### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs N ove m be r 7, 200 3
IN R E: ES TAT E OF AL TON WAY NE SA DD LER , D ECE AS ED

Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for DeK alb Coun ty No. 01P E48 Vernon Neal, Chancellor

No. M2003- 00414-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Augu st 11, 2004

Th e nie c e of

a de c e de nt f

ile d a c la im a g a ins t hi s e state , c on te nd ing that sh e wa s ent it led to compensation for allowing her late uncle to live r ent-fr ee for more than four y ear s in a house that she inherited fr om another unc le. The tria l court g rante d her c laim. We rever se. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Re verse d

P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J ., M.S., and F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J ., joined.

Be tty L ou Tay lor, Hartsvill e, Te nnessee , for the a ppellant, Estate of

Alton Way ne Saddler

. Sue N. Puckett-Jernig an, Smithvil le, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellee, Paula

Saddler.
OP IN ION
This case involves a De Kalb County house in which t wo b rothers, A lton W ayne Saddler (Way ne) and Guy Saddler, lived toge ther for some time. The home was owned by GuyS ad d ler alone. He died suddenly in 1996. Guy ’s other rea l pr operty , a 59 acr e fa rm, passed to his brother Wayne un de r the te rm s o f h is w ill . T he ho us e the tw o br oth e rs oc c up ie d pa sse d to his (andWayne ’s ) niece , Paula Saddler, the claimant her ein.
After Guy ’s death, Way ne Saddler continued to live in the house. Paula S addler , who lived in a Murfr eesbor o apartment, did not ask him for rent. Way ne paid the r eal e state taxes for 1996, and Paula Saddler

paid the insuranc e and the taxes for all subsequent y ear s. I n 1997, Paula Saddler’ s mothe r d ie d. Paula

a ndhe r b ro the rs Dw a y ne a ndL e on ard be c a me inv olv e d in a la ws uit ov e r the ir mother’s e state. The le g al costs caused Paula’s f inancial situation to deterior ate.
Paula Sa dd le r ne ve r as ke d he r unc le dir e c tly to pa y he r re nt, bu t sh e tol d h im w he n p ro pe rt y taxes and insurance premiums bec am e d ue. Way ne Saddler was a war e of Paula ’s financ ialH o w e v e r, P a u la a n d L e o n a rd S a d d le r t e stif ie d tha t the ir b ro the r D w igh t to ld e a c h o f t h e m so m e tim e in the p a st, 1 bef ore t hei r mo t her di ed i n 1997 , t hat he ha d t ake n W ay ne Sadd l er t o a l awy er t o prepar e a wi l l , t hat D wi gh t ha d l i s t ene d
o u tsid e the d o o r, tha t W a yn e S a d d le r w a s le a v ing so m e lan d to the thr e e sib ling s, a n d tha t t h e y sh o u ld no t p re ssu re him about mo ney or pay i ng P aul a. D wi gh t deni ed maki ng an y of t hes e s t at ement s
. W e a gr ee wi t h t he t r i al cour t t hat t hey (c o n tinu e d ...)
-2- difficulties, g ener ally

indicated to L eonar d, Paula’s brothe r, he w as g oing to he lp her, but neve r made
a ny pay me nt to P aula , a s r e nt o r o the rw ise . Wh e n Paula a ndL e on ardSa dd le r f

ina lly los t th e la ws uit inv olv ing the ir mothe r’ s e state , Paula de c ide d sh e ha d to se ll the ho us e , a ndsh e a sk e d h e r u nc le to move. He move d out in November of 2000, and she subse quently sold the property

. Way ne Saddler

prepa red a new will on Fe bruary

26, 2001. He died on May 6, 2001, at the ag e of 72. H is estate included $9,100 in c ash, but his own 42 ac re f arm a nd the fa

rm he ha d inherited fr om h is b ro the r G uy

we re its prima

ry a ssets. Und er his la st w ill a ndte stame nt, his e nti re e state we nt t o h is t wo g rand -n e ph e ws . D wi g ht S a dd le r w a s n a me d as his e xec uto r. Th e re wa s n o b e qu e st for Paula Saddle r.
I. L EGA L P ROCE E DI NGS Wayne S add le r’ s w ill wa s su bmi tte d f or pr ob a te in the De Ka lb C ou nty Chanc e ry

