In this case, plaintiffs alleged defendants committed fraud in connection with their property rights. After a jury trial, plaintiffs moved for a new trial asking the trial court to fulfill its role as thirteenth juror. The trial court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals reversed upon finding the trial court misconceived its role as thirteenth juror. When a trial court misconceives its role as thirteenth juror or applies an incorrect standard, remand for a new trial historically has been the only remedy available under common law. In this appeal, we consider whether our law should allow the alternative remedy of remand for the trial court to fulfill its role as thirteenth juror under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 59.06. We hold that remand for the trial court to fulfill its role as thirteenth juror is an appropriate remedy when a civil trial court misconceives that role or applies an incorrect standard. We further hold that the lower courts erred in finding that a claim for unjust enrichment requires a voluntary conferral of a benefit. Finally, we hold that our law does not recognize a claim for misappropriation or conversion of a right of redemption. We affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the Court of Appeals, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The University of Tennessee College of Law has named Jordan Houser as associate director of the Bettye B. Lewis Career Center. Houser, who graduated from the law school in 2017, previously practiced in the Knoxville office of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, where he served on the recruiting committee, and as a staff attorney with the Tennessee Valley Authority Office of the General Counsel. He also previously served as director of career services and alumni relations at Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law. Career Center Director Carol Anne Long said, “Jordan brings with him a wealth of experience in working with both students and employers, and we are delighted to welcome him to our team.”

This case involves questions of zoning of non-residential real property located in a residential zoning district in Memphis. The genesis of the present dispute is specifically traceable to the Memphis and Shelby County Division of Planning and Development’s issuance of a zoning letter, wherein it was stated that use of the property at issue in this matter as a “Philanthropic Institution with Offices and Clinic” is a use permitted in accordance with a prior 2017 variance from zoning. The appellants herein, who own a home near the subject property, took umbrage with the zoning letter and appealed to the Memphis and Shelby County Board of Adjustment. When the Board of Adjustment rejected the appeal, thereby upholding the zoning letter, the appellants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in Chancery Court. The Chancery Court ultimately upheld the action of the Board of Adjustment, following which the present appeal ensued. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the Chancery Court’s decision to affirm the decision of the Board of Adjustment and remand for the entry of an order reversing the decision of the Board of Adjustment.

Defendants appeal from a trial court judgment finding the defendants in civil contempt of a bond order securing a judgment against those defendants and others. Because the underlying judgment on which the contempt finding is based has since been vacated by this Court, the contempt finding is also vacated.

This appeal concerns setting aside a default judgment in a divorce case. Tina Marie Eltzroth (“Wife”) filed for divorce in the Circuit Court for Sevier County (“the Trial Court”) against Danny Ray Eltzroth (“Husband”). Husband was served but failed to timely answer. Wife filed a motion for default and notice of hearing. Husband, who was staying at multiple places during this time, failed to appear for the hearing. The Trial Court granted Wife a default judgment. Husband later filed a motion to set aside, which the Trial Court granted. Wife appeals. We find no abuse of discretion in the Trial Court’s granting of Husband’s motion to set aside the default judgment. We affirm.

This is an appeal from a bench trial wherein the trial court found that the defendant had materially breached a contract for the sale of real property by failing to complete the sale. The trial court further found that although the plaintiff had also breached the contract by failing to provide sufficient proof of funds within the contractual time frame, such breach was not material and the defendant was still obligated to perform his contractual duties. The trial court entered an order directing the defendant’s specific performance of the contract and awarding to the plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, as provided for in the parties’ contract. The defendant has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. Pursuant to the parties’ contract, we grant the plaintiff’s request for reasonable attorney’s fees on appeal. We remand the case to the trial court for enforcement of the contract and for a determination of the plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred on appeal.

Voters in Knox County will choose a criminal court judge and law director on Aug. 1. Judge Hector Sanchez is running unopposed for a second term as Division II criminal court judge. He was appointed in 2022 to serve the remainder of former Judge Kyle Hixon's term. In the race for county law director, attorney Jackson Fenner is challenging incumbent David Buuck. Read more about the candidates from Knox News.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employer challenges the trial court’s determination that the employee’s physician, with whom he had treated prior to the work injury, became his authorized physician upon referral from the panel-selected physician. The employee lost his footing and fell while he was unloading a truck at work, resulting in injuries to his neck, back, and ribs. The employer accepted the claim and provided a panel of physicians from which the employee selected a doctor. That physician then referred the employee to the doctor who had previously performed back surgery for a non-work-related condition. The employer did not provide another panel in response to that direct referral but instead authorized the visit, and that physician opined that the fall at work was the cause of his current need for additional surgery. Subsequently, a utilization review physician concluded the recommended surgery was not medically necessary, and the Bureau’s Medical Director agreed. Following that denial, the employer denied the employee’s request to return to the physician who had recommended surgery. As a result, the employee returned to his initial panel physician. That physician agreed the work accident was the cause of the employee’s need for surgery and stated the employee should follow up with the surgeon to whom he had referred the employee. Thereafter, the employee attended a medical examination with another physician at the employer’s request, and that physician disagreed about the cause of the need for surgery. The referral physician, citing an emergent need, performed surgery without the employer’s authorization. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court determined that: (1) a valid direct referral had been made; (2) the referral doctor became the authorized physician; (3) the surgery was work-related and reasonably necessary; and (4) the employee was entitled to temporary disability benefits following surgery. The employer has appealed. Upon careful consideration of the record and the arguments of counsel, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.

Gibson County Sheriff Paul Thomas has pleaded not guilty to 18 charges that he illegally profited from the work of jail inmates under his supervision and housed dozens of them in a home outside of the prison without permission. Thomas was indicted in May in Gibson and Davidson counties on 22 charges, including official misconduct, theft, forgery and computer crimes involving jail inmates in his custody. Arraignment for the charges in Davidson County will take place at a later date, the Associated Press reports.

U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman — who at age 97 is the oldest federal judge not to have taken senior status — continues to fight her suspension from the bench following allegations that she is no longer fit to serve. A federal judge this week dismissed a lawsuit Newman brought in an attempt to return to her seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which focuses on patents, trademarks and certain other matters. The circuit's judicial council suspended Newman last September for at least one year or until she sits for court-ordered medical examinations, based on signs of serious cognitive and physical impairment. The council also found that she refused to cooperate with inquiries into her mental health. Newman has vowed to appeal, according to Reuters.