ÿWPCO …# VU:a %› 0(¡U <Éw@ 4E Y h 0Jp 0Tº 0^ 0hl 0rÔ 0|F 0†Â 0H 1uØ U,M 0dy U,Ý U* B)3DC\ AMŸ BìÝ v~ævÓd D37 0@j AOªÆù 0D¿ D/ B2˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 , øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman pqDrsDtDuvDwÓ€‚Gav C %3|x‚2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d ÓÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌMay€3,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€  X„d&ÓÑ#€  Xd#ÑÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€Ôò ò›œßL€$&#;+'h|2Õ` ç `€€L߀€›IN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌ_______________________________________________ÌÌÌÓ  ÓTHOMAS€W.€HARRISON,à àà àà à)ÌTERRY€HARRISON,€andà àà àà à)ÌBRENDA€HARRISON€KENNAMORE,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiffs/Appellees,ò òà àà à)€€€Giles€Chancery€No.€7581Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€C.A.€No.€01A01„9505„CH„00192Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌEARL€LAURSEN,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendant/Appellant.ò òà àà à)ó óÌÌÌÓ  Óò òAPPEAL€FROM€GILES€COUNTY€CHANCERY€COURTÌTHE€HONORABLE€JIM€T.€HAMILTON,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ` °ŽX&Ø'‹XÓRobert€L.€Holloway,€Jr.Ìó óColumbia,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantÌÌÌò òM.€Andrew€HooverÌJack€B.€HenryÌœAndrew›€Hoover€&€AttorneysÌó óPulaski,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€AppelleesÌÓ ` °šXÓÌÌÌÓ  Óò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________________ÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€H.€WILLIAMS,€SENIORÏJUDGEó óÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌFARMER,€J.ÌÑ7€Ÿ¶XXdæXXdæ7ÑØØÙ  ÙÓ  ÓPRELIMINARY€STATEMENTó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThis€is€an€appeal€of€a€nonjury€action€in€chancery€form€originallyÏbrought€to€rescind€a€contract€for€the€sale€of€real€estate€and€for€damagesÏto€real€property.€€The€complaint€was€filed€on€January€22,€1991.€€FourÏseparate€hearings€have€been€held€in€this€cause.€€The€first€hearing€was€heldÏwithout€intervention€of€a€jury.€€The€second€and€third€hearings€were€heardÏin€the€presence€of€a€jury,€and€the€fourth€hearing€in€this€cause€was€heldÏwithout€a€jury.€€Following€the€fourth€trial€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€GilesÏCounty,€Tennessee,€the€chancellor€entered€a€judgment€against€appellantÏfor€$22,279.59.€€The€defendant,€Earl€Laursen,€timely€filed€a€notice€ofÍappeal€from€the€final€order€entered€January€9,€1995.€€The€defendant,ÏDelorita€Laursen,€did€not€perfect€her€appeal€by€filing€a€notice€of€appealÏand€is€not€before€this€Court.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòTown€of€Carthage,€Tennessee,€et€al.Ïv.€Smith€County,€Tennesseeóó,€No.€01„A„01„9308„CH„00391€(Tenn.€App.,ÏMarch€8,€1995).€€The€appeal€by€the€defendant/appellant,€Earl€Laursen,€hasÏbeen€perfected€and€is€properly€before€this€Court.€€The€appellant€contendsÏthat€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€having€a€jury€hear€the€fourth€case€and€inÏassessing€damages€to€the€real€property.€€We€reverse€and€remand€forÏreasons€that€will€hereinafter€be€shown.