Cou rt

. Paula Saddler subse quently filed a claim aga inst the estate for pay ment of 51 months of back rent at the rate of $350 pe r month. She reduc ed the total c laim by a $220 cre dit f or a water heate r that Way ne Saddler

had re place d at his own expense, for a net claim of $17,630.
The e x ecutor

filed an e x ception to th e cl ai m
. T h e grounds f or the e x ception included the statute of limitations, t he lac k of a wr i t t en o r oral c ontrac t or lease betwee n the dec edent a nd the
c la ima nt, a ndthe a sse rt ionthat a ny be ne fi t to the de c e de nt w a s me a nt t o b e g ratui tou s.
The Chanc ellor appoint ed the Clerk and Ma ster to conduc t a hea ring on the matter. The Master f iled her de cision on J anuary 25, 2002, ruling that the l ack of a written or oral c ontrac t was fata l to Ms. Sa dd le r’ s c la im. Th e Ma ste r fo un d that Paula Sa dd le r ha d a llo we d Wayne Sa dd le r t o continue to live in the house without reque sting any financ ial compensation from him

. The Maste r a lso no te d th a t a ft e r Way ne Sa dd le r m ov e d o ut o f t he ho us e , Paula Sa dd le r ha d six mon ths un til his de a th i n w hic h to r equ est pay ment fr om h e r u nc le , to g e t hi m to sig n a pr omi sso ry

no te , o r t o somehow settle the question of whether he intended to pay her, but did not do so. The Master found that if Wayne S add ler had in tende d to pa y his nie c e or

to l e a ve he r a

po rt ionof

re a l pr op e rty

“ to compensate her

for he r kindness,” he could have stated that in his new will which wa s prepa red a few months after he moved out of the house. The Master acc ording ly denied the claim for rent, but
a llo we d M s. Sa dd le r to co lle c t $3,3 61 .5 0 for pr op e rt y ta x an d in su ranc e pr e miu ms s he pa id w hil e her unc le lived in her house

. A brief hearing in the trial court followe d. The court hear d testimonyfrom Dwig ht, Paula, L eonar d and Carolyn Saddl er (C arolyn Saddler is L eonar d’s wife ). Ther e wa s litt le direc t contra diction as to the rele vant fa cts. There was no dispute that $350 per month would have bee n 1(

. . . con t i n u ed) 1

are i rrelev an t t o t he l eg al i ssue s b efo re u s. -3- a fair re nta l pric e fo r the ho us e , a c omf orta ble thr e e be dr oo m bric k h ome wi th t wo bath rooms, elec tric heat and well water.
At the c on c lus ionof

the pr oo f, the c ha nc e llo r ann ou nc e d th a t he ha d te ntativ e ly de c ide d to aff irm the dec ision of the Clerk and Master . He noted, how ever , that he had pr epar ed for the hea ring on the mistaken assumption that the claimant would try to prove some sort of express contrac t. He
acc ording ly

decla red that if she could furnish some authority t h at wo u l d sustain her c laim on the basis of implied contrac t or quantum meruit, including the applicability of these theories to an estate , he wa s prepa

red to re consider his de cision. Ms. Saddler subseque ntly filed a me morandum, asse rting that the proof inc luded all the elements require d for a judgme nt in quantum meruit. The chanc ellor ultimately ag ree d. He f

iled a Me mor a nd um and Ord er setting a sid e his pr e lim ina ry de c isi on a ndg ranti ng Ms. Sa dd le r’ s c la im. I n its final order, the trial court e x plained its chang e of mind af ter re vi ew i n g p o st trial briefs a nd
rese arc h. The c ourt stated it had orig inally thought that Paula Saddler rested her c laim on a contra ct imp lie d infa c t a ndthat the pr oo f d id n ot e sta bli sh su c h a

c on tr a c t. T he c ou rt

re a ff ir me d it s c on c lus ionthat Paula

Sa dd le r h a d n ot p ro ve d a c on tr a c t impli e d infa c t.
Howeve r, the trial c ourt stated that it had come to rea liz e that the c laim was also base d on contra ct implied in law. The c ourt stated:
Th e re is a dis tin c t di ff

e re nc e be tw e e n a c on tr a c t impli e d in fa c t and on e imp lie d in la w. I n o rd e r that a

c on tr a c t may

be imp lie d infa c t, the fa c ts an d c ir c ums ta nc e s mu st sh ow a sse nt. Te nn e sse e re c og nize s two dis tin c t type s o f i mpl ie d c on tr a c ts, c on tr a c ts imp lie d in fa c t, a nd c on tr a c ts imp lie d in l a w, re fe rr e d to a s q ua si c on tr a c ts. A p art y seeking to rec over on an implied in law or q u as i co n trac t theory must prove the fo l l o wi n g:
A bene fit confe rre d upon the defendant by the pl aintiff, appr eciation by the def endant of such bene fit, an ac cepta nce of the bene fit under circ umstances that it would be inequitable for him to retain it without payment for the va lue there of. (c itations omi tted).
Th e e state app e a ls the fi na l or de r o f the c ou rt up ho ldi ng Paula

