the€property€to€him.€€Mr.€Lanier€intended€to€use€the€farm€as€collateral€in€securing€the€loan.€Ð …Õ  ÐÌà  àIn€order€to€conduct€the€transfer,€the€parties€met€in€the€offices€of€Ms.€Storyððs€lawyer€on€JuneÐ W§  Ð7,€1972.€€According€to€Mr.€Lanier,€he€originally€decided€not€to€go€through€with€the€transaction.€€€Mr.Ð @ ÐLanier€was€aware€of€the€life€estates€encumbering€the€land€at€the€time€of€the€transaction,€and€thisÐ )y Ðraised€his€concerns€about€his€ability€to€later€sell€the€subject€realty€with€Ms.€Storyððs€lawyer.€€Ms.Ð b ÐStory€testified€that€Mr.€Lanier€promised€her€that€if€she€would€grant€the€farm€to€him,€they€would€farmÐ ûK Ðthe€land€together€and€share€equally€in€possession.€€Mr.€Lanier€denied€ever€making€such€a€promise.€Ð ä4 ЀOn€June€23,€1972,€Mr.€Lanier€obtained€a€loan€in€the€amount€of€$6,083.50,€using€the€farm€asÐ Í Ðcollateral.€€By€paying€off€the€mortgage€on€the€farm,€this€also€released€the€lien€on€Ms.€Storyððs€mobileÐ ¶ Ðhome.€€Mr.€Lanier€contends€that€upon€receiving€the€title€to€Ms.€Storyððs€home€from€the€bank,€heÐ Ÿï Ðimmediately€handed€it€to€her.€€€Ms.€Story€never€co„signed€the€loan€and€never€helped€Mr.€LanierÐ ˆØ Ðmake€any€payments€toward€the€loan.€€The€parties€also€never€executed€a€written€agreementÐ qÁ Ðconcerning€the€transaction,€and€the€deed€itself€makes€no€mention€of€any€joint€ownershipÐ Zª Ðarrangement.€€Ms.€Story€testified€that€the€estimated€value€of€the€land€at€the€time€of€the€transactionÐ C“ Ðwas€$27,000.€€Mr.€Lanier€did€not€pay€Ms.€Story€any€additional€consideration€beyond€paying€off€theÐ ,| Ðmortgage.€€After€Mr.€Lanier€became€the€record€owner€of€the€parcel,€the€income€payments€previouslyÐ e Ðreceived€by€Ms.€Story,€ranging€from€$200€to€$300€a€year,€were€sent€to€Mr.€Lanier€and€deposited€intoÐ þN Ðhis€personal€bank€account.€€€Ð ç 7 ÐÌà  àIn€1974,€Mr.€Lanier€purchased€a€restaurant€for€$2500.€€Ms.€Story€testified€that€Mr.€LanierÐ ¹" ! Ðtold€her€he€would€buy€the€restaurant€if€she€would€agree€to€run€it,€which€she€did.€€Mr.€LanierÐ ¢#ò" Ðpresented€testimony€from€the€previous€owner€stating€Ms.€Story€was€not€involved€in€the€purchase€ofÐ ‹$Û# Ðthe€restaurant,€a€fact€corroborated€by€Ms.€Story.€€The€parties€never€executed€a€writing€memorializingÐ t%Ä $ Ðthis€agreement.€€Mr.€Lanier€paid€all€the€taxes€on€the€restaurant,€bought€all€the€supplies€and€fixtures,Ð ]&­!% Ðsecured€the€necessary€permits€and€licenses,€and€purchased€insurance€on€the€business.€€Ms.€StoryððsÐ F'–"& Ðcontribution€to€the€business€consisted€of€working€there€without€compensation.€€The€children€of€bothÐ /(#' Ðparties€were€permitted€to€eat€meals€at€the€restaurant€free€of€charge.€€Mr.€Lanier€testified€that€Ms.Ð )h$( ÐStory€had€access€to€the€cash€drawer€while€working€there,€and€may€have€occasionally€taken€moneyÐ *Q%) Ðto€purchase€something€for€the€children€or€herself.€€A€former€employee€of€the€restaurant€testified€thatÐ ê*:&* Ðshe€considered€herself€to€be€employed€by€both€parties.€€€The€profits€from€the€restaurant€went€solelyÐ Ó+#'+ Ðinto€Mr.€Lanierððs€bank€account.€€Ten€months€after€opening€the€restaurant€it€was€destroyed€by€fire.€Ð ° ÐAs€a€result,€Mr.€Lanier€received€a€check€for€$6,500€from€the€insurance€company,€which€he€did€notÐ ™é Ðshare€with€Ms.€Story.€€Ms.€Story€testified€that€she€was€responsible€for€keeping€the€books€at€theÐ ‚Ò Ðrestaurant,€and€estimated€that€the€business€produced€revenues€of€between€$700€to€$800€per€weekÐ k» Ðduring€the€time€it€was€operating.€Ð T¤ Ðà  àÌà  àMr.€Lanier€paid€off€the€mortgage€on€the€farm€on€August€13,€1979.€€In€1986,€Mr.€Lanier€hadÐ & v Ða€survey€conducted€of€the€farm€and€discovered€that€a€farm€house€was€included€in€the€fifty„eightÐ  _ Ðacres.€€Mr.€Lanier€and€Ms.€Story€subsequently€moved€to€the€farm€house€that€same€year,€and€madeÐ ø H Ðimprovements€to€the€home€with€funds€from€Mr.€Lanierððs€bank€account.€€Mr.€Lanier€entered€intoÐ á 1  Ðtransactions€with€other€farmers,€allowing€them€to€farm€the€land€in€exchange€for€a€share€of€the€profits.€Ð Ê   ÐThe€exact€amount€of€income€the€farm€produced€was€a€subject€of€debate€between€the€parties.€Ð ³  ÐBetween€1993€and€2000,€Mr.€Lanier€permitted€Mr.€Terry€Jamison,€Jr.€(ð ðMr.€Jamisonðð),€owner€ofÐ œì  ÐMagnolia€Farms,€to€farm€the€land.€€Ms.€Story€testified€that€the€farm€occasionally€produced€betweenÐ …Õ  Ð$12,000€and€$13,000€in€net€income€a€year.€€Mr.€Lanier€permitted€Mr.€Jamison€to€farm€the€land€inÐ n¾  Ðexchange€for€one„fourth€of€the€profits€realized€from€the€sale€of€the€crops.€€Mr.€Jamisonððs€son,€theÐ W§  Ðaccountant€for€the€farming€business,€testified€that€they€paid€Mr.€Lanier€directly€for€his€one„fourthÐ @ Ðshare€of€the€revenues€generated€from€the€farm€from€1993€to€2000.€€Mr.€Lanier€also€worked€for€Mr.Ð )y ÐJamison€at€$6.50€an€hour€spraying€crops.€Mr.€Lanier€testified€that€in€addition€to€the€revenueÐ b Ðgenerated€by€the€crops,€he€also€received€an€additional€$5,000€to€$6,000€per€year€as€an€employee€ofÐ ûK ÐMr.€Jamison.€€Mr.€Lanier€made€all€the€decisions€concerning€the€operation€of€the€farm.€€All€of€theÐ ä4 Ðproperty€taxes€on€the€farm,€insurance,€and€farming€supplies€were€paid€for€by€Mr.€Lanier.€€Ms.€StoryÐ Í Ðtestified€that€she€participated€in€the€farm€operation€by€pulling€weeds,€by€logging€the€hours€Mr.Ð ¶ ÐLanier€worked€so€that€he€could€be€paid€by€Mr.€Jamison,€and€by€keeping€a€garden€from€which€sheÐ Ÿï Ðcanned€food.€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àAt€one€point,€Mr.€Lanier€had€his€son€construct€a€shop€building€on€the€property.€€All€theÐ Zª Ðmaterials€for€the€construction€of€the€building€were€purchased€with€funds€from€Mr.€Lanierððs€account.€Ð C“ ÐMs.€Story€stated€that€her€contribution€to€this€effort€consisted€of€making€meals€for€the€people€workingÐ ,| Ðat€the€shop.€€Ms.€Story€estimated€the€cost€of€the€building€to€be€around€$15,000.€€€In€1995,€Mr.€LanierÐ e Ðsuffered€a€heart€attack.€€Ms.€Story€paid€a€portion€of€Mr.€Lanierððs€health€insurance€premiums€andÐ þN Ðcared€for€him€during€this€period€of€time.€€In€1998,€Ms.€Story€moved€out€of€the€farm€house€for€aÐ ç 7 Ðperiod€of€three€months,€but€subsequently€returned.€€At€the€time€of€Ms.€Storyððs€lawsuit€in€2000,€Mr.Ð Ð!   ÐLanier€had€an€estimated€$90,000€in€his€bank€account€which€he€characterized€as€his€life€savings.€€Ms.Ð ¹" ! ÐStory€estimated€the€current€value€of€the€farm€to€be€$75,000.€Ð ¢#ò" ÐÌà  àFollowing€the€trial,€both€parties€submitted€supplemental€briefs€to€the€chancery€courtÐ t%Ä $ Ðsummarizing€the€facts€and€law€before€the€court.€€In€her€brief,€Ms.€Story€alerted€the€chancellor€to€theÐ ]&­!% Ðfact€that€although€Mr.€Lanier€filed€an€answer€to€her€amended€petition€on€October€28,€2002,€he€neverÐ F'–"& Ðfiled€an€answer€to€the€original€petition.€€Ms.€Story€argued€that,€pursuant€to€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ /(#' ÐCivil€Procedure,€the€court€should€find€that€Mr.€Lanier€admitted€all€statements€contained€in€theÐ )h$( Ðoriginal€petition€which€he€failed€to€deny.€€On€March€25,€2003,€the€chancellor€entered€an€order,€whichÐ *Q%) Ðincluded,€in€relevant€part,€€the€following€factual€findings:Ð ê*:&* ÐÐ Ó+#'+ ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓ€ (5h83Ó1.