Court Opinion

ID: 9943640
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 22:10:03.328118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:39.398006
License: Public Domain

02/23/2024
                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                            AT NASHVILLE
                           Assigned on Briefs January 2, 2024

 DEBBIE LYNN SIMMONS, ET AL. v. DEBORAH MATLOCK BASS, ET
                           AL.

                Appeal from the Chancery Court for Houston County
            No. 2021-CV-893, 2021-CV-894 Suzanne Lockert-Mash, Judge
                      ___________________________________

                            No. M2023-00275-COA-R3-CV
                        ___________________________________

Appellees, a married couple at the time, purchased two properties. Appellants, Husband’s
adult daughters from a previous relationship, sought imposition of resulting trusts on the
respective properties. Appellants, each of whom lived in one of the properties, maintained
that they had agreements with their father whereby they would own the properties so long
as they paid all expenses thereon. Appellee/Wife disputed such arrangement and
maintained that the disputed properties were marital properties. Because of the suspect
circumstances surrounding the purchases of the properties and the disputed testimony
regarding any agreements by and between Husband and Appellants, Wife argued that the
properties were not subject to the imposition of the equitable remedy of resulting trusts.
The trial court denied Appellants’ respective petitions to establish resulting trusts, and they
appeal. Because Appellants failed to meet the burden of proof to establish resulting trusts,
we affirm the trial court’s decision.

      Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court
                            Affirmed and Remanded

KENNY ARMSTRONG, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ANDY D. BENNETT,
and KRISTI M. DAVIS, JJ., joined.

Jacob P. Mathis and Tiffany D. Leffler, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Maranda
Teague and Debbie Lynn Simmons.

Sydney A. Franklin, Dickson, Tennessee, for the appellee, Deborah Matlock Bass.

Christopher J. Pittman, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Jimmy Lynn Bass.
                                        OPINION

                                      I. Background

       Jimmy Bass and Deborah Bass (together “Appellees”) married in 2003. In 2020,
they began divorce proceedings in the Chancery Court for Dickson County (the “divorce
court”). Maranda Teague and Debbie Lynn Simmons (together “Appellants”) are Mr.
Bass’ adult children from a previous relationship. On June 28, 2017, Mr. Bass purchased a
home at 6170 Highway 147, Stewart, Tennessee (the “Stewart Property”). The warranty
deed on the Stewart Property lists the owner as “Jimmy L. Bass, a married individual.” On
the same day, Mr. Bass executed a promissory note in the amount of $31,000.00 in favor
of Cumberland Bank & Trust. The note, which was not signed by Mrs. Bass, was secured
by a deed of trust on the Stewart Property. Debbie Simmons moved into the Stewart
Property. She testified that she and Mr. Bass had an agreement that the Stewart Property
would be hers if she paid the bills and maintained the home; however, there is no written
agreement between Mr. Bass and Ms. Simmons. Ms. Simmons stated that she had no
agreement with Deborah Bass.

       On or around August 9, 2017, using a second mortgage on their marital residence,
Appellees purchased property at 275 Day Lane, Tennessee Ridge, Tennessee (the
“Tennessee Ridge Property”). Maranda Teague moved into the Tennessee Ridge Property.
Ms. Teague claims that she, like Ms. Simmons, had an arrangement where she would pay
the expenses for the Tennessee Ridge Property, and it would belong to her. To this end,
Ms. Teague testified that she deposited $550.00 per month (beginning in September 2017)
into an account at Regions Bank. It is undisputed that Appellees sold their marital residence
in December of 2020 and used those funds to pay off the indebtedness on the Tennessee
Ridge Property. Even after the mortgage was satisfied, Ms. Teague claims that she
continued to make the monthly payments of $550.00. There is no written record of the
foregoing arrangement.

       Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, Appellees began divorce proceedings in Dickson
County. According to the final order in this case, Appellants “filed a motion to intervene
[in the divorce court] in regard to the ownership of the two properties that are subject to
this lawsuit. The [divorce court] ruled that the properties are marital property and denied
the [Appellants’] motion to intervene.”