Sa dd le r’ s c la im.-4- II. T HE E VI DE NCE
The trial c ourt made e x tensive finding s of fa ct, the most relevant of which a re:
Af t ert h e d ea t h o f h i s b ro t h er , Al t o n W ay n e S ad d l er w a s w o rr i ed ab o u th av i n g a place to live, wher eupon, P aula Sadler told him that he could c ontinue to live in her house. . . . The c laimant did not have any express ag ree ment with Mr. Saddler w hich pr ov ide d th a t he wo uldliv e in the ho us e a ndpa y he r r e nt. She ne ve r at anytim e asked he r uncle Alton Wayne Saddler for rent. She did, howe ver, e x press to him that she wa s having a lot of expenses conne cted with the house . He did not pay her r ent or anything of

value e x cept that he did buy a water heate r and paid one y ear ’s taxes

. . . . During the time t hat Alton Way ne Saddler was living in claimant’s house, the claimant wa s pay ing r ent for a place to live in the t otal amount of $15, 600, t og ether with a storag e building that she paid re nt on in the amount of $2,763.34. The claimant wa s eng ag ed in protra cted a nd exp e n s ive litigation conce rning her mother ’s estate. This fa ct was ma de known to Alton Way ne S ad d l er by claimant’s br other, L e on ard Sa dd le r. L e on ard Sa dd le r te sti fi e d that a ft e r be ing tol d of the c on sid e ra ble expenses that Paula Saddler w as i n cu rring in conne ction with her mother’ s estate, Alton Way ne Saddler

told him o n sever al occ asions that he knew that Paula was paying insurance on the house, paying rent herse lf on an apartment, pay ing taxes and knew that she had all this expense and said that he was g oing to make it rig ht and that this statement was made on numerous occ asions by the dece dent. He a lso testified that Al t o n W ay n e S addler stated that he w as g oing to he lp Paula and that he w as g oin g to p a y

he r andthat he sa id this on se ve ra l oc c a sio ns
. Th e se fi nd ing s a

re c on sis te nt w ith the pr oo f. Paula Sa dd le r t e sti fi e d th a t sh e ha d n o le a se with her unc le and that she never asked him for

rent. She did sometimes “sug g est” to him all of the expenses she ha d. He ne ver paid her re nt. She did not testi fy that she had any

ag ree ment wi th h e r u nc le or

a ny e xpe c ta tio n o n h e r p art

that he r u nc le wo uldpay re nt.
I n explaining how the a

rra ng ement starte d, Paula Saddler g ave the following acc ount of a
conver sation about a living arr ang ement for Way ne Saddler : When Uncle Guy

first passed a way , he [W ayne] was re al upset, bec ause he wasn’t
e xpe c te d to die , a ndthe Sun day a ft e r that, M oth e r k e pt s a y ing , y ou ’v e g ot t o ta lk to Way ne ; y ou ’v e g ot t o ta lk t o Wa y ne , b e c a us e he wa s u ps e t, b e c a us e he sa id I ’ve g ot to have a pla ce to live; I don’t have a plac e to live, I have to ha ve a pla ce to live. The only rea l evidence of Way ne Saddler ’s intentions with reg ard to his niece is f ound in the te sti mon y of L e on ardSa dd le r, a ndit i s th e te sti mon y re lie d u po n b y

the c ou rt :-5-

Q. ...but I want to know if y ou had any conver sations w ith Mr. W ay n e S ad d l er c on c e rn ing his liv ingin this ho us e a ndwh e the r h e wa s to pay re nt o r n ot? A. On many

occa sions, W ayne broug ht up that issue as I ’d be ove r there visiti ng with him, and the way it was typically

broug ht up was his conce rn for all the problems that we wer e having in try ing to settle our mother’s e state and a ll the costs t h at we we re inc urring in leg al fe es and so f orth that he tho ug ht w a s ju st a

tot a l w a ste of tim e a nd un ne c e ssa ry , a ndhe sa id h e kn e w i t w a s c os tin g bo th
me a ndPaula , a ndI ’m

su re Dw ig ht t oo , a

lot of mon e y , an d I sa id, we ll, do n’ t wor ry abo ut it in my
case , Way ne. I

can pay it. I know it’s a hardship on Paula, and he said, I know it, and he sa id, I ’m g onna help he r. I ’m g onna pay her, a nd he said it on sever al occasions, he said, I ’m g onna pay her.

