Nashville, Tenn. - The Tennessee Supreme Court today ruled that when a trial judge misunderstands their role as the "thirteenth juror" in a civil case, appellate courts should remand the case to the trial judge for review instead of mandating a new trial. Under the "thirteenth juror" rule, the trial judge independently reviews evidence and decides whether they agree with the jury's verdict. If there is disagreement, a retrial is required.
The case involves Charles Walker and Jon Paul Johnson, accused of filing forged documents asserting fraudulent interests in properties sold at tax sales where Plaintiffs held proprietary interests. Before the trial, several Plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment and misappropriation of a right of redemption were dismissed following a hearing on Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.
After a six-day trial, the jury found in favor of Defendants on all counts except one count of fraudulent misrepresentation by one Plaintiff against Defendant Walker. Plaintiffs filed for a new trial. At the hearing, the trial court denied this motion but indicated it had misunderstood its role as thirteenth juror by deferring to the jury rather than making an independent judgment on the evidence.
Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that this misunderstanding necessitated a new trial. The Court of Appeals agreed and remanded for a new trial while upholding dismissals of unjust enrichment and misappropriation claims.
Defendants sought permission to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court, requesting an alternative remedy: remand for the trial court to fulfill its thirteenth juror role. Plaintiffs also sought to appeal dismissals of their unjust enrichment and misappropriation claims.
The Supreme Court held that when a civil trial court misconceives its thirteenth juror role under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.06, appellate courts should remand for proper fulfillment of this role. If unable to do so upon remand, only then must a new trial be ordered.
Additionally, the Court reversed the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claims by ruling that such claims do not require voluntary conferral of benefits. However, it declined to create a new tort for misappropriation of statutory rights of redemption.
To read Justice Dwight E. Tarwater's unanimous opinion in Family Trust Services, LLC v. Green Wise Homes, LLC, visit TNcourts.gov.
---