Patterson v. Patterson
Tennessee Court of Appeals
2017 WL 1433310 (2017)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Peggy Patterson and Milburn Patterson bought a house in 2003. Shane Patterson, Milburn’s son from a previous marriage, began living in the house after they bought it. Shane did not contribute to the down payment, participate in closing, or sign an agreement obligating him to pay for the property. However, Shane alleged that before Peggy and Milburn bought the house, they agreed to eventually convey the home to him in exchange for his payment of the mortgage and other expenses. After Milburn’s death in 2015, Peggy sued to eject Shane from the property. Shane counterclaimed, seeking a resulting trust or, in the alternative, damages for unjust enrichment. At trial, Shane testified that he had made $37,000 worth of improvements to the property. The trial court denied Shane’s request for a resulting trust, reasoning that no such trust could exist because Shane had not furnished consideration for the purchase of the home. Instead, the court awarded possession of the property to Peggy and ordered Peggy to pay Shane $37,000 in unjust-enrichment damages. Both Shane and Peggy appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stafford, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