He knew she was paying taxes on that house. He knew she was pa y ing insurance on that house, and he knew she was pa y ing r ent her self o n an apa rtment that she wa s re nti ng , a nd he sa id, I kn ow sh e ’s g ot a ll thi s e xpe ns e a nd I ’m g oin g to make it rig ht. He sa id that onnu me ro us oc c a sio ns
. I mportant to the resolution of this case are the facts that (1) there was no ag ree ment betwee n the c la ima nt andthe de c e de nt that he wo uld pay re nt f or stay ing in the ho us e ; ( 2) the c la ima nt d id not have a n expectation, at t he ti me t he arrang ement was enter ed into or there afte r, that the de cede nt would pay

her r ent; (3) the c laimant never asked the dece dent to pay rent; and (4) while the dec edent may have ma de g ener al stateme n t s ab o u t providing financ ial help to the claimant, ther e wa s no te sti mon y that he e xpre ssl y

a g re e d to pay

re nt o r f e lt h e wa s o bli g a te d to pay re nt i n o rd e r t o r e ma in in the house.
III. A PP LI C A BLE L EGA L P R I N C I PL ES A claim ag ainst an estate is ba sed upon a debt of the dec edent or the estate

. As used in the statutes on estate a d m i n i s t ra t ion, “claim” r efe rs to “debts or de mands ag ainst the dec edent whic h might have been e nforc ed by persona l actions for the rec overy of money .” W right v. Universal Tire, Inc ., 577 S.W .2d 194, 196 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978). Such de bt may be evide nced by

a written instrument, a judg ment, or af fidavit. Tenn. Code Ann. § 30-2-307( b). Any aff idavit must state that the claim is a c orre ct, just and valid obligation of the estate of t he decede nt, and that no payment has been ma de ther eon except as r efle cted on the c laim. Id . The c laim filed by Paula Saddler was base d upon her sworn statement that it was a c orre ct, just and valid obligation of the estate. As the trial
c ou rt state d, sh e c laime d “ the e state ow e d h e r r e nt. ” I t w a s h e r b ur de n to e sta bli sh that de bt.
Ms. Saddler re lies on the related theorie s of quantum meruit, unjust e nrichment, a nd implied
or qu a si c on tr a c t. E sse nti a lly , s he a sse rt s th a t Wayne Sa dd le r r e c e ive d th e be ne fi t of stay ing re ntfr e e in the ho us e a nd that it wo uld be ine qu ita ble or un jus t fo r his e state to retain th os e ben e fi ts without compensation. Ms. Saddler c oncede s there w as no express contra ct, written or or al, betwe en he rs e lf a ndhe r u nc le that he wo uldpay re nt.M s. Sad d l er t est i f i ed i n a p roffer t o st at em ent s b y her b rother D wi ght i n an at t em p t t o s ho w she hel d off aski ng 2 h e r uncl e fo r rent b ecause her b rother D wi ght had t o l d her no t t o b ecause U ncl e W ayne had wi l l ed her a p o rt io n o f a f arm
. H o wever, s he d o es no t p urs ue any argume nt that she l et he r uncl e st ay i n he r ho use f o r f ree in t he exp ect at i o n he
w o u ld re w a rd he r in his w ill

.

W h e re o n e re n d e rs se rv ic e s to a n o the r in the ho p e o r e x p e c ta ti o n o f a le g a c y, 3 dev i s e, or ot h er pr ov i s i on by w i l l for h i s be n ef i t , w i t h ou t a n y c on t r ac t , e x pr es s or i mp l i ed, but r el y i ng s ol el y upon t he gen er osi t y of t he pers on for w hom s uch s er vi ces wer e r endere d , he ca nn ot r ecove r for s uch s er vi ces becau s e of t he f ai l ur e of

s uch p e rs o n to m a k e su c h tes ta m e n ta ry p ro v isio n in h is b e h a lf.

...
C ob bl e, 79 0 S.W

. 2 d at 28 1 , quo t i ng Br own v. Fuqua, 9 T e n n . A p p . 2 2 , 2 6 (1 9 2 8 ).