        Having been denied relief in the divorce court, on October 12, 2021, Ms. Simmons
filed a complaint in the Chancery Court for Houston County (the “trial court”). On the
same day, Ms. Teague filed a separate complaint in the trial court. Both Appellants asserted
causes of action for unjust enrichment and equitable estoppel and asked the trial court to
impose a resulting trust on the Stewart Property and the Tennessee Ridge Property,
respectively.

                                            -2-
       On December 15, 2021, Mrs. Bass filed answers to both complaints. In her answers,
Mrs. Bass denied any knowledge of an arrangement between either of the Appellants and
Mr. Bass. She further asserted that she and Mr. Bass were the owners of the Stewart
Property and the Tennessee Ridge Property.1 On January 4, 2022, Mr. Bass filed answers
to both complaints, wherein he asserted that neither property was a marital asset and stated
that the Stewart Property was intended to be Ms. Simmons’ property, and the Tennessee
Ridge Property was intended to be Ms. Teague’s property. By separate orders entered on
August 17, 2022, the Appellants’ cases were consolidated.

      Following a hearing on October 24, 2022, the trial court entered an order on
February 10, 2023. In relevant part, the trial court held that

        [Ms.] Simmons and Mr. Bass did not consult Mrs. Bass when the [Stewart]
        [P]roperty was purchased. Upon finding out about the [Stewart Property],
        Mr[.] Bass told [Mrs. Bass] that he bought it for investment purposes.
        [Concerning] the [Tennessee Ridge Property] that [Ms.] Teague is living in[,
        Mrs. Bass] testified that it was for investment purposes. After the note was
        paid off using funds from the sale of Mrs. Bass’ home, Mrs. Bass still has
        not received any payments from [Ms.] Teague. There is presently a pending
        divorce and relations between Mrs. Bass and her husband and step-daughters
        are acrimonious at best. From the testimony, it appears there may be some
        collusion among Mr. Bass and his daughters as to the transfer of these
        properties. The [divorce court] has ruled that these properties are marital
        property and denied the Motion to Intervene.
               Based on the above this Court declines to place the properties in a
        Resulting Trust . . . .

Ms. Teague and Ms. Simmons appeal.

                                          II. Issues

        In their joint brief, Appellants raise the following issues for review:

        1. Whether the trial court made sufficient findings of fact and conclusions
        of law in its Final Order?

        2. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support a legal finding of a
        resulting trust for each property?

        1
          Mrs. Bass also filed motions for sanctions against both Appellants. The trial court denied the
motion in its final order, and no issue was raised concerning this decision.
                                                 -3-
                                  III. Standard of Review

       This case was tried by the court sitting without a jury. As such, our review of a trial
court’s findings of fact is de novo on the record accompanied by a presumption of
correctness, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d);
Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685, 692 (Tenn. 2013). We review a trial court’s
conclusions of law de novo, according them no presumption of correctness. Id. at 692;
Rigsby v. Edmonds, 395 S.W.3d 728, 734 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). To the extent necessary,
we expand our discussion of the standards of review relevant to the specific issues raised
as we discuss those issues infra.

                                         IV. Analysis

                                   A. Sufficient Findings

       We first address Appellants’ contention that the trial court’s findings are
insufficient. Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01 provides that,

       [i]n all actions tried upon the facts without a jury, the court shall find the
       facts specially and shall state separately its conclusions of law and direct the
       entry of the appropriate judgment . . . .

Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. The Tennessee Supreme Court has noted that “[t]here is no bright-
line test” for assessing the sufficiency of the trial court’s factual findings, but they “‘must
include as much of the subsidiary facts as is necessary to disclose to the reviewing court
the steps by which the trial court reached its ultimate conclusion on each factual issue.’”
Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1, 35 (Tenn. 2013) (quoting 9C Federal Practice and
Procedure § 2579, at 328).

