David Rivkin v. Lori Postal
Filed September 14, 2001 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-401, a breach of promise to marry claim must be proven by either a signed writing or the testimony of at least two disinterested witnesses. A witness is not 'disinterested' if they have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the outcome of the litigation, such as being a creditor to the plaintiff who expects repayment from the judgment.
Facts:
- In April 1994, David Rivkin, a married but separated music producer, met and began a romantic relationship with Lori Postal.
- The two began living together, and Rivkin provided an affluent lifestyle for Postal and supported her financially.
- In early 1995, Postal became pregnant with Rivkin's child, who was born in September 1995.
- After the child's birth, the couple moved to Williamson County, where Rivkin purchased a $420,000 home and later executed a quitclaim deed granting Postal a joint interest with right of survivorship.
- To appease her family, Postal insisted on having an engagement ring; she ordered one herself, which Rivkin eventually paid for. Postal told her parents they planned to marry, and Rivkin did not contradict her.
- In August 1996, Postal accused Rivkin of molesting their child, which led to a court order requiring him to leave the house. He was eventually cleared of all charges, but the allegations damaged their relationship.
- Rivkin was divorced from his wife in March 1997.
- In June 1997, after having asked for the ring back a month prior, Rivkin informed Postal that their relationship was over.
Procedural Posture:
- In September 1997, David Rivkin filed suit against Lori Postal in the Chancery Court for Williamson County, seeking partition of jointly-owned property and the return of his personal property.
- Postal filed a counterclaim against Rivkin for breach of promise to marry.
- The parties agreed to sell their jointly-owned house and place the proceeds in escrow pending the litigation's outcome.
- Postal's father attempted to intervene in the lawsuit to recover money he had loaned to his daughter.
- After a bench trial, the trial court found that Rivkin had breached a promise to marry Postal and awarded her $150,000 in damages.
- The trial court also divided the parties' property, which included awarding Postal half the proceeds from the house sale and a truck, while reducing her award by $2,000 for damage to Rivkin's property.
- Both Rivkin (as appellant) and Postal (as appellee/cross-appellant) appealed the judgment of the Chancery Court to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the testimony of a plaintiff's parents, who are also her creditors and expect to be repaid from any award, satisfy the statutory requirement under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-401 for two 'disinterested witnesses' to prove a breach of promise to marry claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Koch, Jr., J.
No. The testimony of a plaintiff's parents, who are also her creditors, does not satisfy the statutory requirement for two 'disinterested witnesses' needed to prove a breach of promise to marry. The court found that Lori Postal failed to meet the strict evidentiary burden required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-401. First, the quitclaim deed Rivkin executed was not sufficient 'written evidence' of a marriage promise, as it did not mention marriage and could have served other purposes, such as providing for their child. Second, Postal's only corroborating witnesses were her parents. The court defined a 'disinterested witness' as one who has no legal stake, financial or otherwise, in the outcome of the case. Because both of Postal's parents had loaned her significant amounts of money and testified that they expected to be repaid from her recovery in the lawsuit, they had a direct pecuniary interest and were therefore not disinterested. Without either a signed writing or two disinterested witnesses, Postal's claim for breach of promise to marry failed as a matter of law. The court reversed the $150,000 damage award but affirmed the division of most of the property, finding the interest in the house and the truck were valid gifts to Postal.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and reinforces the high evidentiary bar for breach of promise to marry claims in Tennessee. By providing a clear definition of a 'disinterested witness,' the court significantly narrows the pool of individuals who can validly corroborate such a claim, effectively excluding anyone with a financial stake in the outcome, including creditors. This ruling makes it much more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in these actions, aligning with the legislature's historical intent to curb potential abuses of the cause of action. The case serves as a strong precedent for strictly interpreting statutory requirements in 'heartbalm' actions and emphasizes that familial relationship combined with a financial interest disqualifies a witness as 'disinterested'.