-6- On the other hand, the estate re lies on leg al principles g overning rec overy from an e state and argue s that Ms. Saddler fa iled to establish an ag ree ment that her unc le would pay her r ent, a nece ssary el em en t of a c laim for ser vices a g ainst the estate. It also asserts that Ms. Saddler g ratui tou sly a llo we d he r unc le to stay in the ho us e ou t of af fe c tio n an d fa mil ia l fe e lin g s. Th e e state also arg ues that Ms. Saddler f ailed to prove all the eleme nts of quantum meruit, even if that theory applied her ein. Although each party

staunchly

and ac curately

arg ues the authority

rele vant to his or her theory , n ei t h er d em o n s trates how the two sets of principles c an be r econc iled in the context of a claim ag ainst the estate.
A. C LA IM S A GA I N ST E STATES Claims against estates similar to the one befor e us are examined under principles that have been se t out numerous times. Gener ally , case s in which a c laimant s ee k s t o rec over f or ser vices provided to a de cede nt present one of two factual sce narios: the cla imant has provided the se rvice s either ( 1) pursuant to an express or implied contra ct or (2) in hope or e x pectation of being rew arde d in the de c eden t’ s w ill

. Cobble v. Mc Camey , 7 9 0 S

. W

. 2 d 2 7 9 , 2 8 1

- 8 2 ( T e n n
. C t

. A p p
. 1 9 8 9 )

. In 2 the latter situation, the cla imant gen er al l ycannot r ecove r simply beca use his or her

hope for g ener osityis disappointed. Id

. at 282. Se e als o Adams v. Unde rwood, 470 S.W .2d 180, 182 (Tenn. 3 19 71 ); Owens v. Church, 67 5 S .W .2d 1 78 , 1 83 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 1 98 4) ; Cotton v. Roberts’ Estate, 337 S.W .2d 776, 780 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1960).
Wit h reg ard to a

claim base d on the first sce nario, the c laim nece ssarily is based upon a contra ct, including the re quired e lements of off er and acc eptanc e. Cob ble , 790 S.W .2d at 281. S uch a contr act may

be express or it may

be implied in fac t where there are circ umstances that show a mutual intention to contract. Id.
Th e re fo re , if

the pl a int if

fs e sta bli sh that th e de c e de nt e xpre ssl y or imp lie dly
re qu e ste d the se rv ic e s, a nd if plaint if fs pr ov e that the y

re nd e re d th os e se rv ic e s w ithA f req ue ntl y qu o t ed p assa ge t ha t ex p l ains t he rea so ning b eh i nd t he p resu m p t i o n stat es: 4

. . . f am i l y l i fe ab o und s i n act s o f recip ro c a l ki nd ness whi ch t end t o pro m o t e t he co m fo rt and
con v en i en ce of

t h e f ami l y , a n d .

. . t h e i n t r odu ct i on of c ommer ci al c on s i der at i on s i n t o t h e r el at i on s of pers ons s o cl ose l y bound t oget her wo ul d expel t hi s spi r i t o f m ut ual b ene f

i cen ce and t o t hat ex t ent mar the fam ily u n ity.

K e y v . H a rris , 9 2 S . W . 2 3 5 , 2 3 7 (T e n n . 1 9 0 5 ).

-7- the expectation that they

wer e to be paid in some manner for those service s, then a
c on tr a c t is ma de ou t a g a ins t th e e state fo r the re a so na ble va lue of

tho se se rv ic e s.
Id ., at 282.
A contra ct implied in fact re sults from the circumstances of the ca se that show mutual assent to the terms, which must be sufficie ntly definite to be e nforc eable , consideration, and mutual intent to contrac t. Givens v . Mulliken , 75 S.W.3 d 383 , 407 (T e nn . 2 00 2) ; Angus v. City of Jack son , 968 S.W .2d 804, 808 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). Ambiguous, vag ue, and inde finite statements by the parties to the alleg ed contr act do not prove the nec essary elements. Cotton , 337 S.W .2d at 779.
Whether the fa cts show a c ontrac t betwee n t he dec edent a nd the claimant is influenc ed by
a no the r p ri nc ipl e app lie d insu c h c a se s. Whe n a clo se re la tiv e of a de c e de nt pr ov ide d a ben e fi t to that decede n t during his or her life time, there is a pr esumption that the benef it was provided g ratuitously , out of motives of aff ection and duty towards that person; no oblig ation on the part of the re c ipi e nt t o ma

ke pay me nt f

or the be ne fi t ar ise s. In re Con se rv ato rsh ip o f G ro v e s, 109 S.W .3d 4 31 7, 35 6 (T e nn
. Ct. App . 200 3) ; Cotton, 337 S.W .2d at 780. Consequently , family members a

re often pre cluded f

rom rec overing benef

its provi d ed to a dec edent be cause the law pr esumes such benef its were g ratuitous. Estate of Cleveland v. G orden, 837 S.W .2d 68, 71 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). The pre sumption of a g ratuitous benef it to a fa m i l y m ember

is not absolute, and ca n be
overc ome by

the exist ence of an e x press c ontrac t be tween the parties. Cobble, 790 S.W .2d at 281; Owens v. Church, 675 S.W .2d 178 (Tenn. C t