ÌÌÓ  Óò òISSUESó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€issues€of€the€appellant€are€as€follows:ÌÓÓà àòò1.€€Whether€the€trial€court€committed€error€in€granting€appelleesððÏmotion€to€allow€the€trial€court€to€determine€the€issues€without€theÏintervention€of€a€jury.ÌÌà à2.€€Whether€the€evidence€presented€was€sufficient€to€warrant€theÏaward€of€damages€granted€by€the€trial€court€for€the€diminution€of€value€toÏthe€property€and€the€loss€of€rental€value€of€the€pastures.óóÌÓÓà àÌÓ  Óò òSTATEMENT€OF€FACTSÌÓ  Óà àó óPlaintiffs/Appellees,€Terry€William€Harrison,€Thomas€W.€Harrison,Ïand€Brenda€Harrison€Kennamore,€(hereinafter€ð ðappelleesðð),€owned€128Íacres€of€real€property€in€Giles€County,€Tennessee.€€The€property€includedÏ85€acres€of€pasture€land,€fences,€and€a€two„story,€seven„room€farmhouse.€ÏThe€defendant/appellant,€Earl€Laursen€(hereinafter€ð ðappellantðð),€purchasedÏthe€property€from€appellees€in€January,€1988.€€The€appellant€purchased€theÏproperty€for€$1,000€per€acre€for€a€total€purchase€price€of€$128,000.€€TheÏpurchase€price€was€to€be€paid€as€follows:€$5,500€as€earnest€money€was€toÏbe€applied€to€the€purchase€price,€appellant€was€to€assume€the€$86,797.67Ïmortgage€loan,€and€the€remaining€balance€of€$35,702.32€was€to€be€paid€toÏappellees€with€eight€percent€(8%)€interest.€€The€appellant€took€possessionÏof€the€land€in€March,€1988.€€After€having€made€regular€payments€for€overÏtwo€years,€appellant€stopped€making€payments€in€August,€1990.€€OnÏNovember€7,€1990,€appellees€declared€the€contract€breached€and€enteredÏand€took€possession.Ìà àAppellees€filed€a€complaint€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€Giles€County€onÏJanuary€22,€1991€requesting€that€the€January,€1988€contract€between€theÏparties€be€rescinded,€that€all€mortgage€payments€made€by€appellant€beÏforfeited,€and€that€appellant€be€required€to€pay€for€damages€to€the€land.€ÏThe€appellant€and€spouse€filed€an€answer€and€counter„complaint€in€whichÏthey€demanded,€òòinteróó€òòaliaóó,€a€jury€trial.€€A€trial€was€held€without€a€jury€onÏApril€11,€1991€(hereinafter€ð ðfirst€trialðð).€€The€trial€court€ordered€theÍcontract€rescinded,€all€monies€paid€by€appellant€were€forfeited,€andÏdamages€were€awarded€to€appellees.€€On€appeal,€this€Court€modified€theÏchancellorððs€determination€and€remanded€the€cause€by€order€and€opinionÏentered€October€23,€1992.€€Specifically,€this€Court€held€that€the€appellantÏwas€entitled€to€recover€for€amounts€paid€on€the€purchase€price€plus€taxes.€ÏAppellees€were€entitled€to€be€compensated€for€the€use€of€the€land€while€itÏwas€in€the€appellantððs€possession.€€Also,€if€the€land€appreciated€in€value,Ïappellant€was€entitled€to€the€increase,€and€if€the€land€depreciated,Ïappellees€were€entitled€to€the€decrease.€€The€cause€was€remanded€to€theÏtrial€court.€€Ìà àIn€December,€1992,€appellant€moved€for€and€was€granted€a€jury€trialÏon€the€remaining€issues€in€the€cause.€€On€May€17€and€18,€1993,€appellantÏtried€the€case,€òòproóó€òòseóó,€before€a€jury€(hereinafter€ð ðsecond€trialðð).€€The€juryÏreturned€a€verdict€which€awarded€appellant€a€judgment€against€appelleesÏfor€$10,558.46.€€Appellees€filed€a€motion€for€additur€to€the€value€found€byÏthe€jury€of€the€decrease€of€the€land€and€for€alternative€relief.