Finally, we note that this Court has upheld the existence of oral trusts for life insurance proceeds. Cook v. Cook, 559 S.W.2d 329 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1977) (holding that the proceeds of a life insurance policy, for which the decedent's brother was named the beneficiary, was intended to be held in a trust to pay the settlor's debts, establish a farming operation for settlor's stepson, and utilize the remainder for the settlor's son, rather than for the benefit of the settlor's brother under the facts of the case); see also Thatcher by Van Story v. Wyatt, No. 02A01-9605-CH-00114, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 332 (Tenn.Ct.App. May 15, 1997) (holding that the proceeds of a life insurance policy, naming the defendant as the beneficiary, were intended to be held in trust, under the facts and circumstances of the case, for the benefit of the decedent's child with the plaintiff and defendant as co-trustees; the Court further modified the trust by naming the plaintiff the sole trustee). The most significant fact for this Court on appeal is that the record lacks a transcript of the proceedings or a statement of the evidence.

The Tennessee Raineys assert that the issue of the life insurance proceeds is controlled by the two appellate opinions issued in the case of Cook v. Cook, 521 S.W.2d 808 (Tenn. 1975) and 559 S.W.2d 329 (Tenn. App. 1977). However, we find that case to be inapposite to the facts here.

The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Chancery Court for a determination as to the terms of an oral express trust. Ultimately these terms were established. See Cook v. Cook, 559 S.W.2d 329 (Tenn. App.W.S. 1977), cert. denied, id. (Tenn. 1977).