Background
Michael Tomlin filed suit in November 2010 against Nephrology Associates and Renal Care Group seeking unpaid leasing commissions on eleven properties representing twenty-three separate claims. After a bench trial in September 2013, the trial court entered judgment in Tomlin’s favor for $192,298.00 regarding seven properties but failed to rule on the remaining four properties and six claims. On the first appeal, this court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding the judgment was not final, and remanded for the trial court to adjudicate the remaining claims.
On remand in June 2022, the trial court again awarded $192,298.00, this time denying recovery on all unresolved claims. Defendants appealed a second time. On that second appeal, this court modified the judgment to $159,027.20 after reversing findings on two properties but affirmed the remainder. The sole issue on this third appeal concerned the accrual date for mandatory post-judgment interest: Tomlin argued interest should run from August 5, 2016 (the original judgment), while defendants argued it should begin June 10, 2022 (the remand judgment).
The Court’s Holding
The court synthesized two lines of Tennessee precedent into a unified rule: post-judgment interest accrual upon appellate remand depends on whether the remand leaves substantive work for the trial court. When an appellate court merely modifies the monetary award without requiring additional factual determinations—leaving nothing of substance for the trial court to decide regarding the judgment—interest accrues from the original judgment date. Conversely, when an appellate court remands requiring the trial court to make its own substantive decisions regarding the underlying claims, interest accrues from the date of judgment entered upon remand.
Applying this rule, the court held that interest begins June 10, 2022 because the first remand explicitly required the trial court to make substantive factual determinations about the four unresolved properties. Although the trial court ultimately denied those claims, it exercised independent judgment in doing so. The second remand merely modified the award ($192,298.00 to $159,027.20) without requiring further substantive work, so it did not reset the interest date. Post-judgment interest therefore accrued from June 10, 2022 through September 24, 2024 (when defendants tendered payment), totaling $19,165.06.
Key Takeaways
- Post-judgment interest accrual is determined by whether a remand requires the trial court to make substantive factual determinations, not merely by whether the appellate court modified or reversed the judgment amount.
- Remands requiring substantive decisions reset the interest accrual date to the remand judgment; remands leaving nothing of substance for the trial court do not.
- This rule applies regardless of whether the judgment amount ultimately remains unchanged or whether specific monetary modifications are made by the appellate court.
- Tennessee Code Annotated § 47-14-122 ties interest to “the day on which the jury or the court sitting without a jury returned the verdict”—the key is identifying which judgment that is after appellate review.
Why It Matters
This decision provides trial courts with clear guidance for calculating post-judgment interest in multi-appeal litigation, eliminating ambiguity that had resulted from conflicting lines of precedent. The rule is significant because post-judgment interest can amount to substantial sums over extended litigation—in this case, the difference between Tomlin’s claimed interest ($71,233.08 from 2016) and the awarded interest ($19,165.06 from 2022) exceeded $50,000. For practitioners, the holding requires careful attention to the precise scope of appellate remands when calculating damages and structuring settlements.
The court’s synthesis also has procedural implications. When an appellate court remands for substantive reconsideration, the trial court’s final judgment on that issue becomes the triggering event for interest, even if the ultimate award remains numerically identical to prior judgments. This underscores that substantive factual redetermination—not mere modification of numbers—marks when a party’s entitlement to money crystallizes for interest purposes.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.