€€The€trialÏcourt€granted€appelleesðð€motion€and€entered€an€order€granting€additur€inÏthe€amount€of€$24,000.€€Appellant€objected€to€the€additur,€and€the€trialÏcourt€granted€€the€request€for€a€new€trial€in€August,€1993.€€On€May€4,Ï1994,€another€jury€trial€was€conducted€(hereinafter€ð ðthird€trialðð).€€TheÍjury€returned€a€verdict€which€awarded€appellant€a€judgment€againstÏappellees€of€$11,934.46.€€On€June€2,€1994,€appellees€filed€a€motion€forÏjudgment€NOV€(non€obstante€veredicto).€€In€response,€appellant€filed€onÏJune€27,€1994€a€motion€for€new€trial€and€for€remittitur.€€On€August€5,Ï1994,€the€trial€court€denied€both€motions€but€granted€appellees€a€newÏtrial.€€Ìà àOn€October€26,€1994,€appellees,€relying€upon€this€Courtððs€priorÏopinion€in€the€cause,€filed€a€motion€seeking€to€have€the€trial€courtÏdetermine€the€issues€without€a€jury.€€In€our€October€23,€1992€opinion,€thisÏCourt€stated,€ð ðSince€the€cause€must€be€remanded,€we€think€the€trial€judgeÏshould€determine€this€issue€after€giving€each€party€a€chance€to€offerÏproof.ðð€€On€November€30,€1994,€the€chancellor€entered€an€order€stating,€ð ðItÏis€clear€that€the€Court€of€Appeals€intended€for€the€trial€court€to€determineÏthe€issues€without€a€jury.ðð€€Ìà àThe€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€without€a€jury€on€December€5€and€6,Ï1994€(hereinafter€ð ðfourth€trialðð).€€Appellant€and€spouse€were€not€presentÏat€trial€due€to€their€being€in€California€at€the€time,€but€were€ablyÏrepresented€by€counsel€at€the€hearing.€€The€trial€court€found€that€appellantÏhad€complete€control€of€the€property€for€32€months,€and€during€that€time,Ïthe€property€depreciated€in€value€$40,000,€that€the€loss€in€rental€value€forÍthe€farmhouse€for€that€period€was€$8,800,€and€the€total€rental€value€forÏthe€pastures€for€that€time€was€$5,757.34.€€The€trial€court€determined€thatÏappellees€were€entitled€to€damages€of€$54,557.34.€€This€amount€wasÏoffset€by€the€$32,277.75€that€this€Court€previously€held€that€appelleesÏowed€appellant€for€the€amounts€paid€on€the€purchase€price€plus€taxes.€ÏTherefore,€after€being€given€credit€for€mortgage€payments€and€taxes,€theÏtrial€court€determined€that€appellant€owed€appellees€$22,279.59€plusÏcosts€for€damages€to€the€property.€€The€trial€court€entered€the€final€orderÏin€this€cause€on€January€9,€1995€and€the€appellant€timely€filed€his€noticeÏof€appeal€on€February€8,€1995.€€Ìà àThis€action€was€held€without€the€intervention€of€a€jury.€€Rule€13(d),ÏT.R.A.P.,€requires€this€Court€to€review€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trialÏcourt€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€upon€the€record,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€theÏcorrectness€of€the€findings.€€Unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€isÏotherwise,€we€must€affirm€the€trial€court€absent€error€of€law.€€At€theÏconclusion€of€the€trial,€the€chancellor€stated€he€was€going€to€take€theÏcase€under€advisement€and€would€notify€the€parties€upon€entry€of€theÏjudgment.€€The€trial€court€in€this€case€included€its€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€in€œits›€final€order.€€Thus,€on€appeal,€this€Court€has€beenÏpresented€with€the€transcript€of€the€evidence,€the€technical€record,Íexhibits,€and€the€trial€courtððs€final€order€entered€in€the€cause.