€€à0 ¸ àAn€implied€business€partnership€existed€in€1974€between€the€Ð°¸ x¸ x Ðparties€in€the€ownership€and€operation€of€a€restaurant€for€[forty„threeÐ ™é Ðweeks]׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€in€the€town€of€Tiptonville,€Tennessee,€which€earnedÐ ‚Ò Ðapproximately€$700.00€per€week€or€$30,100.00€during€the€businessÐ k» Ðoperation,€one„half€(ðð)€of€which€would€be€the€property€of€Plaintiff,Ð T¤ Ðor€$15,050.00.€€Further,€following€a€fire€at€the€restaurant,€DefendantÐ =  Ðreceived€an€insurance€payment€of€$6,500.00,€and€after€deducting€theÐ & v Ðinitial€purchase€price€of€the€restaurant€paid€solely€by€Defendant€ofÐ  _ Ð$2,500.00,€the€parties€shall€divide€the€remaining€$4,000.00€equally.€Ð ø H ÐTherefore,€the€Court€awards€Plaintiff€a€judgment€of€$17,050.00€ofÐ á 1  ÐDefendant.€€Ð Ê   Ð2.€€à0 ¸ àThe€Court€finds€the€Plaintiff€failed€to€show€an€implied€Ð³ ¸ x¸ x Ðbusiness€partnership€existed€between€the€parties€pertaining€to€theÐ œì  Ðfifty„eight€(58)€acre€farm€or€the€bank€account€monies€owned€byÐ …Õ  ÐDefendant€described€in€the€proof€as€his€life€savings.Ð n¾  Ð3.€€à0 ¸ àThe€Court€finds€the€Plaintiff€failed€to€establish€by€clear€and€ÐW§ ¸ x¸ x Ðconvincing€evidence€the€existence€of€a€resulting€trust€between€theÐ @ Ðparties€pertaining€to€the€fifty„eight€(58)€acre€farm€owned€byÐ )y ÐDefendant€or€the€bank€account€monies€belonging€to€Defendant€as€hisÐ b Ðseparate€properties.Ð ûK Ð4.€€à0 ¸ àThe€Court€finds€the€Plaintiff€failed€to€establish€by€the€proof€Ðä4¸ x¸ x Ðthe€existence€of€a€constructive€trust€between€the€parties€pertaining€toÐ Í Ðthe€fifty„eight€(58)€acre€farm€or€the€bank€account€monies€belongingÐ ¶ Ðto€Defendant€as€his€separate€properties.€€Ð Ÿï ÐÒ°` ûCÒÒ°` DÒÌMs.€Story€filed€a€Motion€for€New€Trial€or€to€Reopen,€Alter€or€Amend€Judgment€on€May€18,€2003.€Ð qÁ ÐIn€her€motion,€Ms.€Story€alleged€that€the€chancellorððs€findings€were€contrary€to€the€law€andÐ Zª Ðevidence,€that€the€court€erred€in€its€findings€related€to€Ms.€Storyððs€personal€property,€that€the€courtÐ C“ Ðerred€in€not€awarding€Ms.€Story€pre„judgment€interest€on€her€share€of€the€restaurant,€and€that€theÐ ,| Ðcourt€erred€in€not€finding€the€existence€of€a€constructive€or€resulting€trust€in€the€farm.€€TheÐ e Ðchancellor€denied€Ms.€Storyððs€motion€in€an€order€filed€on€August€7,€2003,€stating:Ð þN ÐÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Ò1.€€à0 ¸ àThat€prejudgment€interest€is€most€unusual.€€Pursuant€to€òòÐÐ!  ¸ x¸ x ÐInternational€Flight€Center€v.€City€of€Murfreesboroóó,€45€S.W.3d€565,Ð ¹" ! Ð574€(Tenn.€App.€2000)€citing€òòMyint€v.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.óó,€970€S.W.2dÐ ¢#ò" Ð920,€927,€the€Plaintiff,€MARY€ALLENE€STORY,€is€not€entitled€toÐ ‹$Û# Ðprejudgment€interest€due€to€the€Plaintiffððs€failure€to€request€sameÐ t%Ä $ Ðwithin€her€Complaint€or€within€her€Amended€Compliant.€€SeeÐ ]&­!% ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€Rule€8.01.€€Ð F'–"& Ð2.€€à0 ¸ àThat€had€said€issue€been€plead,€however,€the€Court€finds€that€Ð/(#'¸ x¸ x Ðprejudgment€interest€should€still€be€denied,€the€Court€finding€that€theÐ ° Ðfacts€of€the€instant€proceeding€fit€within€one€of€the€three€exceptionsÐ ™é Ðto€the€award€of€prejudgment€interest€set€forth€by€the€Court€of€AppealsÐ ‚Ò Ðof€Tennessee,€Middle€Section€decision€by€Judge€William€C.€Koch,Ð k» ÐJr.,€in€òòScholz€v.€S.B.€International,€Inc.óó,€40€S.W.3d€78,€81„84,Ð T¤ Ðspecifically€as€applicable€to€the€facts€of€this€case€where€ð ðthe€partyÐ =  Ðseeking€prejudgment€interest€has€been€so€inexcusably€dilatory€inÐ & v Ðpursuing€a€claim€that€consideration€of€a€claim€based€on€loss€of€use€ofÐ  _ Ðthe€money€would€have€little€weightðð.€€Ð ø H Ð3.€€à0 ¸ àThat€in€this€case,€the€partiesðð€business€relationship€ended€in€Ðá 1 ¸ x¸ x Ð1974€and€their€personal€relationship€ended€in€the€late€1990s€yet€noÐ Ê   Ðdemand€for€payment€was€made€by€the€Plaintiff€to€the€Defendant,Ð ³  ÐMALCOLM€EUGENE€LANIER,€as€toward€the€end€of€theirÐ œì  Ðrelationship,€sometimes€they€were€together,€sometimes€they€were€not.Ð …Õ  Ð4.€€à0 ¸ àThat€if€the€Court€is€incorrect€in€the€findings€set€forth€above,€Ðn¾ ¸ x¸ x Ðthe€earliest€date€from€which€prejudgment€interest€could€have€beenÐ W§  Ðawarded€to€the€Plaintiff€by€the€Defendant€would€be€the€date€of€theÐ @ Ðinstitution€of€this€action€on€February€4,€2000.€€Ð )y ÐÒ°` ÃOÒÒ°` ÑOÒÌBoth€parties€have€appealed€the€judgment€of€the€chancery€court€,€presenting€the€following€issues€forÐ ûK Ðour€review:Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àI.à0 ` àWhether€the€chancery€court€erred€in€finding€that€an€implied€business€partnership€Ð¶` (#` (# Ðexisted€in€the€restaurant€purchased€in€1974,€but€not€in€the€fifty„eight€acre€farm€or€money€held€inÐ Ÿï ÐAppellantððs€bank€account;Ð ˆØ Ðà  àII.à0 ` àWhether€the€chancery€court€erred€in€finding€that€Appellee€was€not€entitled€to€ÐqÁ` (#` (# Ðprejudgment€interest€on€the€amount€of€the€judgment€reflecting€her€share€of€the€restaurant;Ð Zª Ðà  àIII.à0 ` àWhether€the€chancery€court€erred€by€not€finding€that€Appellant€admitted€all€ÐC“` (#` (# Ðaverments€in€Appelleeððs€original€petition,€excluding€those€averments€relating€to€common€lawÐ ,| Ðmarriage€and€marriage€by€estoppel,€due€to€Appellantððs€failure€to€file€a€responsive€pleading;Ð e Ðà  àIV.à0 ` àWhether€the€chancery€court€erred€in€finding€that€Appellee€failed€to€show€the€ÐþN` (#` (# Ðexistence€of€either€a€constructive€trust€or€resulting€trust€in€the€fifty„eight€acre€farm.Ð ç 7 ÐÓ  Óò òÌII.€€à0 @ àImplied€Business€PartnershipsÐ º" ! ÐÌó óÓ  Óà0  àOn€appeal,€Mr.€Lanier€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€parties€engaged€€ÐŽ$Þ#(#(# Ðin€an€implied€business€partnership€when€they€purchased€the€restaurant.€€Mr.€Lanier€argues€that€Ms.Ð w%Ç $ ÐStory€failed€to€carry€her€burden€in€proving€that€an€implied€business€partnership€existed€in€theÐ `&°!% Ðrestaurant,€and€that€the€court€below€erred€in€finding€the€existence€of€an€implied€business€partnershipÐ I'™"& Ðbased€on€the€evidence€presented€at€trial.€€In€addition,€Mr.€Lanier€contends€that€there€was€insufficientÐ 2(‚#' Ðevidence€to€justify€the€courtððs€finding€that€the€restaurant€produced€revenue€in€the€amount€of€$700Ð )k$( Ða€week.€€Ms.€Story€does€not€contest€the€trial€courtððs€finding€as€to€the€restaurant,€but€argues€that€theÐ *T%) Ðtrial€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€evidence€did€not€establish€an€implied€business€partnership€in€theÐ í*=&* Ðfifty„eight€(58)€acre€farm€and€bank€account.€Ð Ö+&'+ Ðà  àÌà  àð ðSince€this€case€was€tried€by€the€court€sitting€without€a€jury,€we€review€the€case€òòde€novoÐ ™é Ðóóupon€the€record€with€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court.ðð€€òòMartinÐ ‚Ò Ðv.€Colemanóó,€19€S.W.3d€757,€760€(Tenn.€2000);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d)€(2003).€€Ð k» ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °Óð ðWhat€will€constitute€a€partnership€is€a€matter€of€law,€but€whether€aÐ =  Ðpartnership€exists€under€conflicting€evidence€is€one€of€fact.ðð€€òòWyattÐ & v Ðv.€Brownóó,€39€Tenn.€App.€28,€281€S.W.2d€64,€68€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð  _ Ð1955);€òòMesser€Griesheim€Indus.,€Inc.€v.€Cryotech€of€Kingsport,€Inc.óó,Ð ø H Ð45€S.W.3d€588,€605€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001).€€Accordingly,€since€weÐ á 1  Ðare€asked€by€[the€parties]€to€review€the€Trial€Courtððs€determinationÐ Ê   Ð[concerning€a€partnership]€between€the€parties,€our€review€is€òòde€novoÐ ³  Ðóóupon€the€record,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€theÐ œì  Ðfindings€of€fact€of€the€Trial€Court,€unless€the€preponderance€of€theÐ …Õ  Ðevidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€Rule€App.