Tennessee Supreme Court Creates Alternate Remand Remedy Under Thirteenth Juror Rule in Civil Trials

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...