       In their brief, Appellants argue that

       the trial court outlined a narrative of facts however instead of applying those
       facts to a legal standard, conclusively stated that it was declining to place the
       properties in a Resulting Trust. The trial court does not articulate how it
       reaches its conclusion, nor how the narrated facts are not sufficient for a
       finding of Resulting Trust. The trial court does not cite any legal precedent
       or findings to support its ruling. Further, the trial court incorrectly stated that
       the properties in question had already been ruled, by a neighboring court,
       marital property of Appellees. This is simply untrue. The properties were
       never determined to be marital property. The order from Dickson County
       [divorce court] . . . states that in fact there had not been a determination of
       marital property to date, because the divorce is still ongoing and pending.
                                              -4-
       There has not been a final hearing in the divorce, and as such, there was no
       such determination of marital property for the trial court to incorrectly rely
       on in making is erroneous conclusion.

       As discussed below, a resulting trust is a creature of equity. As such, a trial court’s
decision concerning whether to impose such trust rests on the specific facts of the case.
Here, the trial court’s order contains a detailed recitation of the facts and evidence adduced
at the hearing. In view of the fact-driven nature of this case, we would expect the trial
court to outline the relevant facts. So, contrary to Appellants’ contention that the trial
court’s order merely narrates the case, we conclude that the trial court’s order outlines the
relevant facts that the court relies on in making its decision.

        As to Appellants’ contentions that the trial court did not “cite any legal precedent,”
and failed to “articulate how it reache[d] its conclusion,” we again note that due to the
equitable nature of resulting trusts, there are no bright-line legal requirements necessary to
establish them. Rather, the court considers the acts and conduct of the parties and the
circumstances and facts that exist at the time of the transaction from which the trust
allegedly arises. As such, the absence of “legal precedents” in the trial court’s order is not
fatal to our review.

       As to Appellants’ assertion that the trial court’s decision rests on its erroneous
statement that the divorce court “has ruled that these properties are marital property and
denied the Motion to Intervene,” we note that the divorce court’s order denying
intervention is not contained in our appellate record. However, portions of the order were
read into this record by Mrs. Bass’ counsel. As read into evidence, in denying Appellants’
motion to intervene in the divorce matter, the divorce court stated, in relevant part:

       The [Appellants’] motion [to intervene in the divorce matter] alleges that the
       Respondent, Jimmy Lynn Bass, entered into an agreement to allow each of
       his daughters. . . to acquire an interest in certain pieces of real property by
       virtue of each of them living in the subject properties and making payments
       that went to the satisfaction of the indebtedness that encumbered the
       properties.
              The Court finds that the Petitioner, Deborah Matlock Bass, was not a
       party to any such agreement and had no knowledge that any such agreement
       exists and . . . the Respondent[] had no basis to bind his wife to some oral
       agreement that may have existed between himself and his daughters. Further,
       the Respondent is judicially estopped from asserting any ownership of the
       subject property vested with either Maranda Teague or Debbie Teague. . . as
       he and [Mrs. Bass] have asserted sole ownership of the properties in this
       divorce matter to the extent the Court has previously determined the
       properties are marital and subject to an equitable division of Deborah
       Matlock Bass and Jimmy Lynn Bass.
                                             -5-
              Further, the Court finds that any claim including but not limited to
       equitable estoppel is against Jimmy Bass and not against Deborah Matlock
       Bass. It is therefore ordered that the motion to intervene is denied and that
       the moving parties, Maranda Teague and Debbie Lynn Simmons, are free to
       proceed in a separate action against their father, Jimmy Lynn Bass, for
       reimbursement of monies that they have paid.

Mr. Bass’ attorney objected to the foregoing order, stating that the order “was replaced by
a new order. I would dispute that [the divorce court] classified these properties as marital
property.” Mr. Bass’ attorney then read from the “new order,” which allegedly was entered
by the divorce court in relation to its “granting the motion to alter or amend,”2 to-wit:

       (As Read) While . . . the daughters . . . may very well have a cause of action
       against Mr. Bass, they do not necessarily have one against Ms. Bass
       sufficient to be allowed to intervene [in the divorce matter] . . . .