€P.€13(d);€òòAlexander€v.Ð n¾  ÐInmanóó,€974€S.W.2d€689,€692€(Tenn.€1998).€€The€Trial€CourtððsÐ W§  Ðconclusions€of€law€are€subject€to€a€òòde€novo€óóreview€with€noÐ @ Ðpresumption€of€correctness.€€òòGanzevoort€v.€Russellóó,€949€S.W.2d€293,Ð )y Ð296€(Tenn.€1997).€€Ð b ÐÌÓ °-dÓÓ °dÓòòKuderewski€v.€Hobbsóó,€No.€E2000„02515„COA„R3„CV,€2001€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€561,€at€*9ð!ð10Ð ä4 Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€July€30,€2001).€€Ð Í ÐÌà  àThe€parties€conceded€at€trial€that€no€written€partnership€agreement€existed€concerning€theÐ Ÿï Ðrestaurant.€€When€a€partnership€agreement€is€not€in€writing,€the€party€alleging€the€existence€of€aÐ ˆØ Ðpartnership€carries€the€burden€of€proving€that€fact€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€òò€Tidwell€v.Ð qÁ ÐWaldenóó,€330€S.W.2d€317,€319€(Tenn.€1959);€òòB€&€S€Enter.€v.€Rowlandóó,€No.€E2003„00458„COA„R2„Ð Zª ÐCV,€2004€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€49,€at€*3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Jan.€26,€2004);€òòKuderewskióó,€2001€Tenn.€App.Ð C“ ÐLEXIS€561,€at€*10ð!ð11;€òòBadger€v.€Boydóó,€65€S.W.2d€601,€642€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1933).€€The€legislatureÐ ,| Ðhas€defined€a€partnership€as€ð ðan€association€of€two€(2)€or€more€persons€to€carry€on€as€co„owners€ofÐ e Ða€business€or€other€undertaking€for€profit.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€61„1„101(6)€(2003).€€Our€SupremeÐ þN ÐCourt,€in€a€case€factually€similar€to€the€one€presently€before€the€Court,€stated:Ð ç 7 ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓIn€determining€whether€one€is€a€partner,€no€one€fact€or€circumstanceÐ ¹" ! Ðmay€be€pointed€to€as€a€conclusive€test,€but€each€case€must€be€decidedÐ ¢#ò" Ðupon€consideration€of€all€relevant€facts,€actions,€and€conduct€of€theÐ ‹$Û# Ðparties.€€òòRoberts€v.€Lebanon€Appliance€Service€Co.óó,€779€S.W.2d€793,Ð t%Ä $ Ð795€(Tenn.€1989).€€If€the€partiesðð€business€brings€them€within€theÐ ]&­!% Ðscope€of€a€joint€business€undertaking€for€mutual€profitð"ðthat€is€to€sayÐ F'–"& Ðif€they€place€their€money,€assets,€labor,€or€skill€in€commerce€with€theÐ /(#' Ðunderstanding€that€profits€will€be€shared€between€themð"ðthe€result€isÐ )h$( Ða€partnership€whether€or€not€the€parties€understood€that€it€would€beÐ *Q%) Ðso.€€òòPritchett€v.€Thomas€Plater€&€Co.óó,€144€Tenn.€406,€232€S.W.€961,Ð ê*:&* Ð969ð!ð70€(1921).€€Ð Ó+#'+ Ðà ¸ àMoreover,€the€existence€of€a€partnership€depends€upon€theÐ ° Ðintention€of€the€parties,€and€the€controlling€intention€in€this€regard€isÐ ™é Ðthat€ascertainable€from€the€acts€of€the€parties.€€òòWyatt€v.€Brownóó,€39Ð ‚Ò ÐTenn.€App.€28,€281€S.W.2d€64,€67€(1955).€€Although€a€contract€ofÐ k» Ðpartnership,€either€express€or€implied,€is€essential€to€the€creation€ofÐ T¤ Ðpartnership€status,€it€is€not€essential€that€the€parties€actually€intend€toÐ =  Ðbecome€partners.€€òòWyattóó,€281€S.W.2d€at€67.€€The€existence€of€aÐ & v Ðpartnership€is€not€a€question€of€the€partiesðð€undisclosed€intention€orÐ  _ Ðeven€the€terminology€they€use€to€describe€their€relationship,€nor€is€itÐ ø H Ðnecessary€that€the€parties€have€an€understanding€of€the€legal€effect€ofÐ á 1  Ðtheir€acts.€€òòRobertsóó,€779€S.W.2d€at€795ð!ð96.€€It€is€the€intent€to€do€theÐ Ê   Ðthings€which€constitute€a€partnership€that€determines€whetherÐ ³  Ðindividuals€are€partners,€regardless€if€it€is€their€purpose€to€create€orÐ œì  Ðavoid€the€relationship.€€òòWyattóó,€281€S.W.2d€at€67.€€Stated€another€way,Ð …Õ  Ðthe€existence€of€a€partnership€may€be€implied€from€the€circumstancesÐ n¾  Ðwhere€it€appears€that€the€individuals€involved€have€entered€into€aÐ W§  Ðbusiness€relationship€for€profit,€combining€their€property,€labor,€skill,Ð @ Ðexperience,€or€money.€Ð )y ÐÌÓ °nÓÓ °úmÓòòBass€v.€Bassóó,€814€S.W.2d€38,€41€(Tenn.€1991).€€Ð ûK Ðà  àÌà  àIn€òòBassóó,€the€Supreme€Court€was€asked€to€decide€whether€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€wasÐ Í Ðsufficient€to€establish€that€the€parties€were€implied€business€partners.€€òòIdóó.€at€39.€€The€parties€beganÐ ¶ Ðdating€in€1974,€and€subsequently€began€living€together€in€1975.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòIdóó.€at€40.€€Mr.€Bass€purchased€aÐ Ÿï Ðrestaurant€a€year€later,€and€Ms.€Bass€initially€operated€the€restaurant€by€herself.€€òòIdóó.€€Mr.€BassÐ ˆØ Ðultimately€quit€the€job€he€held€at€the€time€and€began€working€at€the€restaurant€with€Ms.€Bass.€€òòIdóó.€Ð qÁ ÐMs.€Bass€was€never€compensated€for€the€work€she€performed€at€the€restaurant.€€òòIdóó.€€The€restaurantÐ Zª Ðburned€in€1981,€and€Mr.€Bass€opened€a€video€game€business.€€òòIdóó.€€Ms.€Bass€contributed€to€the€videoÐ C“ Ðgame€business€by€helping€Mr.€Bass€service€video€machines,€kept€most€of€the€business€records,Ð ,| Ðcollected€revenues€from€the€machines,€and€issued€checks.€€òòIdóó.€€Ms.€Bass€testified€that€the€checkingÐ e Ðaccount,€savings€account,€and€real€property€were€all€under€Mr.€Bassðð€name.€€òòIdóó.€€The€trial€court€ruledÐ þN Ðthat€the€parties€formed€an€implied€business€partnership€as€to€the€restaurant€and€the€video€gameÐ ç 7 Ðbusiness.€€òòIdóó.€at€41.€€On€appeal,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€Ð Ð!   ÐòòIdóó.€at€44.€€In€affirming,€the€Supreme€Court€noted€that€the€parties€pooled€their€money€to€start€theÐ ¹" ! Ðrestaurant,€used€proceeds€from€the€restaurant€to€start€the€video€gaming€business,€used€proceeds€fromÐ ¢#ò" Ðthe€video€gaming€business€to€purchase€the€convenience€store,€pooled€their€income,€shared€profitsÐ ‹$Û# Ðfrom€the€businesses,€Ms.€Bass€invested€her€time€and€labor€in€operating€the€video€gaming€businessÐ t%Ä $ Ðand€restaurant€without€compensation,€she€kept€records€for€the€gaming€business€and€issued€checks,Ð ]&­!% Ðand€she€assisted€Mr.€Bass€in€making€decisions€regarding€the€gaming€business.€€òòIdóó.€at€43ð!ð44.€€InÐ F'–"& Ðaddition,€Mr.€Bass€built€a€home€on€his€property,€and€purchased€a€convenience€market€and€used€carÐ /(#' Ðbusiness.€€òòIdóó.€€Mr.€and€Ms.€Bass€resided€in€the€home€until€Mr.€Bass€died€in€1986.€€òòIdóó.€€Ð )h$( Ðà  àÌà  àIn€the€instant€case,€Mr.€Lanier,€citing€òòMartin€v.€Colemanóó,€19€S.W.3d€757,€761€(Tenn.€2000),Ð ™é Ðargues€that€cohabitation€alone€is€an€improper€basis€on€which€to€find€the€existence€of€an€impliedÐ ‚Ò Ðbusiness€partnership.€€In€òòMartinóó,€our€supreme€court€held€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€anÐ k» Ðimplied€business€partnership€in€a€retirement€account€held€by€one€of€the€parties€to€a€long€termÐ T¤ Ðmeretricious€relationship.€€òòIdóó.€at€758.€€€Mr.€Coleman€maintained€two€retirement€accounts€throughÐ =  Ðhis€employer,€to€which€Ms.€Coleman€made€no€direct€financial€contributions.€òò€Idóó.€at€759.€€The€coupleÐ & v Ðfiled€joint€tax€returns,€purchased€health€insurance€as€husband€and€wife,€and€had€reciprocal€willsÐ  _ Ðreferring€to€each€other€as€husband€and€wife.€€òòIdóó.€€Mr.€Coleman€purchased€a€used€car€business,€andÐ ø H ÐMs.€Coleman€claimed€a€partnership€interest€in€that€business.€€òòIdóó.€€Ms.€Coleman€only€worked€at€theÐ á 1  Ðbusiness€for€two€days,€was€not€authorized€to€issue€checks,€and€performed€no€other€duties€at€theÐ Ê   Ðbusiness.