ÌÌÓ  Óò òJURY€TRIALó óÌÓ  Óà àAppellant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€appelleesððÏmotion€to€hear€the€case€without€the€intervention€of€a€jury.€€AppellantÏprayed€for€a€jury€in€his€answer€to€the€complaint€filed€on€March€23,€1991.€ÏApparently,€the€request€for€a€jury€was€waived€because€the€first€trial€wasÏheard€in€November,€1991€without€a€jury.€€The€trial€courtððs€ruling€wasÏappealed€to€the€Middle€Section€of€this€Court€which€issued€an€opinion€onÏOctober€23,€1992.€€In€remanding€the€cause€on€the€issue€of€damages,€theÏCourt€stated,€ð ðSince€the€cause€must€be€remanded,€we€think€the€trial€judgeÏshould€determine€this€issue€after€giving€each€party€a€chance€to€offerÏproof.ðð€€The€Court€also€stated€in€its€opinion,€ð ðHowever,€since€the€cause€isÏto€be€remanded€we€leave€the€question€of€a€lien€to€the€trial€judge€after€hisÏfinding€as€to€the€amounts€owed€by€the€respective€parties.ðð€€On€DecemberÏ22,€1992,€two€months€after€the€cause€had€been€remanded,€the€appellantÏfiled€his€motion€for€jury€trial€in€the€trial€court.€€Although€the€motion€wasÏfiled€more€than€15€days€after€the€issuance€of€the€mandate€by€this€Court,Ïthe€trial€court€in€its€discretion€granted€the€motion€on€February€17,€1993.€€Ìà àThe€second€trial€was€held€in€May,€1993€before€a€jury.€€AfterÍdetermining€damages€and€offsets,€the€jury€returned€a€verdict€in€favor€ofÏthe€appellant.€€The€trial€court€granted€appelleesðð€motion€for€additur€andÏalternative€relief,€and€subsequently,€on€August€26,€1993,€the€trial€courtÏgranted€appellant€a€new€trial.€€The€third€trial€was€held€before€a€jury€inÏMay,€1994.€€The€jury€again€returned€a€verdict€in€favor€of€the€appellant.€ÏAppellees€filed€a€motion€for€judgment€NOV,€and€appellant€moved€for€a€newÏtrial.€€On€August€5,€1994,€the€trial€court€denied€both€motions,€but€grantedÏappellees€a€new€trial€because€the€jury€had€disregarded€instructions€inÏdetermining€the€decrease€in€value€of€the€land€while€in€appellantððsÏpossession.€€Ìà àOn€October€26,€1994,€appellees€filed€a€motion€in€the€trial€courtÏrequesting€that€the€trial€court€determine€the€issues€without€theÏintervention€of€a€jury.€€In€support€of€their€motion,€appellees€cited€theÏstatements€made€by€this€Court€in€its€October€23,€1992€€opinion€remandingÏthe€cause€to€the€trial€court.€€Appellant€did€not€consent,€but€filed€noÏobjection,€and€the€trial€court€granted€the€motion€by€order€enteredÏNovember€30,€1994.€€Thereafter,€a€hearing€was€conducted€on€December€5Ïand€6,€1994€without€the€intervention€of€a€jury.€€Ìà àThe€Tennessee€Constitution€does€not€guarantee€the€right€of€trial€byÏjury€in€suits€of€an€equitable€nature€as€there€was€no€right€to€trial€by€juryÍin€these€cases€in€1796.€€The€Tennessee€Constitution€Art.€1,€Ô€!ÔððÔ€Ô€6€preservesÏthe€right€to€a€jury€trial€as€it€existed€at€the€common€law.€€òòState€v.€Hartleyóó,Ï790€S.W.2d€276,€277„78€(Tenn.€1990);€òòHarbison€v.€Briggs€Bros.€Paint€Mfg.ÏCo.óó,€354€S.W.2d€464,€467€(Tenn.€1962).€€Thus,€there€is€no€right€to€trial€byÏjury€in€essentially€equitable€actions€unless€the€cause€was€triable€by€aÏjury€when€the€Constitution€of€1796€was€adopted.€€òòTown€of€Smyrna€v.ÏRidleyóó,€730€S.W.2d€318,€321€(Tenn.€1987).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòSasser€v.