• CASE 10-2 THELMA AGNES SMITH V. DAVID PHILLIP RILEY COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE, EASTERN SECTION, AT KNOXVILLE 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 65 enforced the agreements and divided the parties\' property. the defendant appealed, arguing that the agreements lacked consideration and were void as they were against public policy. ISSUE: Is $1 plus love and affection adequate consider- ation for the two agreements between Smith and Riley? REASONING: In the court\'s own words (abridged and slightly modified): FACTS: Smith and Riley lived together out of wedlock for several years. They opened a joint checking account and, over time, both Smith and Riley deposited money into the account. In addition, Riley entered into a lease with Jerry Strickland and Wanda Strickland with respect to a residence owned by them. The lease was accompanied by an option to purchase. Almost four months later, Smith and Riley asked their attorney to prepare a bill of sale and an assignment. In the bill of sale, Riley transferred to Smith a one-half undivided interest in seven items of personal property. Riley also assigned to Smith a one- half undivided interest in the lease and option to pur- chase with the Stricklands; this interest included a right of survivorship in the one-half interest retained by Riley. The property Riley sold and assigned to Smith in the two agreements was stated in each to be \"for and in consid- eration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other and good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged.\" When the relationship ended, Smith filed suit against Riley in the trial court, seeking the dissolution of their domestic partnership and seeking to enforce the two written agreements with Riley regarding the sale and assignment of property to her. The trial court It is a well-settled principle of contract law that in order for a contract to be binding, it must, among other things, be sup ported by sufficient consideration. In expounding on the adequacy of consideration, the court has stated that it is not necessary that the benelit conferred or the detriment suffered by the promisee shall be equal to the responsibility assumed. Any consideration, however small, will support a promise. In the absence of fraud, the courts will not undertake to regulate the amount of the consideration. The parties are left to contract for themselves, taking for granted that the consideration is one valuable in the eyes of the law. Quoting the United States Supreme Court, the court went on to state that \"La stipulation in consideration of $1 (continued) is just as effectual and valuable a consideration as a larger affectionis further evidence of sufficient consideration sum stipulated for or paid.\" Indeed, the consideration of to support these conveyances. love and affection has been deemed sufficient to support a conveyance. Both the bill of sale and the assignment DECISION AND REMEDY: The judgment of the trial recite that they are undertaken \"for and in consideration court was affirmed. The case was remanded for enforce- of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other and good and ment of the judgment and for collection of costs. Costs on valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby appeal were taxed to the appellant, Riley. acknowledged.\" Facially, the documents are therefore supported by sufficient consideration, as clearly recog- SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE: This case demon- nized by the Supreme Court. Moreover, Smith\'s \"society strates that courts will generally not consider the adequacy and consortium\"-a concept comparable to the love and of consideration. CRITICAL THINKING What is the reasoning of the appellant in terms of why the consideration was not adequate to cause the contracts to be enforceable? What key rule of law did this reasoning overlook? ETHICAL DECISION MAKING What values are being advanced by the logic of the relevant rule of law in this case? In other words, what values prevent the rule of law from being that consideration must be in an amount similar in value to the item or services being transferred for the contract to be enforceable?