CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS AND ENGINEERING, INC., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
JENNINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Construction Systems appeals the trial court's denial of its constitutional right to a jury trial in a construction contract dispute with Jennings Construction. The court reversed and remanded, holding that where equitable and legal claims arise in the same case, a party cannot be deprived of jury trial rights on issues traditionally triable by jury.
Construction Systems was clearly entitled to a jury trial because the compulsory counterclaim seeking monetary damages for breach of contract is a legal claim, and the issues involved in the complaint and counterclaim are so intertwined that jury trial must be afforded on all issues.
[1] A party's constitutional right to a jury trial is preserved when legal and equitable claims arise in the same case.
[2] A compulsory counterclaim seeking monetary damages for breach of contract entitles a party to a jury trial.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In actions cognizable at law, the right to trial by jury is guaranteed by our constitution.”
Establishes the foundational constitutional right to jury trial in legal actions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceConstruction Systems served as subcontractor and Jennings as contractor for three construction projects at Ocean Reef Club. Disputes arose over the su…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Construction Systems, defendant/counterplaintiff/third-party plaintiff below, appeals a final judgment entered by the court following denial of its demand for jury trial. Appellee Jennings, plaintiff/counterdefendant below, cross-appeals from the final judgment.
Jennings and appellant were the contractor and subcontractor, respectively, for three construction projects at the Ocean Reef Club in Monroe County. Following disputes over appellant’s work performance and Jennings’ failure to pay appellant, appellant filed liens against the property for overdue payments in May, 1978. One month later, Jennings filed suit seeking damages for breach of contract, discharge of the liens and transfer of the liens to other security. Appellant answered and counterclaimed for damages for breach of contract and conversion, and filed a third-party complaint for foreclosure of liens. On Jennings’ motion, the liens were transferred to a surety bond. Despite appellant’s demand for jury trial, the court ruled that both parties initially invoked the equitable jurisdiction of the court and heard the cause non-jury. Under the final judgment, Jennings took nothing by its damage claim and appellant took nothing by its counterclaim. The final judgment also cancelled the liens and ordered the release bonds can-celled.
Although numerous other issues have been raised by both sides on this appeal, we have determined that the trial court’s denial of appellant’s constitutional right to a jury trial mandates reversal.
In actions cognizable at law, the right to trial by jury is guaranteed by our constitution. Hightower v. Bigoney, 156 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1963). Where both equitable and legal claims arise in the same case, this cannot serve to deprive either party of the right to a jury trial of issues traditionally triable by jury. Padgett v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association, 378 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), and cases cited. We hold that appellant was clearly entitled to a jury trial by virtue of the compulsory counterclaim seeking monetary damages for breach of contract and that the issues involved in the complaint and counterclaim are so intertwined that a jury trial should be afforded on all issues. Napolitano v. H. L. Robertson and Associates, Inc., 311 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Adams v. Citizens Bank of Brevard, 248 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). The final judgment entered by the court is reversed and this cause is remanded with directions to proceed with a jury trial on ali issues.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sundale Assocs., Ltd. v. Se. Bank, N.A., 471 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…on, 378 So. 2d 58, 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); see Magram v. Raffel, 443 So. 2d 396, 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); N.J. Willis Corp. v. Raskin, 430 So. 2d 996, 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Construction Systems and Engineering, Inc. v. Jennings Construction Corp., 413 So. 2d 1236, 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), pet. for review denied, 426 So. 2d 26 (Fla.1983); Cheek v. McGowan Electric Supply Co., 404 So. 2d 834, 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Napolitano v. H.L. Robertson and Associates, Inc., 311 So. 2d at 758. Applying this rule, we v…
-
Broward Cnty. v. la Rosa, 505 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1987)…rial by jury shall be secure to all and remain inviolate.” This provision secures the right to a jury trial in all cases that traditionally afforded a jury trial at common law. Construction Systems & Engineering, Inc. v. Jennings Construction Corp., 413 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), review denied, 426 So. 2d 26 (Fla.1983); Smith v. Barnett Bank, 350 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Broward County argues that the constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply in the instant case because common law did not…
-
Dedra B. Azonobi O'Neal v. Fla. A & M Univ., 989 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…f a right to a jury trial of issues traditionally triable by jury as a matter of right”), receded from on other grounds in Bennett v. Cont’l Chems., Inc., 492 So. 2d 724, 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Constr. Sys. & Eng’g, Inc. v. Jennings Constr. Corp., 413 So. 2d 1236, 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Back pay is properly deemed restitution only in the sense of “legal restitution” as opposed to “equitable restitution.” That Ms. O’Neal also sought [*12] front pay3 or other equitable relief is thus immaterial to her right…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Padgett v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Santa Rosa Cnty., 378 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Hightower v. Bigoney, 156 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1963)
- Adams v. Citizens Bank OF Brevard, 248 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Napolitano v. H. L. Robertson & Assocs., Inc., 311 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)