## Facts

- Elvis A. Presley allegedly promised Jo Laverne Alden that he would pay expenses connected to her divorce, advance funds to buy out her husband’s equity in her home, and pay off the remaining mortgage balance.
- Alden, Ginger Alden’s mother, sought a divorce from her husband and claimed she acted in reliance on Presley’s assurances.
- On August 1, 1977, Alden and her husband executed a property settlement in which Alden paid $5,325 for her husband’s equity; her husband deeded his interest to her and was released from further mortgage liability, with the mortgage balance about $39,587.66.
- The divorce court reserved approval of the property settlement agreement until entry of the final decree; the agreement was not binding until court approval.
- Presley died on August 16, 1977, before paying off the mortgage.
- On August 25, 1977, estate counsel informed Alden the estate would not pay the mortgage debt.
- Despite notice of repudiation, Alden later obtained a final divorce decree incorporating the original property settlement, without disclosing to the divorce court that the estate had refused to honor the promise.
- Alden sued the estate on February 14, 1978, seeking to enforce the promise to pay the mortgage.

## Issues

1. Whether a decedent’s gratuitous promise to pay another’s mortgage can be enforced against the estate under promissory estoppel.
2. Whether Alden showed reasonable and justified reliance after receiving notice that the estate would not perform.
3. Whether Alden proved definite, substantial, and legally cognizable detriment where the divorce property settlement remained subject to court approval and could have been modified before it became binding.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated judgment for the estate, dismissing Alden’s claim.
- The court treated the alleged commitment to pay the mortgage as a gratuitous promise that was not consummated as a completed gift.
- Promissory estoppel did not apply because Alden failed to prove both reasonable reliance and actual detrimental reliance.
- Any continued reliance after the estate’s express repudiation was not justified, particularly because Alden had an opportunity to avoid or mitigate harm in the divorce proceeding before the settlement became binding.

## Legal Principles

- A gratuitous promise, without more, is generally unenforceable; an uncompleted gift cannot be enforced absent the elements required for a completed transfer.
- Promissory estoppel requires (1) a promise expected to induce action or forbearance, (2) actual inducement of definite and substantial action or forbearance, and (3) enforcement as the only means to avoid injustice.
- Reliance must be both reasonable (justified) and detrimental; action taken after clear notice of nonperformance is ordinarily not justified when the promisee can avoid the alleged harm.
- Where a claimed detriment is tied to an agreement subject to court approval, the promisee may fail to show substantial detriment if the agreement could have been altered or rejected before becoming legally binding.

## Conclusion

The court declined to impose liability on the estate for an unconsummated, gratuitous promise because Alden did not establish reasonable, detrimental reliance, particularly after she was informed the estate would not perform and still had procedural means to avoid binding harm in the divorce case.


Alden v. Presley, 637 S.W.2d 862 (Tenn. 1982)