. Ap p
. 1984). Another way to overc ome the presumption is by

showing “such e x ceptional f acts a nd circ umstances a s will establish an intention on the one pa

rt to char g e and on the ot her part t o pay , notwithstanding the r elationship of kinship.” Ad am s, 47 0 S. W.2 d at 18 5; Cotton, 337 S.W .2d at 780. I n addition, the presumption can be rebutted by proof c ircumstance s showing that the relative acc epting the benef it knew or should have known th a t th e r e lati v e p r o v id in g it e xp e c te d c o mp e n s a ti o n o r r e imb u r s ement. Estate of Cleveland , 837 S.W. 2da t 71 ; Gorrell v. Taylor , 107 Tenn. 568, 570, 64 S.W. 888, 888 (Tenn. 1901).
Th e c ou rt s h a ve a lso ob se rv e d th a t th e pr e su mpt ionis s tr on g e st w he n th e re la tio ns hip is betwee n pare n t an d child, and we aker when the r elationship is more distant. Cotton, 337 S.W .2d at7 8 0 , q u o t i n g Go rre ll , 6 4 S. W. at 88 8 ( Te nn . 1 90 1) . T hu s, it m a y be po ss ib le for

a re la tiv e toO f c ou r s e, t h e D ea d M an ’ s s t at u t e mak es i t di f f i cu l t f or an y cl ai man t t o produ ce admi s s i bl e ev i den ce a s t o a 5 d e c e d e n t’s un d e rs ta n d ing o r in te n tio n s, in th e a b se n c e o f so m e so rt o f d o c u m e n ta ry p ro o f. C a n tre ll v . E sta te o f C a n tre ll, 1 9 S .W .3 d 8 4 2 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ); B u rk e v . A rn o ld , 8 3 6 S .W .2 d 9 9 , 1 0 0 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 1 ); L eff ew v. M a ye s, 6 8 5 S .W .2 d 2 8 8 , 2 9 3 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 1 9 8 4 ).

T he t r i al cour t al s o f ound t hat dur i ng t he t i me her uncl e was l i vi ng i n h er hous e, P aul a Saddl er pai d re nt on an 6 ap art m ent w h er e s h e l i v ed as w el l a s on a s t or ag e bu i l di n g , pa i d t ax es on t h e h ou s e, a n d w as i n v ol v ed i n e x pensi ve l i t i gat i o n. -8- obtain compensation for service s to a dece dent, but only if the fac tors set out above c an be pr oved b y e v i d e n c e s tr o n g e n o u g h t o o v e r c o m e t h e p r e s u m p t i o n o f g r a t u i t y. 5

The trial court here in found that Ms. Saddler fa iled to prove she ha d an express or implied in fac t contrac t with her uncle for him to rent the house s h e i n herited. The evidenc e does not preponde rate ag ainst that conclusion, but clea rly supports it. Ms. Saddler does not cla im otherwise. We also find that the proof doe s not establish that Way ne S addler knew or should have known that Paula Saddler expected him to pay rent. She did not testify that she expected he r uncle to pay her rent or that she conve y ed that messag e or impre ssion to him

. Ac c or din g ly , we c on c lud e that Paula Sa dd le r f a ile d to pr ov e the ne c e ssa ry re qu ir e me nts to su stain a c la im a g a ins t th e e state fo r r e nts un de r p ri nc ipl e s g e ne ra lly app lic able to s uc h c la ims

. B. Q U A N T U M M E R U IT , U N JUST E NRI CHMENT , Q U A SI C ONT RACT ,

AND C O N TR A C TS I M P L I E D I N L AW
Ms. Sa dd le r ma int a ins that sh e is e nti tle d to re c ov e r u np a id r e nt f ro m th e e state be c aus e it would be unfair for he r uncle , and ther efor e his estate, to ke ep the value of the benef it provided by her allowing her uncle to live in he r house. The c ircumstance s that she ar g ues make it unfair ar e her own financ ial circ umstances. The trial court a g ree d with this arg ument and found:
. . . the claimant is entitled to re co v er n o t o n the contra ct implied in fact but one imp lie d inla w a s sh e fu rn ish e d a be ne fi t to Mr