€AverittÏExpress,€Inc.óó,€839€S.W.2d€422,€434€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€However,€the€rightÏto€a€jury€trial€may€be€granted€by€statutes€which€supplement€theÏConstitutional€right.€€Specifically,€T.C.A.€Ô€!ÔððÔ€Ô€21„1„103€(1976)€expresslyÏstates:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àœò òRight›€to€trial€by€jury.€„„€ó óEither€party€to€a€suitÏin€chancery€is€entitled,€upon€application,€to€a€juryÏto€try€and€determine€any€material€fact€in€dispute,Ïsave€in€cases€involving€complicated€accounting,€asÏto€such€accounting,€and€those€elsewhere€exceptedÏby€law€or€by€provision€of€this€Code,€and€all€theÏissues€of€fact€in€any€proper€cases€shall€beÏsubmitted€to€one€(1)€jury.€€T.C.A.€Ô€!ÔððÔ€Ô€21„1„103Ï(1976).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€statutory€right€to€a€jury€trial€in€Chancery€Court€is€a€long„standing€tradition€in€Tennessee.€€Except€for€a€four„year€period€(1972„1976),€the€right€continuously€has€been€guaranteed€by€statute€since€1846.€ÍòòSmith€Co.€Educ.€Assððn.€v.€Andersonóó,€676€S.W.2d€328,€336€(Tenn.€1984);ÏT.C.A.€Ô€!ÔððÔ€Ô€10574„80€(Williams€1934).€€The€current€statute€as€passed€in€1976Ïis€a€verbatim€reenactment€of€the€prior€law.€€The€legislature€intended€toÏrestore€the€law€as€it€existed€prior€to€the€enactment€of€the€present€RulesÏof€Civil€Procedure.€€Senator€Oehmig,€the€sponsor€of€the€senate€bill€whichÏbecame€Chapter€436€of€the€Public€Acts€of€1976,€made€the€followingÏremarks€when€the€bill€was€before€the€Senate€on€its€third€and€final€reading:€ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àIn€1972€when€we€adopted€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,Ïthere€were€certain€code€sections€that€wereÏrepealed€and€this€was€one€of€them€and€it€was€feltÏthat€the€present€rules€do€not€cover€this€situation€ofÏjury€trials€in€Chancery€and€òòthis€just€puts€back€theÏold€law€into€effectóó.€(emphasis€added).€€òòÌÌÌÓÓSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòSmith€Co.€Educ.€Assððn.€v.€Andersonóó,€676€S.W.2d€328,€337€(Tenn.Ï1984).€€ÌThe€legislature€clearly€intended€to€reestablish€the€previous€law€and€giveÏit€broad€right€to€trial€by€jury€in€Chancery€Court€actions.€€Ìà àIn€the€instant€case,€appellant€filed€the€Rule€38.02,€T.R.C.P.,€motionÏfor€a€jury€trial€on€December€22,€1992€which€was€clearly€more€than€15Ïdays€after€entry€of€this€Courtððs€October€23,€1992€mandate€remanding€theÏcause€to€the€trial€court.€€While€the€trial€court€was€under€no€obligation€toÍgrant€the€defaulting€partyððs€motion€since€it€was€late€filed,€it€neverthelessÏexercised€its€discretion€under€Rule€39,€T.R.A.P.,€and€granted€the€motion€forÏjury€trial.€€Once€the€trial€court€granted€the€motion,€the€right€to€jury€trialÏvested.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòSilcox€v.€Smith€Co.óó,€487€S.W.2d€652,€658€(Tenn.€App.Ï1972).€€While€Rule€39.02,€T.R.A.P.,€gives€the€trial€court€discretionaryÏpower€to€allow€a€trial€by€jury€regardless€of€previous€default€in€demand€forÏjury,€the€defaulting€party€òòdoes€not€have€the€right€to€a€jury€trialóó€afterÏfailure€to€make€timely€demand€(emphasis€ours).€€Likewise,€the€other€partyÏis€not€entitled€to€a€nonjury€trial€if€the€trial€court€exercises€its€discretionÏand€allows€a€jury€trial.