                                                     ***

       While the actual identification of marital property has not yet taken place
       since there has not been a final hearing, the Court has, in fact, previously
       ordered all marital property, once identified, to be sold . . . . Certainly, the
       intervenors, which is [sic] the daughters, can bid on the properties themselves
       or can file an action to enforce their claims for a resulting trust. (Reading
       Ends)

        Assuming that the foregoing is a valid recitation of the divorce court’s orders, one
could infer that the properties were designated as marital property. The first order makes
that ruling clear, and even in view of the statement in the second order that the “actual
identification of marital property has not yet taken place,” the divorce court’s statement
that the divorce court “previously ordered all marital property . . . to be sold,” coupled with
its statement that “the daughters can bid on the properties themselves,” could be read to
mean that the disputed properties are marital property that will be sold. Regardless, the
designation of these properties as marital property is not dispositive of the equitable
question of whether they should be held in a resulting trust. More importantly, there is no
indication that the designation of the properties as marital property was the only fact the
trial court relied on in reaching its ultimate decision. The trial court’s order recites almost
four pages of facts before it states that the divorce court “has ruled that these properties are
marital.” However, in the last paragraph, the trial court states that, “[b]ased on the above
this Court declines to place the properties in a Resulting Trust . . .” (emphasis added). We
read “the above” to include all of the relevant facts outlined in the trial court’s order. So,
even allowing, arguendo, that the trial court misstated the fact that the properties were

       2
           This order also is not included in the appellate record.
                                                     -6-
determined to be marital, as set out in its order, there is additional evidence to support the
trial court’s ruling. As such, the trial court’s statement that the properties are marital, even
if incorrect, would be harmless error. See, e.g., Gentry v. Walls, No. 01-A-019105-CV-
00190, 1991 WL 254561, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 1991) (“The test for harmless error
is found in Rule 36, Tenn. R. App. P., which says a judgment should not be set aside unless,
considering the whole record, the error more probably than not affected the judgment.”).
From the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court’s order is sufficient to allow this Court
to conduct a meaningful review of its decision to deny the resulting trusts. We now turn
to that task.

                                    B. Resulting Trusts

       This Court has explained:

       This Court reviews the issue of whether a resulting trust has been formed de
       novo with no presumption of correctness. Story v. Lanier, 166 S.W.3d 167,
       184 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). A resulting trust has been defined as follows:

              Resulting trusts are those which arise where the legal estate is
              disposed of, or acquired, without bad faith, and under such
              circumstances that Equity infers or assumes that the beneficial
              interest in said estate is not to go with the legal title. These
              trusts are sometimes called presumptive trusts, because the law
              presumes them to be intended by the parties from the nature
              and character of their transactions. They are, however,
              generally called resulting trusts, because the trust is the result
              which Equity attaches to the particular transaction.

       Smalling v. Terrell, 943 S.W.2d 397, 400 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (quoting
       Gibson’s Suits in Chancery § 382 (Inman, 7th ed. 1988)). As the Tennessee
       Supreme Court has stated:

              The imposition of a resulting trust is an equitable remedy; the
              doctrine of resulting trust is invoked to prevent unjust
              enrichment. Such a trust is implied by law from the acts and
              conduct of the parties and the facts and circumstances which at
              the time exist and surround the transaction out of which it
              arises. Broadly speaking, a resulting trust arises from the nature
              or circumstances of consideration involved in a transaction
              whereby one person becomes invested with a legal title but is
              obligated in equity to hold his legal title for the benefit of
              another, the intention of the former to hold in trust for the latter
              being implied or presumed as a matter of law, although no
                                             -7-
       intention to create or hold in trust has been manifested,
       expressly or by inference, and there ordinarily being no fraud
       or constructive fraud involved.