€€òòIdóó.€€In€reversing€the€trial€courtððs€decision,€finding€that€an€implied€partnership€existed,€theÐ ³  Ðsupreme€court€stated:Ð œì  ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓThat€the€parties€cohabited€for€eleven€years€and€were€married€at€oneÐ n¾  Ðpoint€was€not€a€factor€in€our€decision€[in€òòBassóó].€€We€stressed€that€theÐ W§  Ðordinary€laws€pertaining€to€partnership,€not€the€laws€of€domesticÐ @ Ðrelations,€apply€in€a€situation€in€which€a€business€partnership€can€beÐ )y Ðimplied€from€the€facts€and€circumstances,€a€meretricious€relationshipÐ b Ðnotwithstanding.€€Ð ûK Ðà ¸ àIn€this€case,€we€are€asked€by€the€estate€of€Delores€Coleman€toÐ ä4 Ðextend€our€holding€in€òòBassóó€to€find€that€an€implied€partnership€extendsÐ Í Ðto€the€retirement€benefits€accumulated€by€Robert€Coleman.€€TheÐ ¶ Ðpartiesðð€only€business€relationship€involved€a€used€car€business.€Ms.Ð Ÿï ÐColemanððs€participation€in€the€used€car€business€was€minimal€at€best.€Ð ˆØ ÐThe€estate€does€not€contend€that€the€used€car€business€produced€orÐ qÁ Ðcontributed€to€Mr.€Colemanððs€pension€or€401(k).€€In€apparentÐ Zª Ðrecognition€of€this€fact,€the€trial€court€held€that€Ms.€ColemanÐ C“ Ðð ðindirectly€contributed€to€the€retirement€and/or€pension€with€JohnsonÐ ,| ÐControl€by€providing€all€of€those€amenities€and€benefits€customarilyÐ e Ðprovided€by€a€wife,€although€she€made€no€direct€monetaryÐ þN Ðcontribution€to€those€funds.ððÐ ç 7 Ðà ¸ àWhile€Ms.€Colemanððs€contribution€as€a€homemaker€could€beÐ Ð!   Ðconsidered€in€dividing€marital€property€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ¹" ! Ððð€36„4„121(c)(5),€the€parties€were€not€married.€€A€marriage€wouldÐ ¢#ò" Ðhave€created€a€form€of€ð ðpartnershipðð€entitling€each€party€to€theÐ ‹$Û# Ðbenefits€of€the€statute€regulating€the€dissolution€of€marriage.€€To€holdÐ t%Ä $ Ðthat€these€retirement€benefits€are€available€as€partnership€assetsÐ ]&­!% Ðwould€require€this€Court€to€expand€the€concept€of€implied€partnershipÐ F'–"& Ðbeyond€the€business€relationship€now€conceded€by€the€parties.€€òòInÐ /(#' Ðessence,€we€would€be€required€to€hold€that€unmarried€couples€mayÐ )h$( Ðcreate€an€implied€partnership€simply€by€their€continued€cohabitationóó.€Ð ÿ)O%) ÐWe€decline€to€do€so.€€Ð è*8&* ÐÓ °ˆÓÓ °ˆÓÐ Ñ+!'+ ÐòòIdóó.€at€761ð!ð62€(emphasis€added).€€Ms.€Story€seeks€to€differentiate€the€present€case€from€the€facts€inÐ ° ÐòòMartinóó,€alleging€that€she€made€direct€financial€contributions€to€the€partiesðð€undertakings€in€that€sheÐ ™é Ðprovided€secretarial€work,€worked€at€the€restaurant,€provided€health€care€coverage€to€Mr.€LanierÐ ‚Ò Ðfollowing€his€heart€attack,€performed€duties€as€a€housekeeper,€and€used€her€Social€Security€disabilityÐ k» Ðbenefits€to€pay€for€their€joint€expenses.€€€Ð T¤ Ðà  àÌà  àð ðThe€òòBass€óóCourt€delineated€a€facts€and€circumstances€analysis,€requiring€the€courts€toÐ & v Ðexamine€each€case€to€determine€the€intent€of€the€parties€as€ascertainable€from€their€acts.ððòò€€Norris€v.Ð  _ ÐNorrisóó,€No.€03A01„9403„CH„00101,€1994€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€520,€at€*16€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Sept.€15,Ð ø H Ð1994).€€ð ð[I]n€òòBassóó,€the€Supreme€Court€did€not€promulgate€any€neat€prescription€or€formula€involvingÐ á 1  Ðnumber€of€work€hours,€extent€of€bookkeeping€activity€or€financial€contribution€necessary€to€find€anÐ Ê   Ðimplied€partnership.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€*19.€€€Ð ³  Ðà  àÌà  àWe€disagree€with€Mr.€Lanierððs€assertion€that€the€only€possible€justification€for€the€trial€courtÐ …Õ  Ðfinding€an€implied€partnership€in€the€restaurant€was€the€partiesðð€cohabitation.€€At€trial,€Ms.€Story€didÐ n¾  Ðtestify€that€her€only€contribution€toward€the€restaurant€was€her€labor€for€the€ten€months€the€businessÐ W§  Ðwas€in€operation.€€She€also€stated,€however,€that€she€worked€for€free€and€did€not€expect€a€salaryÐ @ Ðbecause€the€money€was€to€go€toward€paying€the€bills€for€the€restaurant.€€The€proof€also€showed€thatÐ )y ÐMs.€Story€and€her€children€ate€meals€at€the€restaurant€for€free.€€Ms.€Story€admitted€that€she€neverÐ b Ðcontributed€any€money€toward€the€purchase€of€the€business€and€never€paid€toward€any€taxesÐ ûK Ðassessed€on€the€business.€€She€presented€proof,€however,€which€tended€to€show€that€her€activitiesÐ ä4 Ðat€the€restaurant€were€consistent€with€that€of€a€co„owner.€€€This€was€supported€by€Mr.€Lanierððs€ownÐ Í Ðtestimony€that€Ms.€Story€had€access€to€the€cash€register,€and€she€was€free€to€remove€money€at€anyÐ ¶ Ðtime.€€A€former€employee€of€the€restaurant€also€testified€that,€during€the€time€she€worked€at€theÐ Ÿï Ðrestaurant,€she€believed€she€was€working€for€both€parties.€€In€addition,€the€trial€court€had€ampleÐ ˆØ Ðevidence€with€which€to€find€that€the€restaurant€made€$700€a€week€in€net€profits.€€Ms.€Story€testifiedÐ qÁ Ðthat€she€was€responsible€for€keeping€the€books€for€the€restaurant,€a€job€which€would€give€herÐ Zª Ðintimate€knowledge€of€such€details.€€Mr.€Lanier€points€to€Ms.€Storyððs€statement€at€trial€that€she€hadÐ C“ Ðno€additional€evidence€to€support€her€assertion€about€the€restaurantððs€weekly€profits.€€€The€trialÐ ,| Ðcourt,€however,€received€no€evidence€from€Mr.€Lanier€contradicting€this€figure.€Ð e ÐÌà  àNext€we€turn€to€Ms.€Storyððs€assertion€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€no€impliedÐ ç 7 Ðbusiness€partnership€existed€as€to€the€farm€and€bank€account.€€Sufficient€evidence€existed€which€theÐ Ð!   Ðtrial€court€could€use€to€base€its€finding€that€no€partnership€existed€in€the€farm€and€bank€account.€€AtÐ ¹" ! Ðthe€time€of€the€transfer€in€ownership€of€the€farm€to€Mr.€Lanier,€Ms.€Story€was€facing€certainÐ ¢#ò" Ðforeclosure€by€the€bank.€€While€the€evidence€suggests€that€Ms.€Story€did€not€receive€the€full€fairÐ ‹$Û# Ðmarket€value€for€her€land,€she€was€represented€by€counsel€during€the€transaction.€€This€in€itselfÐ t%Ä $ Ðindicates€the€transaction€occurred€at€arms€length.€€Out€of€this€transaction,€Ms.€Story€was€able€to€keepÐ ]&­!% Ðher€mobile€home€and€to€continue€to€reside€on€her€share€of€the€family€farm.€€Ms.€Story€also€testifiedÐ F'–"& Ðthat€she€never€helped€Mr.€Lanier€repay€the€loan.€€In€addition,€the€deed€contains€no€language€showingÐ /(#' Ðthe€existence€of€any€agreement€between€the€parties€to€take€as€joint€owners.€€While€we€are€mindfulÐ )h$( Ðof€Ms.€Storyððs€contributions€to€the€relationship€following€this€transaction,€we€are€directed€to€focusÐ *Q%) Ðâ âour€attention€upon€the€facts€as€they€relate€to€the€partiesðð€decision€to€enter€this€particular€transaction,Ð ê*:&* Ðnot€the€facts€as€they€relate€to€domestic€matters.€€òòMartinóó,€19€S.W.3d€at€761ð!ð62;€òòBassóó,€814€S.W.2d€atÐ ° Ð41.€Ð ™é Ðâ â€Ìà  àð ðWhen€the€issues€in€a€case€turn€upon€the€truthfulness€of€witnesses,€the€trial€judge€as€the€trierÐ k» Ðof€fact€in€a€nonjury€case€has€the€opportunity€to€observe€the€witnesses€and€their€manner€and€demeanorÐ T¤ Ðwhile€testifying€and€is€in€a€far€better€position€than€this€Court€to€decide€that€issue.ðð€€òòScarbrough€v.Ð =  ÐScarbroughóó,€752€S.W.2d€94,€96€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988).