€€òòIdóó.€at€658.€€Ìà àAs€previously€noted,€either€party€to€an€action€in€Chancery€Court€isÏentitled,€upon€timely€application,€to€a€trial€by€jury€to€determine€materialÏfacts€in€dispute,€except€in€cases€involving€complicated€accounts€and€inÏother€cases€expressly€accepted€by€law€or€statute.€€T.C.A.€Ô€!ÔððÔ€Ô€21„1„103Ï(1976);€òòTown€of€Smyrna€v.€Ridleyóó,€òòsupraóó€(jury€trial€was€properly€denied€asÏto€question€of€amount€of€forfeiture€incurred,€as€this€question€involved€aÏcomplicated€accounting).€€Those€cases€in€which€the€right€to€a€nonjury€trialÏœhave›€been€upheld€œhave›€been€limited€to€narrow€exceptions.€€As€noted€inÏòòGreene€County€Union€Bank€v.€Milleróó,€75€S.W.2d€49,€52€(Tenn.€App.€1934):ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 à.€.€.€The€question€as€to€the€absolute€right€of€a€partyÏto€a€trial€by€jury€is€for€the€chancellor€to€determineÏfrom€the€pleadings,€whether€or€not€the€caseÏinvolves€a€complicated€accounting.€€If€it€is€a€caseÏfor€complicated€accounting,€such€party€has€no€rightÏto€demand€or€have€a€trial€by€jury.€.€.€.€€No€hard€andÏfast€rule€can€be€laid€down€as€to€what€constitutesÏsuch€a€complexity€of€accounts€as€to€authorize€aÏcourt€of€equity€to€assume€jurisdiction;€each€caseÏseems€to€stand€upon€its€own€facts.€€òòIdóó.€at€52.ÌÌÌÓÓòòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòSouthmoor,€Inc.€v.€Baptist€Mem.€Hosp.óó,€444€S.W.2d€716,€719€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1969).Ìà àIn€òòMoore€v.€Mitchellóó,€329€S.W.2d€821€(Tenn.€1959),€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€found€that€the€Code€provisions€declare€that€either€party€inÏchancery€is€entitled€to€a€jury€except€in€cases€of€complicated€accounts€andÏð ð.€.€.€those€elsewhere€excepted€by€law€or€by€provisions€of€this€Code.€.€.€.ðð€ÏT.C.A.€Ô€!ÔððÔ€Ô€21„1„103€(1976).€€Therefore,€the€limitation€on€the€right€to€a€juryÏtrial€applies€only€to€those€cases€expressly€excepted€by€the€Code,€to€thoseÏstatutory€exceptions€not€found€in€the€Code,€and€to€those€cases€which€byÏtheir€very€nature€are€inappropriate€for€submission€to€a€jury.€€òòMooreóó,€329ÏS.W.2d€at€823„24.€€Ìà àIt€would€appear€that€the€recent€cases€interpreting€T.C.A.€Ô€!ÔððÔ€Ô€21„1„103Ïhave€limited€the€exceptions€to€the€right€to€a€jury€trial€and€have€expandedÏthose€situations€in€which€a€jury€trial€may€be€had€in€chancery.€€The€statuteÍhas€been€interpreted€so€as€to€authorize€a€trial€by€jury€in€matters€of€anÏinherently€equitable€nature€as€well€as€in€matters€within€the€ChanceryÏCourtððs€auxiliary€jurisdiction.€€òòMoore€v.€Mitchellóó,€òòsupraóó;€òòSmith€Co.€Educ.ÏAssððn.€v.€Andersonóó,€òòsupraóó€(the€statutory€right€to€a€jury€trial€in€ChanceryÏCourt€applies€to€matters€of€an€inherently€equitable€nature,€and€the€juryððsÏverdict€is€not€merely€advisory).€€Ìà àExamination€of€the€pleadings€reveals€that€the€underlying€case€is€notÏof€such€an€inherently€equitable€nature€nor€does€it€require€an€accounting€asÏcontemplated€by€the€Code€such€that€the€right€to€a€jury€trial€should€beÏdenied€under€T.C.A.€Ô€!ÔððÔ€Ô€21„1„103.€€Ìà àWe€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€instant€appeal€does€not€involve€theÏcomplexity€of€accounts€and€transactions€that€the€Court€contemplated€inÏòòGreeneóó€nor€does€it€involve€ð ð.