       While resulting trusts generally arise (1) on a failure of an
       express trust or the purpose of such a trust, or (2) on a
       conveyance to one person on a consideration from another—
       sometimes referred to as a “purchase-money resulting trust”—
       they may also be imposed in other circumstances, such that a
       court of equity, shaping its judgment in the most efficient form,
       will decree a resulting trust—on an inquiry into the
       consideration of a transaction—in order to prevent a failure of
       justice. However, the particular circumstances under which a
       resulting trust may arise varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

In re Estate of Nichols, 856 S.W.2d 397, 401 (Tenn. 1993) (quoting 76 Am.
Jur. 2d Trusts § 166, pp. 197-98 (1992)). However, the overriding principle
pertaining to resulting trusts is that “the trust must arise at the time of the
purchase, attach to the title at that time and not arise out of any subsequent
contract or transaction.” In re Estate of Jones, 183 S.W.3d 372, 379 (Tenn.
Ct. App. 2005) (quoting Livesay v. Keaton, 611 S.W.2d 581, 584 (Tenn. Ct.
App. 1980)); see also Frazier v. Pomeroy, No. M2005-00911-COA-R3-CV,
2006 WL 3542534, at *13 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2006); Smalling v.
Terrell, 943 S.W.2d [at] 400 [].

Resulting trusts can be proven by parol evidence, Smalling, 943 S.W.2d at
400 (citing Estate of Wardell[, ex rel. Wardell v. Dailey], 674 S.W.2d [293,]
295 [(Tenn.Ct.App.1983)]; Bright v. Bright, 729 S.W.2d 106, 110 (Tenn. Ct.
App. 1986)), with the following caveat:

       A trust may rest upon parol agreement where the declaration
       of trust is made prior to or contemporaneous with the transfer
       of the interest in realty. Tansil v. Tansil, 673 S.W.2d 131, 132
       (Tenn. 1984). Ordinarily, the testimony of a single, interested
       witness would not be sufficient to establish a trust by clear,
       cogent and convincing evidence. King v. Warren, 680 S.W.2d
       459 (Tenn. 1984).

St. Clair v. Evans, 857 S.W.2d 49, 51 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). “The parol
testimony [may be] admitted, not to show an agreement to purchase for
another, but to show that the purchase money was paid by the party claiming,
notwithstanding the deed was taken in the name of another person.” Justice
v. Henley, 27 Tenn. App. 405, 410, 181 S.W.2d 632, 634 (Tenn. Ct. App.
                                     -8-
      1944) (quoting Perkins v. Cheairs, 61 Tenn. 194, 201 (Tenn. 1872)).
      Additionally, this Court has stated the following:

             “A trust results from the acts, and not from the agreements, of
             the parties, or rather from the acts accompanied by the
             agreements; but no trust can be set up by mere parol
             agreements, or, as has been said, no trust results merely from
             the breach of a parol contract; as if one agrees to purchase land
             and give another an interest in it, and he purchases and pays his
             own money, and takes the title in his own name, no trust can
             result.” 1 Perry on Trusts, (4 Ed.), sec. 134.

             “It is a familiar rule that a trust must result, if at all, at the
             instant the deed is taken and the legal title vests in the grantee.
             No oral agreements, and no payments before or after the title
             is taken, will create a resulting trust, unless the transaction is
             such that, at the moment the title passes, a trust will result from
             the transaction itself. There must be an actual payment from a
             man's own money, or what is equivalent to payment from his
             own money, to create a resulting trust.” Clark v. Timmons et
             al. (Tenn. Chy. App.), 39 S. W., 534, 535.

      Walker v. Walker, 2 Tenn. App. 279, 291 (1925). In other words, “a mere
      parol promise or an agreement by one person to purchase land and give
      another an interest therein” cannot give rise to a resulting trust. Greene v.
      Greene, 272 S.W.2d 483, 488 (1954). Rather, “[t]he trust arises, if at all,
      from the fact of payment of the consideration by the cestui que trust, and not
      from any agreement of the parties.” Walker v. Walker, 2 Tenn. App. 279,
      291 (1925). “Moreover, it must be shown that the beneficiary actually made
      payment, or incurred an absolute obligation to pay, as part of the original
      transaction of purchase.” Rowlett v. Guthrie, 867 S.W.2d 732, 735 (Tenn.
      Ct. App. 1993) (citing Livesay v. Keaton, 611 S.W.2d 581, 584 (Tenn.
      App.1980)).

Patterson v. Patterson, No. M2016-00886-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 1433310, at *5-*6
(Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2017). With the foregoing in mind, we turn to review the evidence
regarding the two properties.