€€Based€on€our€review€of€the€record€and€theÐ & v Ðapplicable€legal€principlesòòóó,€we€cannot€find€that€the€proof€before€the€trial€court€preponderates€againstÐ  _ Ðthe€finding€of€an€implied€business€partnership€in€the€restaurant,€but€not€in€the€fifty„eight€acre€farmÐ ø H Ðand€bank€account.€€Ð á 1  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓIII.€€Pre„Judgment€InterestÐ ³  ÐÓ  Óó óÌÓ  Óà  àNeither€Ms.€Storyððs€original€petition€nor€her€amended€petition€contained€a€request€forÐ †Ö  Ðprejudgment€interest.€€The€issue€of€prejudgment€interest€was€first€raised€in€the€court€below€when€Ms.Ð o¿  ÐStory€filed€her€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€ò òó óThe€chancellor€denied€that€portion€of€Ms.€Storyððs€motionÐ X¨  Ðdealing€with€pre„judgment€interest€on€the€grounds€that,€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€of€CivilÐ A‘ ÐProcedure€8.01,€she€failed€to€request€prejudgment€interest€in€her€complaint.€€On€appeal,€Ms.€StoryÐ *z Ðcontends€that€the€nature€of€this€case€is€akin€to€the€dissolution€of€a€thirty„year€partnership,€andÐ c Ðtherefore,€she€was€unable€to€request€a€specific€monetary€amount€in€her€petition.€€In€addition,€Ms.Ð üL ÐStory€asserts€that€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€effectively€holds€her€to€a€higher€standard€of€pleading€thanÐ å5 Ðrequired€under€Tennessee€law.€€Ð Î ÐÌà  àA€trial€court€may€award€prejudgment€interest€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÐ  ð Ð47„14„123,€which€provides:Ð ‰Ù ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓPrejudgment€interest,€i.e.€interest€as€an€element€of,€or€in€the€nature€of,Ð [« Ðdamages,€as€permitted€by€the€statutory€and€common€laws€of€the€stateÐ D” Ðas€of€April€1,€1979,€may€be€awarded€by€courts€or€juries€in€accordanceÐ -} Ðwith€the€principles€of€equity€at€any€rate€not€in€excess€of€a€maximumÐ f Ðeffective€rate€of€ten€percent€(10%)€per€annum;€provided,€that€withÐ ÿO Ðrespect€to€contracts€subject€to€ðð€47„14„103,€the€maximum€effectiveÐ è 8 Ðrates€of€prejudgment€interest€so€awarded€shall€be€the€same€as€set€byÐ Ñ!!  Ðthat€section€for€the€particular€category€of€transaction€involved.€€InÐ º" ! Ðaddition,€contracts€may€expressly€provide€for€the€imposition€of€theÐ £#ó" Ðsame€or€a€different€rate€of€interest€to€be€paid€after€breach€or€defaultÐ Œ$Ü# Ðwithin€the€limits€set€by€ðð€47„14„103.Ð u%Å $ ÐÓ °{­ÓÓ °m­ÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„14„123€(2003).€€Our€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€prejudgment€interestÐ G'—"& Ðin€this€case€is€governed€by€the€following€standard€of€review:Ð 0(€#' ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °Óà ¸ àAn€award€of€prejudgment€interest€is€within€the€soundÐ *R%) Ðdiscretion€of€the€trial€court€and€the€decision€will€not€be€disturbed€byÐ ë*;&* Ðan€appellate€court€unless€the€record€reveals€a€manifest€and€palpableÐ Ô+$'+ Ðabuse€of€discretion.€€òòSpencer€v.€A„1€Crane€Service,€Inc.óó,€880€S.W.2dÐ ° Ð938,€944€(Tenn.€1994);€òòOtis€v.€Cambridge€Mut.€Fire€Ins.€Co.óó,€850Ð ™é ÐS.W.2d€439,€446€(Tenn.€1992).€€This€standard€of€review€clearly€vestsÐ ‚Ò Ðthe€trial€court€with€considerable€deference€in€the€prejudgment€interestÐ k» Ðdecision.€€Generally€stated,€the€abuse€of€discretion€standard€does€notÐ T¤ Ðauthorize€an€appellate€court€to€merely€substitute€its€judgment€for€thatÐ =  Ðof€the€trial€court.€€Thus,€in€cases€where€the€evidence€supports€the€trialÐ & v Ðcourtððs€decision,€no€abuse€of€discretion€is€found.€€òòSee€State€v.€Grearóó,Ð  _ Ð568€S.W.2d€285,€286€(Tenn.€1978).€.€.€.€Ð ø H ÐÌÓ °>²ÓÓ °L²ÓòòMyint€v.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.óó,€970€S.W.2d€920,€927€(Tenn.€1998).€€Ð Ê   ÐÌà  àTennessee€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€8.01,€governing€the€general€rules€of€pleading€in€civilÐ œì  Ðcases,€provides:Ð …Õ  ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓClaims€for€relief.€ð"ð€A€pleading€which€sets€forth€a€claim€for€relief,Ð W§  Ðwhether€an€original€claim,€counterclaim,€cross„claim,€or€third„partyÐ @ Ðclaim,€shall€contain:€(1)€a€short€and€plain€statement€of€the€claimÐ )y Ðshowing€that€the€pleader€is€entitled€to€relief;€and€(2)€a€demand€forÐ b Ðjudgment€for€the€relief€the€pleader€seeks.€€Relief€in€the€alternative€orÐ ûK Ðof€several€different€types€may€be€demanded.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌÓ °··ÓÓ °©·ÓTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.01€(2003).€€In€conjunction€with€the€general€standards€of€pleading€set€forth€in€RuleÐ ¶ Ð8,€a€party€seeking€relief€in€the€form€of€special€damages€must€specifically€state€in€their€pleadings€thatÐ Ÿï Ðsuch€damages€are€requested.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€9.07€(2003).€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àOur€supreme€court€first€addressed€the€issue€of€whether€Rule€9.07€requires€a€party€to€pleadÐ Zª Ðprejudgment€interest€as€special€damages€in€òòMitchell€v.€Mitchellóó,€876€S.W.2d€830,€831€(Tenn.€1994).€Ð C“ ÐIn€construing€the€statutory€language€found€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€47„14„123,€theÐ ,| Ðcourt€stated€that€ð ð[t]his€definition€recognizes€that€an€award€of€prejudgment€interest€may€be€the€mainÐ e Ðrelief€sought,€i.e.€ððin€the€nature€of€damages,ðð€or€relief€incidental€to€recovery,€i.e.€ððas€an€element€ofÐ þN Ðdamages.ðððð€€òòIdóó.€€ð ðPrejudgment€interest€must€be€plead€specifically€if€it€is€an€ððitem€of€specialÐ ç 7 Ðdamage.ðððð€òòIdóó.;€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€9.07€(2003).€€The€Court€characterized€special€damages€as€follows:€Ð Ð!   ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓWhere€damages,€though€the€natural€results€of€the€act€complained€of,Ð ¢#ò" Ðare€not€the€necessary€result€of€it,€they€are€termed€ð ðspecial€damagesððÐ ‹$Û# Ðwhich€the€law€does€not€imply€and€which€must€be€alleged€€in€orderÐ t%Ä $ Ðthat€evidence€on€the€subject€may€be€admissible.Ð ]&­!% ÐÓ °½¾ÓÓ °¯¾ÓÌòòMitchellóó,€876€S.W.2d€at€831€(quoting€òòLance€Prod.€v.€Commerce€Union€Bankóó,€764€S.W.2d€207,€213Ð /(#' Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988)).€€Turning€to€whether€prejudgment€interest€must€be€plead€specially,€the€courtÐ )h$( Ðstated:Ð *Q%) Ðâ âÐ ê*:&* ÐÓ °ÓÓ °Óà ¸ àThe€allowance€of€prejudgment€interest,€like€attorneyððs€fees,Ð ° Ðâ âis€discretionary€with€the€trial€court,€òòUhlhorn€v.€Keltneróó,€723€S.W.2dÐ ™é Ð131,€138€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987),€but,€ð ðthe€general€rule€is€to€allowÐ ‚Ò Ðinterest€in€all€cases€where€the€amount€of€the€debt€is€certain€and€notÐ k» Ðdisputed€on€reasonable€grounds.ðð€€òòTextile€Workers€Union€v.Ð T¤ ÐBrookside€Mills,€Inc.óó,€205€Tenn.€394,€402,€326€S.W.2d€671,€675Ð =  Ð(1959).€€For€example,€in€òòSchoen€v.€J.C.€Bradford€&€Co.óó,€667€S.W.2dÐ & v Ð97€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984),€the€Court€of€Appeals€affirmed€theÐ  _ Ðallowance€of€prejudgment€interest€on€the€amount€due€plaintiff€for€aÐ ø H Ðshare€of€certain€business€profits€which€the€defendant€had€refused€toÐ á 1  Ðpay.€€The€court€held€that€prejudgment€interest€was€ð ðan€element€ofÐ Ê   Ðdamages.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€101ð!ð2.€€Ð ³  Ðà ¸ àLoss€of€use€of€funds€due€is€the€necessary€result€of€the€failureÐ œì  Ðto€pay€an€obligation€according€to€its€terms.€€The€usual€means€ofÐ …Õ  Ðcompensating€for€this€necessary€result€is€the€allowance€of€interest.