. Sa dd le r a nd he re c e ive d th e be ne fi t there of. He acc epted a nd appre ciated the benef it there of and it was inequitable for him to retain those bene fits wi t h o ut pay ment for the va lue there of. Alton Way ne Saddler re cog nized this obligation by paying one y ear

of taxes and b y s t ating on se ve ra l oc c a sio ns that he wa s g oin g to p a y c la ima nt. 6 Although Ms. Saddler primarily char acte rizes her claim as based on the t heory of quantum
me ru it, it a lso inc lud e s e le me nts a sso c ia te d w ith the re la te d th e orie s o f u nju st e nric hme nt andqu a si contra ct. With reg ard to these theories, our Supreme Court has state d: Actions broug ht upon theories of unjust enrichment, quasi c o n tr a c t, c o n trac ts impl ied in law, and qua ntum meruit are essentially the same. Courts fr equently employ the-9-

various terminology

intercha ng eably

to describe that clas s of implied obligations wher e, on the ba sis of justice and equity , the law will impose a c ontrac tual relationship between the pa rties, re g ardle ss of their asse nt thereto.
Paschall's, Inc. v. Dozier , 407 S.W .2d 150, 154 (Tenn. 1966)

. A c on tr a c t impli e d inla w is on e c re a te d b y la w w ith ou t th e a sse nt o f the pa rt ie s o n th e ba sis it is dictated by

rea son and justice. Angus v. C ity of Jack son , 968 S.W .2d 804, 808 (Tenn. Ct. App. 19 98 ); W eatherly v. American A gr. Chem. Co. , 16 Te nn . App . 613 , 65 S.W.2 d 592 (1 93 3) . Co urts ma y imp os e a c on tr a c tua l ob lig a tio n, or c on tr a c t imp lie d in la w, wh e re on e do e s n ot f a c tua lly e xist under va rious quasi-contr actua l theories, the primary one being unjust enrichment. W hitehaven Community Baptist Chur ch , 973 S.W .2d 592, 5 9 6 (T en n. 1998). The r equire ments for the imposit ion of a c ontrac t under that theory are (1) that no e nforcea b le contra ct exist s betwee n the parties, and (2) the defe ndant will be unjustlyenric hed abse nt the imposit ion of a qua si-contra ctual obligation. Id.
The “most signific ant requirement for a re covery on quasi contra ct is that the enric hment be unjust.” Id. , q u o t i n g Paschall’s, Inc ., 407 S.W .2d at 155. The principle under ly ing the doctrine of unjust enr ic h me n t i s th a t a p ar ty w h o r e c e iv e s a

b e n e f it h e o r s h e d e s ir e s , u n d e r

c ir c u ms tan c es making it inequitable to retain that be nefit without pay ing f or it, must compensate the pr ovider of the bene fit. CPB Manageme nt, Inc. , 939 S.W. 2d78 , 8 0; Lawl e r v . Za ple tal , 679 S.W .2d 950, 955 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984).
Th e e le me nts that must be pr ov e d to est abli sh a c la im i n th e re la te d th e ory of qu a ntu m me ru it include the none x istence of an enf orce able contrac t, the provisi on and rece ipt of valuable g oods and service s, and circ umstances that demonstrate that it would be unjust for the party benef itting from the g oods or servic es to reta in them w ithout paying for them. Castelli v. Li en , 910 S.W .2d 420, 427 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1 9 9 5). I n addition, however , “the c ircumstance s must indi cate that the parties involved in the transac tion should have rea sonably understood that the person pr oviding the g oods
or ser vices e x pecte d to be compensated.” Id. , ci t i n g V.L. Nicholson Co. v

. Transcon Inv. & Fin. Ltd. , 595 S.W .2d 474, 482 (Tenn. 1980) . Absent p roof that the person providing the bene fit expected compensation, a

claim for quantum meruit must fail. Estate of Queene r v. He lton , 119 S.W .3d 682, 68 8 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 3) ; Estate of Atkinson v. Allied Fenc e & Improve ment Co., Inc ., 746 S.W .2d 709, 711 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).
As discussed earlier, Ms. Saddle r failed to pr ove she e x pecte d her unc le to pay her r ent and
ne ve r d e ma nd e d r e nt f

rom hi m or ma de a ny

su c h e xpe c ta tio n kno wn to h im. Th us , s he faile d to prove c ircumstance s indicating that she and her uncle should have re asonably understood that she expected to be compensated for allowing him to live in the house she inherited. This failure to pr ove un ilate ra l, muc h le ss mutu a l, e xpe c ta tio n r e su lts in a failu re to p ro ve a ll the e le me nts of a c la im i n quantum meruit.O ne o f t ho se bases was t he eq ui t ab l e d o ct ri ne o f res ul t i ng t rus t

. A res ul t i ng t rus t i s i m p l i ed by l aw f rom t he 7

c o n d u c t a n d w ill b e d e c re e d to p re v e n t u n ju st e n ric h m e n t o r a failur e o f ju stice