                                    Stewart Property

       The Stewart Property was purchased in the name of “Jimmy L. Bass, a married
individual.” According to the testimony of Terri Bradford, a former employee of
Cumberland Bank & Trust, the circumstances surrounding the execution of the promissory
                                        -9-
note and deed of trust on the Stewart Property were as follows:

       Q [to Ms. Bradford]. So you did documents [i.e., the promissory note and
       deed of trust] to where [sic] Debbie Bass Simmons, [Mr. Bass’] daughter,
       was buying a piece of a property; is that correct?
       A. No.
       Q. Jimmy purchased the property. That’s what I asked at the beginning. Mr.
       Bass bought the property; is that correct?
       A. Correct.
       Q. Only Mr. Bass?
       A. Only Mr. Bass.
       Q. He was married at the time?
       A. He was married at the time.
       Q. And he bought the property at 6170 Highway 147, Stewart, Tennessee?
       A. Correct.
       Q. The loan was in his name?
       A. The loan was in his name.

Ms. Bradford further testified that she had no dealings with Mrs. Bass, and only Mr. Bass
and his daughter, Ms. Simmons, were present when the Stewart Property documents were
executed. Both Mr. Bass and Ms. Simmons testified that they agreed that Ms. Simmons
would ultimately take title of the Stewart Property so long as she paid the mortgage, taxes,
upkeep, and insurance (the homeowner’s policy was in the name of Mr. Bass and Ms.
Simmons) on the property. Ms. Simmons testified that she paid these expenses, to-wit:

       Q. Ms. Simmons, did you pay [Mrs.] Bass any rent money?
       A. No.
       Q. When you made a payment, who did you take the payment to?
       A. The bank. Cumberland Bank.

                                            ***

       Q. Okay. Do you know how much your mortgage payment was that you
       were paying?
       A. I still pay it. It’s 360-something, I believe.
       Q. And the property taxes on the house, have you paid those?
       A. Yes.
                                              ***

       Q. Okay. And as far as insurance on the house, do you pay for that?
       A. Yes.

Ms. Simmons also testified that she paid for improvements to the Stewart Property.
                                       - 10 -
However, as noted above, “the testimony of a single, interested witness would not be
sufficient to establish a trust by clear, cogent and convincing evidence.” King, 680 S.W.2d
at 459; see also Saddler v. Saddler, 59 S.W.3d 96, 99 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (citations
omitted) (“[T]he proof of a resulting trust must be of the clearest, most convincing, and
irrefragable character. The testimony of a single, interested witness typically is insufficient
to establish a resulting trust by clear, convincing, and irrefragable evidence.”). That being
said, we note that Ms. Bradford’s testimony appears to corroborate Ms. Simmons’, to-wit:

       Q [to Ms. Bradford]. And what did Ms. Simmons indicate to you at the time
       this loan was taken out?
       A. It was her home.
       Q. Okay. And after she indicated that to you, once payments began being
       made—at least when you were involved—who was making those payments?
       A. Debbie. Debbie Lynn.

The problem with this testimony is that Ms. Simmons was the person reporting the
foregoing information to Ms. Bradford. However, the real impediment to the creation of a
resulting trust is the fact that Mrs. Bass knew nothing about the purchase of the Stewart
Property, much less about the alleged agreement between Ms. Simmons and Mr. Bass. As
Mrs. Bass testified, “I didn't know about [Mr. Bass’ purchase of the Stewart Property] until
the day after we closed on the [Tennessee Ridge Property] . . . . Had I known, I would
have said stop because I was being deceived.” Indeed, in her testimony, Ms. Simmons
concedes that she had no agreement with Mrs. Bass:

       Q. Did you have an agreement with either of the Basses?
       A. With my dad.
       Q. Did you ever have an agreement with Ms. Bass?
       A. No.