€Ð n¾  ÐInterest€recovered€in€order€to€make€the€obligee€whole€is€the€reliefÐ W§  Ðusually€sought,€and€the€allowance€of€prejudgment€interest€under€suchÐ @ Ðcircumstances€is€ð ðfamiliar€and€almost€commonplace.ðð€€òòSee€Deas€v.Ð )y ÐDeasóó,€774€S.W.2d€at€170.€€òòConsequently,€the€recovery€of€prejudgmentÐ b Ðinterest€under€such€circumstances€does€not€require€that€the€plaintiffÐ ûK Ðplead€speciallyóó.Ð â2 ÐÌÓ °qÁÓÓ °ÁÓòòIdóó.€at€832€(emphasis€added).€€Ð ´ ÐÌà  àThe€chancellor,€in€finding€that€Tennessee€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€8.01€requires€a€party€toÐ †Ö Ðrequest€prejudgment€interest€in€their€pleadings€before€it€may€be€awarded,€relied€on€our€decision€inÐ o¿ ÐòòInternational€Flight€Center€v.€City€of€Murfreesboroóó,€45€S.W.3d€565,€574€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).€Ð X¨ ÐWe€find€the€chancellorððs€interpretation€of€this€case€to€be€misplaced.€€While€the€decision€inÐ A‘ ÐòòInternational€Flight€óódid€address€a€trial€courtððs€discretion€in€awarding€prejudgment€interest,€theÐ *z Ðchancellor€apparently€relied€on€that€portion€of€the€opinion€dealing€with€a€partyððs€failure€to€plead€anÐ c Ðaffirmative€defense€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€12.€€òòIntððl€Flightóó,€45€S.W.3dÐ üL Ðat€574.€€In€this€case,€we€are€not€dealing€with€a€situation€where€Ms.€Story€failed€to€request€damagesÐ å 5 Ðfrom€Mr.€Lanier€in€any€form.€€òòSee€Mohn€v.€Graffóó,€No.€E1999„01015„COA„R3„CV,€2000€Tenn.€App.Ð Î!  ÐLEXIS€349,€at€*8ð!ð9€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€May€31,€2000).€€€Ms.€Story,€in€both€her€original€and€amendedÐ ·"! Ðpetitions,€asked€the€court€to€find€that€an€implied€partnership€existed€and€to€divide€all€real€andÐ  #ð" Ðpersonal€partnership€property€equally€between€the€parties.€€ð ð[P]re„judgment€interest€does€not€haveÐ ‰$Ù# Ðto€be€demanded€in€the€complaint€to€be€awarded.ððòò€€York€v.€Vulcan€Materials€Co.óó,€63€S.W.3d€384,€390Ð r% $ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€No.€E2000„02528„SC„R11„CV,€2001€Tenn.€LEXIS€841,€at€*1Ð [&«!% Ð(Tenn.€Dec.€10,€2001);€òòsee€also€Myint€v.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.óó,€970€S.W.2d€920,€929€n.8€(Tenn.€1998).€Ð D'”"& ÐÌà  àThe€chancellor,€relying€on€òòScholz€v.€S.B.€International,€Inc.óó,€40€S.W.3d€78€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð )f$( Ð2000),€also€concluded€that€even€if€Ms.€Story€had€requested€prejudgment€interest€in€her€petition,€heÐ ÿ)O%) Ðâ âwould€still€have€denied€such€a€request.€€A€trial€court€is€vested€with€considerable€discretion€whenÐ è*8&* Ðdetermining€whether€prejudgment€interest€is€warranted€in€a€particular€case,€subject€to€the€followingÐ ° Ðprinciples:Ð ™é Ðâ âÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓForemost€are€the€principles€of€equity.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€47„14„123.€Ð k» ÐSimply€stated,€the€court€must€decide€whether€the€award€ofÐ T¤ Ðprejudgment€interest€is€fair,€given€the€particular€circumstances€of€theÐ =  Ðcase.€€In€reaching€an€equitable€decision,€a€court€must€keep€in€mindÐ & v Ðthat€the€purpose€of€awarding€the€interest€is€to€fully€compensate€aÐ  _ Ðplaintiff€for€the€loss€of€the€use€of€funds€to€which€he€or€she€was€legallyÐ ø H Ðentitled,€not€to€penalize€a€defendant€for€wrongdoing.Ð á 1  ÐÌÓ °YÒÓÓ °KÒÓòòMyintóó,òòóó€970€S.W.2d€at€927€(citing€òòMitchellóó,€876€S.W.2d€at€832).€€ð ðThe€certainty€of€the€plaintiffððsÐ ³  Ðclaim€is€but€one€of€many€nondispositive€facts€to€consider€when€deciding€whether€prejudgmentÐ œì  Ðinterest€is,€as€a€matter€of€law,€equitable€under€the€circumstances.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€928.€€ð ðThe€test€forÐ …Õ  Ðdetermining€whether€the€amount€of€damages€is€certain€.€.€.€is€whether€the€amount€of€damages€isÐ n¾  Ðascertainable€by€computation€or€by€any€recognized€standard€of€valuation.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€€ð ðAdditionally,€theÐ W§  Ðplaintiff€is€generally€awarded€prejudgment€interest€when€the€existence€of€the€obligation€is€notÐ @ Ðdisputed€on€reasonable€grounds.ðð€€òòIntððl€Flightóó,€45€S.W.3d€at€573€(citing€òòMyintóó,€970€S.W.2d€at€927).€Ð )y Ѐ€Ìà  àIn€òòScholzóó,€this€Court€interpreted€the€supreme€courtððs€decision€in€òòMyintóó€to€represent€a€shiftÐ ûK Ðtoward€favoring€an€award€of€prejudgment€interest€ð ðwhenever€doing€so€will€more€fully€compensateÐ ä4 Ðplaintiffs€for€the€loss€of€use€of€their€funds.ðð€€òòScholzóó,€40€S.W.3d€at€83.€€Judge€Koch,€however,Ð Í Ðtempered€his€discussion€of€the€decision€in€òòMyint€óóby€stating:Ð ¶ ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓThat€is€not€to€say€that€trial€courts€must€grant€prejudgment€interest€inÐ ˆØ Ðabsolutely€every€case.€€Prejudgment€interest€may€at€times€beÐ qÁ Ðinappropriate€such€as€(1)€when€the€party€seeking€prejudgment€interestÐ Zª Ðhas€been€so€inexcusably€dilatory€in€pursuing€a€claim€thatÐ C“ Ðconsideration€of€a€claim€based€on€loss€of€use€of€the€money€wouldÐ ,| Ðhave€little€weight,€(2)€when€the€party€seeking€prejudgment€interestÐ e Ðhas€unreasonably€delayed€the€proceedings€after€suit€was€filed,€or€(3)Ð þN Ðwhen€the€party€seeking€prejudgment€interest€has€already€beenÐ ç 7 Ðotherwise€compensated€for€the€lost€time€of€its€money.Ð Ð!   ÐÌÓ °GÚÓÓ °9ÚÓòòIdóó.€(citations€omitted).€€This€does€not€represent€an€all€inclusive€list€of€the€reasons€that€could€justifyÐ ¢#ò" Ða€courtððs€denial€of€prejudgment€interest.€€òòGen.€Constr.€Contractors€Assððn,€Inc.€v.€Greater€St.€ThomasÐ ‹$Û# ÐBaptist€Churchóó,€107€S.W.3d€513,€526€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2002).€€Ð t%Ä $ ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€that€a€request€for€prejudgment€interest€must€be€statedÐ F'–"& Ðin€the€complaint€before€it€may€be€awarded,€we€cannot€say€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denyingÐ /(#' Ðprejudgment€interest€altogether.€€At€the€time€Ms.€Story€filed€her€complaint,€the€exact€value€of€anyÐ )h$( Ðpartnership€assets€was€uncertain,€especially€since€the€trial€court€did€not€assign€a€value€to€theÐ *Q%) Ðrestaurant€until€after€it€heard€all€the€evidence.€€While€certainty€in€the€value€of€the€partnership€assetsÐ ê*:&* Ðwould€tend€to€favor€an€award€of€prejudgment€interest,€ð ð[t]he€converse,€however,€is€not€necessarilyÐ Ó+#'+ Ðtrue.ðð€€òòMyintóó,€970€S.W.2d€at€928.€€ð ðAccordingly,€we€must€review€the€record€to€determine€whetherÐ ° Ðother€equitable€grounds€exist€that€support€the€trial€courtððs€decision.ðð€€òòScholzóó,€40€S.W.3d€at€83.€€WeÐ ™é Ðare€mindful€of€the€fact€that€Ms.€Story€has€been€deprived€of€the€use€of€her€share€of€the€partnershipÐ ‚Ò Ðassets€since€1974.€€òòSee€idóó.€at€82.€€In€òòScholzóó,€this€court€characterized€the€function€of€prejudgmentÐ k» Ðinterest€as€follows:€€Ð T¤ ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °Óà ¸ àParties€who€have€been€wrongfully€deprived€of€money€haveÐ & v Ðbeen€damaged€in€two€ways.€€First,€they€have€been€damaged€becauseÐ  _ Ðthey€have€not€received€the€money€to€which€they€are€entitled.€€Second,Ð ø H Ðthey€have€been€damaged€because€they€have€been€deprived€of€the€useÐ á 1  Ðof€that€money€from€the€time€they€should€have€received€it€until€theÐ Ê   Ðdate€of€judgment.€€Awards€of€pre„judgment€interest€are€intended€toÐ ³  Ðaddress€the€second€type€of€damage.€€They€are€based€on€theÐ œì  Ðrecognition€that€a€party€is€damaged€by€being€òòforcedóó€to€forego€the€useÐ …Õ  Ðof€its€money€over€time.