€.€.€myriad€and€complicated€day„by„dayÏtransactions€.€.€.€over€a€seven„year€period€.€.€.ðð€as€was€the€case€in€òòArrantsÏv.€Sweetwater€Bank€&€Trust€Co.óó,€404€S.W.2d€253,€256€(Tenn.€App.€1965).€ÏWe€note€with€increasing€interest€regarding€the€instant€case€that€afterÏhearing€the€evidence€presented,€the€juries€in€the€second€and€third€trialsÏreturned€the€same€verdict€and€awarded€damages€within€$1,376.00€of€oneÏanother.€€Thus,€we€find€that€this€case€does€not€fall€into€the€exceptions€ofÏT.C.A.€Ô€!ÔððÔ€Ô€21„1„103€and€that€the€appellant€is€entitled€to€a€trial€by€jury€uponÍremand.€€Ìà àAppellees€insist€that€this€Courtððs€prior€opinion€in€this€causeÏdirected€the€trial€judge€to€make€certain€determinations;€therefore,€theÏtrial€court€was€correct€in€denying€appellant€a€jury€trial.€€AppelleesððÏargument€is€baseless.€€This€Courtððs€opinion€may€not€be€read€so€narrowly€asÏto€justify€the€denial€of€the€appellantððs€right€to€a€jury€trial€for€such€wasÏnot€contemplated.€€This€Court€does€not€contemplate,€anticipate,€orÏspeculate€as€to€what€procedural€rights€the€party€litigants€will€elect€toÏexercise€upon€remand€of€the€cause€to€the€trial€court€for€other€orÏadditional€proceedings.€€Those€matters€address€themselves€to€theÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€judge€but€are€reviewable€by€this€Court.€€Ìà àòòAóó€òòfortiorarióó,€it€is€the€duty,€and€indeed,€the€responsibility€of€thisÏCourt€to€furnish€directions€to€the€trial€judge€and€the€parties€as€to€whatÏwe€hold€must€be€determined€upon€remand€of€the€cause€in€order€to€obtainÏequity€and€justice.€€In€so€doing,€this€Court€must€be€governed€by€the€recordÏbefore€the€Court.€€The€record€on€appeal€in€this€case€at€that€time€showsÏthat€the€trial€was€conducted€by€the€trial€judge€without€a€jury.€€As€such,Ïthis€Court,€òòproóó€òòformaóó,€directed€the€trial€judge€to€make€certain€findingsÏupon€remand.€€No€issue€of€the€right€of€trial€by€jury€was€before€the€Court.€ÏThe€transcript€in€the€instant€appeal€reveals€that€the€trial€court,€byÍwritten€order,€granted€the€appellantððs€demand€for€jury€trial€after€theÏremand€by€this€Court.€€Once€the€trial€court€granted€appellantððs€motion,€theÏright€to€a€jury€trial€vested€and€could€only€be€waived€by€consent€of€theÏparties.€€òòSeeóó€Rule€38.05,€T.R.A.P.€€This€record€does€not€reveal€that€theÏappellant€consented€to€waive€the€trial€by€jury€at€any€time.€€Nevertheless,Ïsubsequently,€the€appellees€moved€the€trial€court€to€conduct€the€hearingÏwithout€a€jury,€pointing€to€the€language€of€the€Court€in€its€opinionÏdirecting€the€trial€judge€to€make€certain€determinations.€€The€trial€courtÏwas€so€persuaded€and€thereupon€entered€an€order€to€hear€the€cause€as€aÏnonjury€matter.€€While€the€appellant€did€not€object€to€the€appelleesððÏmotion€for€determination€of€the€issues€without€intervention€of€the€jury,Ïunder€Tennessee€case€law,€this€omission€is€insufficient€to€warrantÏconsent€to€withdraw€the€demand€for€jury€trial.€€Those€cases€which€haveÏaddressed€waiver€of€a€jury€demand€and€which€have€declared€there€to€be€noÏright€to€a€jury€have€all€involved€instances€in€which€the€parties€failed€toÏobject€prior€to€entry€of€the€òòfinal€judgmentóó€(emphasis€ours).€€òòTaylor€v.ÏWellsóó,€€69€S.W.€266€(Tenn.