Nashville, Tenn- The Tennessee Supreme Court recently held that, when a trial judge misunderstands his role as “thirteenth juror” in a civil case, appellate courts should send the case back to the trial judge to review the case instead of automatically requiring the parties to go through a new trial. Under what is called the “thirteenth juror” rule, the trial judge independently reviews the evidence and, acting as a kind of “thirteenth juror,” decides whether he agrees with the verdict of the twelve jurors. If he disagrees, the parties must re-try the case.
The case involves two men, Charles Walker and Jon Paul Johnson, who were accused of filing forged documents asserting a fraudulent interest in properties sold at tax sales to which Plaintiffs held a proprietary interest. Prior to trial, the trial court dismissed several Plaintiffs’ claims for unjust enrichment and misappropriation of a right of redemption following a hearing on Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.
After a six-day trial, the jury found for Defendants on all counts except for one count of fraudulent misrepresentation by one Plaintiff against Defendant Walker. Plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial. At a hearing on the motion, the trial court denied the motion but made remarks indicating it misconceived its role as thirteenth juror by improperly deferring to the jury rather than making an independent judgment as to the weight of the evidence.
Plaintiffs appealed, arguing among other claims that the trial court misconceived its role as thirteenth juror, requiring a new trial. The Court of Appeals agreed that the trial court misconceived its thirteenth juror role and remanded to the trial court for a new trial. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment and misappropriation of right of redemption claims.
Defendants then sought permission to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court, asking the Court to grant a new, alternative remedy in lieu of a new trial: remand for the trial court to fulfill its role as thirteenth juror. Plaintiffs likewise sought permission 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 trial court misconceives its role as thirteenth juror under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.06, appellate courts are now to remand to allow the trial court to fulfill its role as thirteenth juror. If the trial court is unable to fulfill the role of thirteenth juror upon remand, only then must the trial court order a new trial.
The Court also held that a claim of unjust enrichment does not require a voluntary conferral of a benefit, thus reversing the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of the trial court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claims. In addition, the Court declined Plaintiffs’ invitation to create a new tort for the misappropriation of a statutory right of redemption.
To read the unanimous opinion in Family Trust Services, LLC v. Green Wise Homes, LLC, authored by Justice Dwight E. Tarwater, visit the opinions section of TNcourts.gov.
