Tennessee Supreme Court Creates Alternative Reconsideration Under Thirteenth Jury Rule in Civil Trials

Nashville, Tenn. – The Tennessee Supreme Court recently ruled that when a trial judge misunderstands his role as the “thirteenth juror” in a civil case, appellate courts must send the case back to the trial judge for review rather than automatically requiring the parties to have a new trial. Under what’s called the “thirteenth juror” rule, the trial judge independently reviews the evidence and, acting as a “thirteenth juror,” decides whether he agrees with the verdict of the twelve jurors. If he disagrees, the parties must retry the case.

The case involves two men, Charles Walker and Jon Paul Johnson, who were accused of filing forged documents claiming a fraudulent interest in property sold at tax sales in which the plaintiffs had an ownership interest. Before trial, the court dismissed several plaintiffs’ claims for unjust enrichment and misappropriation of a right of redemption after a hearing on defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.

After a six-day trial, the jury found for the defendants on all counts except one count of fraudulent misrepresentation by a plaintiff against defendant Walker. The plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial. At a hearing on the motion, the trial court denied the motion, but made comments indicating that it had misunderstood its role as the thirteenth juror by improperly remanding the jury instead of making an independent judgment about the weight of the evidence.

Plaintiffs appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court misunderstood her role as the thirteenth juror, necessitating a new trial. The Court of Appeals agreed that the trial court misunderstood her role as the thirteenth juror and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims of unjust enrichment and misappropriation of redemption rights.

Defendants then sought leave to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court, asking the court to grant a novel, alternative remedy in lieu of a new trial: remand so that the trial court can fulfill its role as thirteenth juror. Plaintiffs also sought leave to appeal the trial court’s dismissal of their claims for unjust enrichment and misappropriation of a right of redemption.

The Court held that when a civil court misconstrues her role as the thirteenth juror under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.06, the appellate courts must now remand the case to allow the trial court to fulfill her role as the thirteenth juror. If the trial court is unable to fulfill her role as the thirteenth juror upon remand, only then may the trial court order a new trial.

The Court also held that a claim of unjust enrichment does not require a voluntary grant of a benefit, thereby overturning the Court of Appeal’s affirmation of the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims for unjust enrichment. Furthermore, the Court rejected plaintiffs’ invitation to create a new tort for the misappropriation of a statutory right to redemption.

To read the unanimous opinion in Family Trust Services, LLC v. Green Wise Homes, LLCwritten by Judge Dwight E. Tarwater, visit the opinions section at TNcourts.gov.