## Facts

- David Rivkin and Lori Postal began a romantic relationship in 1994 while Rivkin was married; they later cohabited.
- Postal became pregnant, and a child was born in September 1995.
- Rivkin was the sole financial provider and paid for an affluent lifestyle, including a house in Williamson County, horses, and a nanny.
- Rivkin acquired the house and conveyed title to himself and Postal as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
- Postal asserted Rivkin promised to marry her after his divorce; she told her parents they would marry and wore a ring she had ordered herself after Rivkin declined to buy one.
- Rivkin’s divorce became final in March 1997; he ended the relationship in June 1997.
- Rivkin sued for partition of jointly owned real property and return of personal property; Postal counterclaimed for breach of promise to marry.
- After a bench trial, the chancery court divided the jointly owned property and awarded Postal $150,000 on the breach-of-promise claim; both parties appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Postal proved an enforceable promise or contract of marriage under Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-3-401 to -405 and related contract principles.
2. Whether Postal proved compensable damages caused by the failure of marriage to occur.
3. Whether the trial court equitably divided the jointly owned real property and properly resolved disputes over Rivkin’s personal property, including a family cedar chest.

## Decision

- The court reversed the $150,000 judgment for breach of promise to marry.
- The court held the evidence did not support a finding that an enforceable promise to marry existed.
- The court also held the evidence did not support a finding that Postal suffered compensable damages from the nonoccurrence of marriage.
- The court largely affirmed the trial court’s property rulings, with a limited modification concerning a cedar chest belonging to Rivkin’s grandmother.

## Legal Principles

- A breach-of-promise-to-marry claim is governed by Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-3-401 to -405, including strict evidentiary requirements.
- Under § 36-3-401, a promise or contract of marriage must be proven by signed written evidence or by testimony of at least two disinterested witnesses.
- Breach-of-promise-to-marry claims are analyzed using contract concepts requiring proof of an offer of marriage, acceptance, and consideration (a mutual promise to marry suffices).
- Cohabitation, financial support, and informal discussions or expectations of marriage do not, without the statutory proof, establish an enforceable marriage contract.
- Damages must be supported by evidence of actual loss attributable to the breach; speculative awards are not permitted in this statutory setting.

## Conclusion

The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed an award for breach of promise to marry because the claimant failed to meet the statute’s proof requirements and failed to show damages from the absence of marriage, while otherwise affirming the trial court’s equitable handling of the parties’ jointly titled property with a narrow adjustment for a disputed family heirloom.


Rivkin v. Postal, No. M1999-01947-COA-R3-CV, 2001 WL 1077952 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2001)