€€Thus,€our€courts€have€repeatedly€recognizedÐ n¾  Ðthat€prejudgment€interest€is€awarded,€not€to€punish€the€wrong„doer,Ð W§  Ðbut€to€compensate€the€wronged€party€for€the€loss€of€the€use€of€theÐ @ Ðmoney€it€should€have€received€later.Ð )y ÐÌÓ °áãÓÓ °ÓãÓòòIdóó.€(citations€omitted)€(emphasis€added).€€€The€record€does€not€reveal€that€Mr.€Lanier€ð ðforcedðð€Ms.Ð ûK ÐStory€to€forgo€the€use€of€her€share€of€the€partnership€assets.€€Given€the€fact€that€Ms.€Story€waitedÐ ä4 Ðuntil€almost€thirty€years€after€the€restaurant€burned€to€bring€suit€for€her€share€of€the€partnershipÐ Í Ðassets,€we€cannot€find€that€the€chancery€court€abused€its€discretion€in€finding€that€the€equitiesÐ ¶ Ðweighed€against€prejudgment€interest€in€this€case.€€òòCompare€Gen.€Const.€Contractors€Assððnóó,€107Ð Ÿï ÐS.W.3d€at€526,€òòand€Christmas€Lumber€Co.,€Inc.€v.€Valigaóó,€99€S.W.3d€585,€596€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ˆØ Ð2002),€òòwith€Hitchcock€Metal€Sources,€Inc.€v.€Mulfordóó,€No.€E2003„00738„COA„R3„CV,€2004€Tenn.Ð qÁ ÐApp.€LEXIS€68,€at€*20ð!ð21€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Jan.€24,€2004).€Ð Zª ÐÌÓ  Óò òIV.€€Failure€to€File€a€Responsive€Pleadingó óÐ ,| ÐÌÓ  Óà  àMs.€Story€argues€that€the€chancellor€erred€by€failing€to€find€that,€pursuant€to€Tennessee€RuleÐ ÿO Ðof€Civil€Procedure€8.04,€Mr.€Lanier€admitted€all€averments€in€her€original€petition,€with€theÐ è 8 Ðexception€of€those€related€to€common€law€marriage€and€marriage€by€estoppel,€by€failing€to€file€aÐ Ñ!!  Ðresponsive€pleading.€€Ms.€Story€contends€that€our€prior€holding€in€òòEdwards€v.€Edwardsóó,€501€S.W.2dÐ º" ! Ð283,€290€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1973),€finding€that€failure€to€raise€this€very€issue€at€trial€resulted€in€aÐ £#ó" Ðwaiver,€should€not€be€followed€in€this€case.€€In€support€of€this€position,€Ms.€Story€cites€to€ourÐ Œ$Ü# Ðdecision€in€òòDyer€v.€Farleyóó,€No.€01„A„01„9506„CH„00229,€1995€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€710,€at€*24ð!ð25Ð u%Å $ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Nov.€1,€1995),€where€we€referred€to€the€language€inòò€Edwards€óóas€dicta.€In€theÐ ^&®!% Ðalternative,€Ms.€Story€asserts€that€if€we€should€find€òòEdwardsóó€applicable,€she€complied€by€timelyÐ G'—"& Ðraising€the€issue€with€the€trial€court€in€her€supplemental€brief€filed€on€March€3,€2003.€€Since€thisÐ 0(€#' Ðcase€was€tried€without€a€jury,€we€consider€this€issue€despite€the€fact€that€Ms.€Story€failed€to€raise€theÐ )i$( Ðissue€in€her€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e)€(2003);€òòFahey€v.€Eldridgeóó,€46€S.W.3dÐ *R%) Ð138,€142€(Tenn.€2001).€€Ð ë*;&* ÐÐ Ô+$'+ Ðà  àTennessee€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€8.04€provides,€in€relevant€part,€as€follows:Ð ° ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓAverments€in€a€pleading€to€which€no€responsive€pleading€is€requiredÐ ‚Ò Ðor€permitted€shall€be€taken€as€denied€or€avoided.€€Averments€in€aÐ k» Ðpleading€to€which€a€responsive€pleading€is€required€are€admittedÐ T¤ Ðwhen€not€denied€in€the€responsive€pleading€.€.€.€.€Ð =  ÐÌÓ °ŠòÓÓ °|òÓTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€8.04€(2003).€€òòóóð ðThis€rule€is€not€interpreted€to€mean€that€a€party€is€privileged€to€goÐ  _ Ðto€trial€without€calling€to€the€attention€of€the€Trial€Court€the€complete€absence€of€a€necessaryÐ ø H Ðpleading.ðð€€òòEdwardsóó,€501€S.W.2d€at€290.€€ð ðIt€would€appear,€therefore,€that€complete€omission€toÐ á 1  Ðanswer€must€be€taken€advantage€of€by€suitable€application€for€default€judgment,€otherwise€it€isÐ Ê   Ðwaived€by€proceeding€to€trial€as€if€the€pleadings€were€at€issue.ðð€€òòIdóó.;€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€55.01€(2003);Ð ³  Ðòòsee€also€Smith€v.€Smithóó,€643€S.W.2d€320,€323€(Tenn.€1982)€(approving€of€the€decision€reached€inÐ œì  ÐòòEdwardsóó);òò€Barnes€v.€Barnesóó,€No.€02A01„9403„CH„00033,€1995€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€175,€at€*10Ð …Õ  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Mar.€17,€1995).€€Ð n¾  ÐÌà  àMs.€Storyððs€failure€to€bring€the€absence€of€an€answer€to€her€original€petition€to€the€attentionÐ @ Ðof€the€trial€court€by€filing€a€motion€for€default€judgment€resulted€in€a€waiver€of€any€violation€of€RuleÐ )y Ð8.04.€€We€find€Ms.€Storyððs€argument€that€she€properly€notified€the€trial€court€of€the€alleged€error€byÐ b Ðfiling€a€supplemental€brief€òòafteróó€the€trial€had€been€conducted€to€be€without€merit.€€ð ðThe€fact€thatÐ ûK Ðplaintiff€complained€for€the€first€time€post„trial€instead€of€on€appeal,€does€not€cure€her€failure€to€raiseÐ ä4 Ðthe€question€at€trial.ðð€€òòSmithóó,€643€S.W.2d€at€323.€€Ð Í ÐÌÓ  Óò òV.€€Resulting€or€Constructive€Trustsó óÐ Ÿï ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€final€issue€for€our€consideration€concerns€the€chancellorððs€finding€that€Ms.€Story€failedÐ r Ðto€prove€the€existence€of€either€a€resulting€or€constructive€trust€on€the€fifty„eight€acre€farm€or€theÐ [« Ðbank€account.€€Ms.€Story€asserts€that€the€court€erred€in€not€finding€a€resulting€trust€because€Mr.Ð D” ÐLanier€promised€her€that€if€she€deeded€him€the€farm,€they€would€share€ownership€equally.€€To€showÐ -} Ðher€reliance€on€Mr.€Lanierððs€alleged€promise,€Ms.€Story€points€to€the€following:€the€partiesðð€thirty„Ð f Ðyear€relationship,€the€fact€that€she€paid€living€expenses€with€her€disability€check,€she€was€paid€noÐ ÿO Ðadditional€consideration€beyond€satisfaction€of€the€existing€mortgage,€and€she€could€have€sold€theÐ è 8 Ðproperty€to€a€third€party€for€a€profit.€€In€the€alternative,€Ms.€Story€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erredÐ Ñ!!  Ðin€not€finding€that€a€constructive€trust€existed€in€the€farm€or€bank€accounts,€because€Mr.€LanierÐ º" ! Ðobtained€title€to€the€property€by€making€promises€he€never€intended€to€keep.€€Mr.€Lanier€denies€everÐ £#ó" Ðpromising€Ms.€Story€an€equal€interest€in€the€property€and€denies€any€fraud€on€his€part.€Ð Œ$Ü# ÐÌà  àð ðTo€the€extent€that€these€issues€involve€questions€of€fact,€our€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€rulingÐ ^&®!% Ðis€òòde€novo€óówith€a€presumption€of€correctness€and€thus€we€may€not€reverse€the€courtððs€factualÐ G'—"& Ðfindings€unless€they€are€contrary€to€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence.ðð€€òòSaddler€v.€Saddleróó,€59Ð 0(€#' ÐS.W.3d€96,€98€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000)€(citing€òòRandolph€v.€Randolphóó,€937€S.W.2d€815,€819€(Tenn.Ð )i$( Ð1996));€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d)€(2003).€€We€subject€the€chancellorððs€legal€conclusions€relating€toÐ *R%) Ðâ âconstructive€and€resulting€trusts€to€a€òòde€novo€óóreview€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòJordanÐ ë*;&* Ðv.€Jordanóó,€No.€E2001„00005„COA„R3„CV,€2002€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€96,€at€*9€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Feb.Ð ° Ð4,€2002)€(citing€òòGazenvoort€v.€Russellóó,€949€S.W.2d€293,€296€(Tenn.€1997)).€€Ð ™é Ðâ âÌà  àThe€resulting€trust€and€constructive€trust€both€represent€equitable€devices€used€by€courts€toÐ k» Ðavoid€unjust€enrichment.€€òòHarwell€v.€Watsonóó,€No.€E2003„01796„COA„R3„CV,€2004€Tenn.€€App.