These claimants were pursuing an express contract claim to rebut the presumption that their services had been gratuitous. Schulze v. Vires (In re Estate of Vires), No. W2000-02953-COA-R3-CV, 2002 WL 1760502, at *4 (Tenn.Ct.App. Apr.10, 2002), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 7, 2002) (noting that the parties were living together for their mutual benefit); Estate of Nease v. Sane, No. 03A01-9104-CH-00150, 1991 WL 220594, at *2 (Tenn.Ct.App. Nov. 1, 1991), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 9, 1992) (noting that the parties had lived together for fifteen years ostensibly as husband and wife for their own mutual benefit); McGinnis v. Estate of Carpenter, Hawkins Chanc. 30, 1985 Tenn.App. LEXIS 3009, at *1 (Tenn.Ct.App. July 16, 1985) (No Tenn. R.App. P. 11 application filed) (the claimant and the decedent had seriously discussed marriage but postponed the wedding for financial reasons).

The trial court's decision must be reviewed de novo, presuming the trial court's findings of fact to be correct unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. In re Estate ofVires, No. W2000-02953-COA-R3-CV, 2002 WL 1760502, at *2 (Tenn.Ct.App. Apr. 10, 2002). Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, with no such presumption of correctness.