. In re E sta te o f N ic h o ls , 856 S. W

. 2d 397, 401 ( T en n
. 1993)

. An ot h er c l ai m wa s bas ed on t h e t h eor y of c on s t r u ct i v e t r u s t , w h i ch r equ i r es a s h owi n g t h at a pe r s on h a s a c q u ire d p r o p e r ty t h r o u g h ine q u itab le m e a n s a n d , i n e q u ity, sh o u ld no t ho ld o r e n jo y it

. R o a ch v. R en

f ro , 989 S .W .2d 3 3 5 , 3 4 1 (T en n. C t . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). T his c o urt fo un d the p ro o f d i d no t sho w circum st an ce s nec essa ry t o estab l i sh
e ithe r a re su lti n g tru st o r a c o n stru c tive tru st. -10- Where the the ories of unjust enrichment and qua si contrac t inte rs ect with the principles g ov e rn ing c la ims a g a ins t e state s, it is no t e nti re ly c le ar w hic h p ri nc ipl e s p re do min a te . Rathe r, it i s the fa ctual cir cumstance s that determine the outcome. F or example, in Estate of Queene r v. He lton , 119 S.W .3d 6 8 8 (T enn. C t. App. 2003), this court consider ed cla ims filed by three differ ent c la ima nts a sse rt ing va

ri ou s le g a l ba se s. 7

One of the claims was based on te stimonythat the claimant, a Ms. Kelley , unrelated to the dece dent, along with her familymoved into a house owne d b ydece dent, made sig nificant improvements to the house, a nd helped with g arde ns and cattle on the property for thirty y ear s. The dece dent’s mother moved in w ith c laimant’s family , and claimant car ed for her during the last y ear s of her life. The pr oof showed that the claimant expected c ompensation for the se ser vices, the dece dent had pr omised the house would be he rs, and dece dent had told pe ople he wa s g oing to g ive the ho us e to claiman t be c aus e sh e ha d ta ke n c are of

his mothe r. Th is c ou rt

fo un d th e se fa c ts suf f ic ie n t to s u p p o r t th e c laim u n d e r e ith e r a q u a n tu m me ru it o r imp li e d c o n tr a c t th eory
. Id . 119 S.W. 3da t 68 8. Al tho ug h the c ou rt ba se d its ho ldi ng , in pa rt , on its fi nd ing that it w ou ld b e un jus t not to compensate the claimant for he r ser vices, the c ourt also stated that the c laim was base d on an express or implied contrac t theory . The fa cts establish a c ontrac t impli ed in fa ct.
T h e holdi ng here in must st and, if at all, on the g round stated by the trial court, i.e. , u n

j u st e nric hme nt. Th e qu e sti on of wh e the r Way ne S add le r w a s u nju stl y e nric he d b y

be ing a llo we d to continue living r ent-fr ee in the home he had sha red w ith his brother must be analy zed in view of the entire situation and with due c onsideration to the familymember g ratuit y presumption. We find signific ant the fa ct that Paula Saddler never asked her uncle to pay her rent. Although she had the power to end the situation if she thoug ht it unfair or unduly burdensome, she allowed it to continue for over four y ear s, during which ti me s he never asked for rent and never expressed to any one that sh e e xpe c te d h e r u nc le to p a y he r r e nt.
There is n o t es timonythat Way ne Saddler ever spoke of pay ing r eg ular re nt. The proof shows only

that on sever al occ asions he expressed a sensitivityto his niece’s f inancial situation and
a g e ne ra l w ill ing ne ss t o g ive he r f inanc ia l a ssi stanc e . T he re wa s a pp are ntl y a re luc ta nc e by

Ms. Saddler, shar ed by

other family members, to upse t or disrupt Wayne Saddler by direc tly confr onting him with a choic e of pay ing r ent or moving . These c oncerns are typical of the type that influenc e famil y me mbers ’ con du c t to wa

rdon e a no the r. We c a nn ot s a y that su c h a c c omm od a tio n is un fair or unjust.
Acc ording ly , we c onclude that the c laimant, Paula Saddler, has failed to pr ove she is entitled to 5 1 mo nth s o f r e nt o n th e ba sis of qu a si c on tr a c t or

un jus t e nric hme nt.-11- V. C ONCL US I ON
We r ever se the judgme nt of the trial court. This c ase is remande d to the Chance ry Court of DeKa lb Countyfor a ny further proce eding s that may be nece ssary
. Tax the costs on appea l to the appellee , Paula Saddler.

____________________________________ PATRI CI A J . COTTRELL , J UDGE