The foregoing testimony lends credence to the statement in the trial court’s final order that,
“[T]here may be some collusion among Mr. Bass and his daughters as to the transfer of
these properties.” It is well settled that “‘[r]esulting trusts are those which arise where the
legal estate is . . . acquired, without bad faith, and under such circumstances that Equity
infers or assumes that the beneficial interest in said estate is not to go with the legal title.’”
In re Estate of Wardell, 674 S.W.2d at 295 (quoting Gibson’s Suits in Chancery, § 382
(6th ed.1982)) (emphasis added). While we decline to discuss whether the circumstances
surrounding the Stewart Property rise to the level of “collusion,” there is certainly evidence
that Ms. Simmons and Mr. Bass proceeded in bad faith as they failed to inform Mrs. Bass
of the purchase of the property, much less any arrangement regarding ownership of same.
It is a well-settled maxim that “[one] who seeks Equity must do Equity, and [one] who has
done inequity shall not have Equity.” See Segelke v. Segelke, 584 S.W.2d 211, 214 (Tenn.
Ct. App.1978) (quoting Gibson’s Suits in Chancery, § 970 (5th ed.1956)). Here, there is a
shadow of inequity on the part of Ms. Simmons and Mr. Bass that clouds Ms. Simmons’
                                              - 11 -
burden to provide “clear,” “cogent,” “convincing,” and “irrefragable” evidence that equity
demands a resulting trust. King, 680 S.W.2d at 459; Saddler, 59 S.W.3d at 99.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of a resulting trust over the Stewart Property.

                                Tennessee Ridge Property

       It is undisputed that the Tennessee Ridge Property was purchased with marital
funds. As Mr. Bass testified:

       Q [to Mr. Bass]. Now, the Tennessee Ridge [P]roperty, you took . . . a home
       equity loan out on property that you and [Mrs.] Bass owned and purchased
       [the Tennessee Ridge Property]?
       A. Yes, ma’am.
       Q. You took a home equity loan and paid cash for that property, correct?
       A. Yes, ma’am.

       Mrs. Bass testified that the Tennessee Ridge Property was bought as an investment
property, but Appellees allowed Ms. Teague to live there, to-wit:

       Jimmy and I decided to buy [the Tennessee Ridge Property] as an investment
       property. [Ms. Teague] could live there. When she found something she
       wanted bigger, we’d just continue to rent it or we could sell it. Either way,
       that was the way I went into it.

        Mrs. Bass testified that she prepared month-to-month leases for both properties and
asked Mr. Bass to have the Appellants sign them, but no lease(s) were signed. Nonetheless,
it is undisputed that Ms. Teague deposited $550.00 per month into an account at Regions
Bank that was held jointly by Appellees. Then, approximately $549.00 per month was
automatically debited from the Appellees’ joint account to pay the home equity line of
credit (“HELOC”) that was used to pay the purchase price for the Tennessee Ridge
Property. However, Mrs. Bass testified that there were months when Ms. Teague did not
pay the $550.00, which caused Appellees to have to sell marital assets, i.e., jointly-owned
livestock, to satisfy the HELOC payments, to-wit:

       Q. Did your husband ever make statements to you that [Ms. Teague was]
       either behind or didn’t have the money to make the payment?
       A. He did.
       Q. And what were the statements?
       A. He said he would pay it and [Ms. Teague] would pay him back.
       Q. Okay. And you took him at his word?
       A. Yeah.
       Q. So the money that would have been paid towards [HELOC, which was
       used to purchase the Tennessee Ridge Property] was your money, yours and
                                          - 12 -
      Mr. Bass’s money?
      A. Yeah. I mean, I considered it rent . . . .

                                             ***

      Q. Was there ever a conversation about selling livestock to pay payments on
      the two rental properties?

                                             ***

      A. Yes.
      Q. To your knowledge, was that done?
      A. Yes, to my knowledge, it was.

        No records were admitted to show the deposits and withdrawals from the Appellees’
joint account at Regions Bank, nor were any documents admitted concerning the terms of
Appellees’ HELOC. Nonetheless, it is undisputed that, when Appellees’ marital residence
was sold, approximately $52,749.34 of the proceeds from that sale was used to pay off the
HELOC, i.e., the debt remaining on the purchase of the Tennessee Ridge Property. Ms.
Teague testified that, even after the HELOC was paid off, she continued to make deposits
to Appellees’ joint account. Again, no bank records were admitted to corroborate her
statement, and “the testimony of a single, interested witness would not be sufficient to
establish a trust by clear, cogent and convincing evidence.” King, 680 S.W.2d at 459;
Saddler, 59 S.W.3d at 99. Indeed, Mrs. Bass’ testimony contradicts Ms. Teague’s.
Specifically, Mrs. Bass testified that she never received any money from Ms. Teague after
the HELOC was paid, to-wit:

