Day on Torts
Where the plaintiff’s only proof supporting his promissory fraud claim related to the defendant’s conduct months after the alleged misrepresentation was made, summary judgment for the defendant was affirmed.
In Johnson v. LeFeve, No. M2024-01484-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2026), the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant based on an oral promise that the defendant would pay the plaintiff ten percent of the profits from two companies owned by the defendant for work done by the plaintiff. This promise was allegedly made in June 2021. Following this promise, the plaintiff was involved in the sale of certain property owned by the businesses, which closed in November 2021. After closing, the defendant failed to pay the plaintiff the promised ten percent of profits, and the plaintiff filed this case asserting promissory fraud and various contract claims.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant on all claims. Regarding the fraud claim, the trial court ruled that the alleged promise lacked definiteness and that “there was no proof that Defendants intended not to pay Plaintiff.” On appeal, the ruling was affirmed based only on the lack of proof of intent.
A plaintiff claiming promissory fraud must show “(1) an intentional misrepresentation with regard to a material fact, (2) knowledge of the representation’s falsity…, (3) that the plaintiff reasonably relied on the misrepresentation and suffered damage, and (4) …the misrepresentation must embody a promise of future action without the present intention to carry out the promise.” (internal citation omitted).
The trial court granted summary judgment on the fraud claim based on two grounds—that the promise was “too indefinite to sustain a claim for fraud,” and that there was no proof that the defendant did not intend to keep the promise when it was made. Regarding the first ground, the Court of Appeals disagreed that the promise to pay ten percent of profit lacked the required definiteness for a fraud claim. The Court of Appeals agreed, however, with the second ground.
The plaintiff was required to show that the defendant “made the promise without the present intention to carry it out.” The plaintiff asserted that the defendant’s evasiveness after the property sale closed supported “an inference of fraudulent intent,” but the Court pointed out that proof that “a promise was made that was later not kept” was “insufficient to support an inference that the defendant never intended to keep his promise.” (internal citation omitted).
The plaintiff asserted that the defendant’s statements as early as June 2021 were fraudulent. All of the plaintiff’s evidence, however, focused on the defendant’s conduct in November 2021. The Court wrote that “proof that [the defendant] acted suspiciously when it came time to perform his alleged oral promise is not evidence that Defendants never intended to keep [the defendant’s] promise at the time the promise was allegedly made.” The Court explained that evidence that the defendant acted suspiciously in November “equally as likely…indicate[d] that Defendants changed their mind about paying the alleged bonus after the promise was made.”
Because the plaintiff had no proof that the defendant did not intend to keep the promise when it was made, summary judgment on the promissory fraud claim was affirmed.
This opinion was released six months after oral arguments in this case.