In the case of Alvin Underwood v. Charter Federal Savings Bank, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed a jury's award of $105,000 in compensatory damages and $420,000 in punitive damages for wrongful execution, but the trial judge suggested a remittitur of $200,000 on the punitive damages. The background involves a 1988 lawsuit by Charter Federal against Randy Underwood, which resulted in a default judgment and a garnishment issued against his father, Alvin Underwood. Although Alvin timely answered the garnishment, the answer was not initially filed, leading to a conditional judgment against him. After the seizure and sale of Alvin's property, the Chancery Court set aside the judgment, stating Alvin had properly answered the garnishment, a decision affirmed on appeal.
Charter Federal appealed for a new trial, alleging juror misconduct concerning a juror who had previously maintained an overdrawn checking account with First American Bank but did not disclose this during voir dire. The trial court examined whether the juror's nondisclosure constituted misconduct, noting that the questions posed during voir dire were aimed at current affiliations rather than past connections. The court concluded that the juror's failure to disclose did not violate the intended purpose of the questions asked.
The court determined that there was no evidence of juror bias affecting the verdict, as the questions posed to jurors did not sufficiently probe the juror's prior experiences with the defendant. Despite some questions directed at other jurors, none addressed the juror's specific conduct with the bank. Charter Federal's claims of juror bias are dismissed as unfounded. The court also rejected Charter Federal's argument that the plaintiff had improperly relitigated issues already determined in prior actions. The court reaffirmed that the plaintiff had timely and sufficiently answered the garnishment, and evidence regarding Charter Federal's alleged wrongful conduct was deemed permissible. Additionally, the court found no procedural defects that warranted exclusion of testimony, affirming that these issues had not been conclusively determined in previous proceedings. Charter Federal's assertion of excessive jury awards was also denied; the jury's $105,000 compensatory damages award was supported by sufficient evidence, including expert testimony. Charter Federal's argument regarding the plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages was similarly rejected, as the jury was instructed appropriately and found the plaintiff acted reasonably. The Trial Court's approval of the compensatory damages award was upheld.
Both parties have appealed the punitive damages award. The plaintiff argues the remitted amount is insufficient, while Charter Federal claims the punitive damages were unjustified or excessive. To obtain punitive damages, a plaintiff must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted intentionally, fraudulently, maliciously, or recklessly, as established in Hodges v. S.C. Toof. Co. The Trial Court adhered to Hodges by considering the manner of property levied and the defendant's conduct post-levy, ultimately concluding punitive damages were justified. Although the plaintiff contends the Court did not adequately articulate its reasons for remitting the award, the Court reviewed the jury’s award and identified mitigating factors, such as the lack of evidence that Charter Federal profited from its actions. The Trial Court suggested remitting punitive damages from $420,000 to $220,000, which preserves the jury's verdict. The Court's order includes affirming the compensatory damages of $105,000 and stipulates that the plaintiff has 15 days to accept the remittitur or face a new trial. While the order does not explicitly limit the new trial's scope, it implies this intention. The plaintiff's interpretation of the judgment was deemed erroneous, and the Trial Court's judgment was upheld, with appeal costs divided equally between the parties.