Ð T¤ ÐLEXIS€399,€at€*7€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€June€25,€2004).€€Our€supreme€court€has€described€the€purposesÐ =  Ðand€characteristics€of€a€resulting€trust€as€follows:Ð & v ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °Óà ¸ àThe€imposition€of€a€resulting€trust€is€an€equitable€remedy;€theÐ ø H Ðdoctrine€of€resulting€trust€is€invoked€to€prevent€unjust€enrichment.€Ð á 1  ÐSuch€a€trust€is€implied€by€law€from€the€acts€and€conduct€of€the€partiesÐ Ê   Ðand€the€facts€and€circumstances€which€at€the€time€exist€and€surroundÐ ³  Ðthe€transaction€out€of€which€it€arises.€€Broadly€speaking,€a€resultingÐ œì  Ðtrust€arises€from€the€nature€or€circumstances€of€considerationÐ …Õ  Ðinvolved€in€a€transaction€whereby€one€person€becomes€invested€withÐ n¾  Ða€legal€title€but€is€obligated€in€equity€to€hold€his€legal€title€for€theÐ W§  Ðbenefit€of€another,€the€intention€of€the€former€to€hold€in€trust€for€theÐ @ Ðlatter€being€implied€or€presumed€as€a€matter€of€law,€although€noÐ )y Ðintention€to€create€or€hold€in€trust€has€been€manifested,€expressly€orÐ b Ðby€inference,€and€there€ordinarily€being€no€fraud€or€constructiveÐ ûK Ðfraud€involved.Ð ä4 Ðà ¸ àWhile€resulting€trusts€generally€arise€(1)€on€a€failure€of€anÐ Í Ðexpress€trust€or€the€purpose€of€such€a€trust,€or€(2)€on€a€conveyance€toÐ ¶ Ðone€person€on€a€consideration€from€anotherð"ðsometimes€referred€toÐ Ÿï Ðas€a€ð ðpurchase„money€resulting€trustððð"ðthey€may€also€be€imposed€inÐ ˆØ Ðother€circumstances,€such€that€a€court€of€equity,€shaping€its€judgmentÐ qÁ Ðin€the€most€efficient€form,€will€decree€a€resulting€trustð"ðon€an€inquiryÐ Zª Ðinto€the€consideration€of€a€transactionð"ðin€order€to€prevent€a€failureÐ C“ Ðof€justice.€€However,€the€particular€circumstances€under€which€aÐ ,| Ðresulting€trust€may€arise€varies€from€jurisdiction€to€jurisdiction.Ð e ÐÌÓ °ŠÓÓ °˜ÓòòIn€re€Estate€of€Nicholsóó,€856€S.W.2d€397,€401€(Tenn.€1993)€(quoting€76€Am.€Jur.€2d€òòTrusts€óóðð€166,Ð ç 7 Ð197ð!ð98€(1992)).€€ð ðThe€equitable€power€to€establish€a€resulting€trust€applies€with€respect€to€both€realÐ Ð!   Ðand€personal€property.ðð€€òòWardell€v.€Daileyóó,€674€S.W.2d€293,€295€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984).€€Such€trustsÐ ¹" ! Ðoften€arise€when€the€law€presumes€the€parties€intended€to€create€a€resulting€trust.€€òòHarwellóó,€2004Ð ¢#ò" ÐTenn.€App.€LEXIS€399,€at€*6.€€ð ðA€resulting€trust€may€be€proven,€and€is€typically€proven,€by€parolÐ ‹$Û# Ðevidence.ðð€€òòSaddleróó,€59€S.W.3d€at€99€(citations€omitted).€€ð ðHowever,€when€one€attempts€to€createÐ t%Ä $ Ða€resulting€trust€on€the€basis€of€parol€evidence,€such€a€trust€must€be€shown€by€more€than€a€mereÐ ]&­!% Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence.ðð€€òòWardellóó,€674€S.W.2d€at€295€(citations€omitted).€€The€party€allegingÐ F'–"& Ðthe€existence€of€a€resulting€trust€must€prove€its€existence€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòSaddleróó,Ð /(#' Ð59€S.W.3d€at€99;€òòRowlett€v.€Guthrieóó,€867€S.W.2d€732,€735€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993);€òòWardellóó,€674Ð )h$( ÐS.W.2d€at€295.€€ð ðThe€testimony€of€a€single,€interested€witness€typically€is€insufficient€to€establishÐ *Q%) Ðâ âa€resulting€trust€by€clear,€convincing,€and€irrefragable€evidence.ðð€€òòSaddleróó,€59€S.W.3d€at€99.€€WhenÐ ê*:&* Ðthe€facts€establish€the€existence€of€a€written€instrument€containing€the€terms€of€a€transfer€in€realÐ ° Ðproperty,€the€plaintiff€must€satisfy€the€following€burden:Ð ™é Ðâ âÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓWhen€the€parol€evidence€of€a€resulting€trust€is€in€conflict€with€theÐ k» Ðterms€of€a€written€instrument,€it€is€not€essential€that€the€evidenceÐ T¤ Ðremove€all€reasonable€doubt,€but€it€must€be€so€clear,€cogent,€andÐ =  Ðconvincing€that€it€overcomes€the€evidence€to€the€contrary€and€theÐ & v Ðpresumption€that€exists€in€favor€of€the€terms€of€the€writtenÐ  _ Ðinstrument.Ð ø H ÐÌÓ °4ÓÓ °&ÓòòIdóó.€(citations€omitted).€€In€addition,€ð ðit€is€a€general€principle€that€the€trust€must€arise€at€the€time€ofÐ Ê   Ðthe€purchase,€attach€to€the€title€at€that€time€and€not€arise€out€of€any€subsequent€contract€orÐ ³  Ðtransaction.ðð€€òòLivesay€v.€Keatonóó,€611€S.W.2d€581,€584€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1980)€(citing€òòMcClure€v.Ð œì  ÐDoakóó,€65€Tenn.€364€(1873)).€€Ð …Õ  ÐÌà  àð ðA€constructive€trust€may€only€be€imposed€against€one€who,€by€fraud,€actual€or€constructive,Ð W§  Ðby€duress€or€abuse€of€confidence,€by€commission€of€wrong,€or€by€any€form€of€unconscionableÐ @ Ðconduct,€artifice,€concealment€or€questionable€means,€has€obtained€an€interest€in€property€which€heÐ )y Ðought€not€in€equity€or€in€good€conscience€retain.ððòò€€Intersparex€Leddin€KG€v.€Al„Haddadóó,€852€S.W.2dÐ b Ð245,€249€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992)€(citing€òòLivesayóó,€611€S.W.2d€at€584).€€Ð ûK ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓTennessee€has€imposed€constructive€trusts€in€four€types€of€cases.€Ð Í ÐThey€are:€(1)€where€a€person€procures€the€legal€title€to€property€inÐ ¶ Ðviolation€of€some€duty,€express€or€implied,€to€the€true€owner;€(2)Ð Ÿï Ðwhere€the€title€to€property€is€obtained€by€fraud,€duress€or€otherÐ ˆØ Ðinequitable€means;€(3)€where€a€person€makes€use€of€some€relation€ofÐ qÁ Ðinfluence€or€confidence€to€obtain€the€legal€title€upon€more€Ð Zª Ðadvantageous€terms€than€could€otherwise€have€been€obtained;€and€(4)Ð C“ Ðwhere€a€person€acquires€property€with€notice€that€another€is€entitledÐ ,| Ðto€its€benefits.Ð e ÐÌÓ °<ÓÓ °.ÓòòMyers€v.€Myersóó,€891€S.W.2d€217,€219€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994)€(citations€omitted).€€As€with€a€resultingÐ ç 7 Ðtrust,€the€plaintiff€has€the€burden€of€proving,€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence,€the€existence€of€aÐ Ð!   Ðconstructive€trust€based€on€parol€evidence.€€òòBrowder€v.€Hiteóó,€602€S.W.2d€489,€493€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ¹" ! Ð1980).€€Ð ¢#ò" ÐÌà  àOur€òòde€novo€óóreview€of€the€record€indicates€that€the€parties€presented€sharply€divergent€viewsÐ t%Ä $ Ðof€the€facts€surrounding€the€transfer€of€ownership€in€the€farm.€€Our€courts€have€required€a€higherÐ ]&­!% Ðdegree€of€proof€when€a€party€seeks€to€establish€a€trust€in€real€property€based€on€parol€evidence,Ð F'–"& Ðindicating€our€reluctance€to€contravene€a€written€deed.€€òòSee€Gray€v.€Toddóó,€819€S.W.2d€104,€108Ð /(#' Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991);€òòWilson€v.€Wilsonóó,€No.€119,€1989€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€72,€at€*9€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð )h$( ÐApp.€Feb.€3,€1989).€€In€this€case,€we€find€that€the€evidence€presented€by€Ms.€Story€at€trial€does€notÐ *Q%) Ðpreponderate€against€the€chancellorððs€finding€that€Ms.€Story€failed€to€prove€the€existence€of€aÐ ê*:&* Ðconstructive€trust€or€resulting€trust.€€Ð Ó+#'+ ЇÓ  Óò òVI.€€ConclusionÐ ° ÐÓ  Óó óÌÓ  Óà  àFor€the€reasons€stated€above,€we€affirm€the€decisions€of€the€chancery€court.€€Costs€on€appealÐ ƒÓ Ðare€taxed€to€Appellant,€Malcolm€Eugene€Lanier,€and€his€surety,€for€which€execution€may€issue€ifÐ l¼ Ðnecessary.€€€€Ô#†XÏKXXX7ÞÓ #ÔÔ#†¼„É»XXÏK¥ #ÔÔ€XÏKX»¼„ÉÔÐ U¥ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ù I Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÐ â 2  ÐÌ