      Q. After the [marital] property was sold [and a portion of the funds were
      used to pay off the HELOC], have you received any payment [from Ms.
      Teague]?
      A. No.
      Q. Did you get reimbursed for the . . . $52,795.34 taken out of the sale of
      your primary residence to pay [the HELOC]?
      A. I’ve got nothing since December of 2020. [Ms. Teague has] been living
      in a house that’s half mine rent-free . . . [Ms. Teague] didn’t make the
      December payment, so it shows one payment late. She made the November
      payment. She knew [the marital property] was going to sell, so she didn’t
      even pay the rent payment for December.

       More damaging to Ms. Teague’s position is Mrs. Bass’ testimony that Ms. Teague
withdrew funds from the Regions Bank account without Mrs. Bass’ knowledge. As Mrs.
Bass stated:
                                       - 13 -
       Q [to Mrs. Bass]. Okay. And what happened to that checking account at
       Regions Bank where [the HELOC payments were] automatically drafted
       out?
        A. Well, supposedly, [Ms. Teague] was [Mr. Bass’] [Power of Attorney
       (“POA”)] for a period of time. . . .

                                            ***

       Q. I asked you what happened to the account where the money [i.e., Ms.
       Teague’s monthly payments of $550.00] was going. Was that account
       closed?
       A. It was closed out by Maranda [Teague] signed as [Mr. Bass’] POA.

                                            ***

       Q. And it was closed using a power of attorney?
       A. Uh-huh. (Affirmative).

                                            ***

       Q. And whose name was subscribed to—
       A. Her name. We’ve got a canceled [check].
       Q. Who is “her”?
       A. I’m sorry. Maranda Teague.
       Q. Okay. So you [i.e., Mrs. Bass] had no access to an account to get the
       money.

                                            ***

       A. Right.

       As noted above, “a mere parol promise or an agreement by one person to purchase
land and give another an interest therein” cannot give rise to a resulting trust. Patterson,
2017 WL 1433310, at 6 (citing Greene, 272 S.W.2d at 488). Rather, “it must be shown that
the beneficiary actually made payment, or incurred an absolute obligation to pay, as part
of the original transaction of purchase.” Id. (citing Rowlett, 867 S.W.2d at 735 (citation
omitted)). Here, the purchase money for the Tennessee Ridge Property was derived from
a HELOC on the marital residence, so there can be no dispute that Ms. Teague neither paid
the purchase price nor “incurred an absolute obligation to pay.” While it appears that Ms.
Teague did make some monthly payments to Appellees’ joint account, and a portion of the
HELOC debt was paid from the same account, Ms. Teague apparently withdrew funds (in
what amount we do not know) from that account. Furthermore, it is undisputed that marital
funds from the sale of the marital residence were used to satisfy more than $52,000.00 of
                                           - 14 -
the purchase-price debt on the Tennessee Ridge Property. Given the competing testimonies
in this case, and the totality of the circumstances surrounding the purchase of the Tennessee
Ridge Property, we conclude that Ms. Teague failed to meet her burden to provide the
“clearest, most convincing, and irrefragable” “proof of a resulting trust.” Saddler, 59
S.W.3d at 99 (citations omitted). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision not to
impose a resulting trust on the Tennessee Ridge Property.

                                      V. Conclusion

      For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s order is affirmed, and the case is
remanded for such further proceedings as may be necessary and are consistent with this
opinion. Costs of the appeal are assessed to the Appellants, Debbie Lynn Simmons and
Maranda Teague, for all of which execution may issue if necessary.

                                                       s/ Kenny Armstrong
                                                    KENNY ARMSTRONG, JUDGE

                                           - 15 -