€1902);€òòAmerican€Natððl€Bank€v.€Bradfordóó,€188ÏS.W.2d€971,€978€(Tenn.€App.€1945);€òòPotts€v.€Knox„Tenn.€Rental,€Inc.óó,€467ÏS.W.2d€796,€798„99€(Tenn.€App.€1970);€òòAlbin€v.€Union€Planters€Natððl€Bankóó,Ï660€S.W.2d€784,€785€(Tenn.€App.€1983).€€Such€is€not€the€case€in€the€instantÍmatter.€€Appellantððs€counsel€made€it€plain€to€the€trial€court€at€theÏbeginning€of€the€trial€when€he€stated€into€the€record:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àMR.€BROCKMAN:€Iððve€got€one€more€motion€briefly,ÏJudge.€€Judge,€in€respect€to€the€jury€trial,€I€knowÏthat€Mr.€Henry€filed€a€motion€to€hear€this€without€aÏjury€trial.€€The€Court€has€considered€the€opinion€ofÏthe€Court€of€Appeals€and€has€read€that.€€Now€I€cameÏinto€this€case€late.€€There€was€a€lawyer€before€me,Ïbut€at€least€it€appears€to€me€„„€I€could€be€wrong.€ÏIf€I€am€I€leave€it€to€Mr.€Henry€and€the€Court€to€pointÏit€out.€€But€sometime€after€that€decision€it€wouldÏappear€that€my€clients€moved€for€a€jury€trial€and€itÏwas€granted,€and€now€itððs€being€rescinded,€andÏbased€upon€that€I€think€my€clients€have€asked€forÏand€were€granted€a€jury€and€were€entitled€to€it.€ÏIððm€asking€the€Court€to€give€us€a€jury.€€ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à*€*€*€*à àÌÌà8 àà8 àTHE€COURT:€Well,€I€want€this€on€the€record,€theÏCourt€was€in€error€when€I€granted€them€a€jury€trial.€ÏThat€was€a€mistake€on€my€part.€€I€should€haveÏfollowed€the€direction€of€the€Court€of€Appeals.€€IÏshould€have€denied€that€request€and€decided€theÏcase€as€I€was€instructed.€€I€correct€that€error.€€IððmÏgoing€to€overrule€your€motion.€.€.€.ÌÌÌÓÓIt€is€apparent€that€the€appellant,€through€proper€counsel,€did€not€consentÏto€withdraw€or€waive€its€right€to€a€jury€trial.€€Ìà àUnder€the€particular€facts€and€circumstances€of€this€case,€asÏheretofore€pointed€out,€we€are€constrained€to€reaffirm€that€which€we€saidÍin€òòArrants€v.€Sweetwater€Bank€&€Trust€Co.óó,€òòsupraóó,€at€256,€regarding€T.C.A.ÏÔ€!ÔððÔ€Ô€21„1„103,€then€T.C.A.€Ô€!ÔððÔ€Ô€21„1011:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àIt€is€recognized€that,€under€the€above€statute,€ððtheÏChancellor€may€refuse€to€submit€issues€that€are€ofÏa€complicated€and€intricate€nature,€that€is,€such€asÏthe€Chancellor€himself,€because€of€peculiarÏequitable€rules€or€other€requirements,€mayÏdetermine.€€He€may€submit€some€issues€and€reserveÏothers.€€But€this€action€is€subject€to€review.€€òòHeÏmust€not€thereby€deprive€a€litigant€of€the€right€toÏhave€the€substantial€disputes€as€to€matters€of€factÏpassed€upon€by€the€juryóó.ðð€€(emphasis€ours).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àAccordingly,€we€reverse€the€chancellorððs€determination€that€theÏcause€be€heard€without€a€jury€and€remand€the€cause€to€the€trial€court€for€aÏhearing€before€a€jury€consistent€with€this€Courtððs€opinion€of€October€23,Ï1992.€€Because€this€cause€is€remanded€for€jury€trial,€it€is€not€necessaryÏthat€the€Court€address€appellantððs€remaining€issues.€€Costs€on€appeal€areÏtaxed€to€appellees€for€which€let€execution€issue,€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________________Ì€à àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€H.€WILLIAMS,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.Ì