N.J. WILLIS CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION AND NICHOLAS A. CASSAS, APPELLANTS,
v.
ABRAHAM RASKIN AND ADELE RASKIN, HIS WIFE, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a trial court violated the jury trial right of defendants when it severed a mandatory equitable counterclaim for specific performance and tried it as a bench trial, despite the counterclaim involving factual issues common to the legal breach of contract claim. The court reversed and remanded because the counterclaim was sufficiently related to the legal claim that a jury determination on common issues was constitutionally required.
The court held that where a compulsory counterclaim entitles the counter-claimant to jury trial on issues sufficiently similar or related to issues in an equitable claim such that determinations would necessarily bind one another, those issues cannot be tried non-jury by the court without violating the constitutional right to jury trial. The trial court's severance and bench trial of the specific performance counterclaim deprived the defendants of their jury trial right.
[1] A trial court violates a party's constitutional right to a jury trial by severing a mandatory equitable counterclaim and trying it non-jury when the equitable claim invol…
[2] When a compulsory counterclaim entitles the counter-claimant to a jury trial on issues sufficiently similar or related to issues in an equitable claim such that a determi…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“[W]here the compulsory counterclaim entitles the counter-claimant (upon timely demand) to a jury trial on issues which are sufficiently similar or related to the issues made by the equitable claim that a determination by the first fact finder would necessarily bind the latter one, such issues may not be tried non-jury by the court since to do so would deprive the counter-claimant of his constitutional right to trial by jury.”
The controlling legal standard from Adams v. Citizens Bank of Brevard establishing when equitable and legal claims with common issues cannot be separated to avoid jury trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSellers filed a complaint for breach of a purchase and sales contract against purchasers (N.J. Willis Corp. and Nicholas Cassas). The purchasers answe…
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 Severance Of Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
HURLEY, Judge.
We are asked to decide whether appellants’ right to a jury trial was violated when the trial court severed a mandatory equitable counterclaim and tried it non-jury even though the equitable claim involved issues which were related to the pending legal claim. We answer in the affirmative and reverse.
Mr. and Mrs. Raskin (sellers) filed a complaint for breach of a purchase and sales contract. N.J. Willis Corp. and Nicholas A. Cassas (purchasers) answered, filed affirmative defenses and demanded a trial by jury. Additionally, N.J. Willis Corp. filed a counterclaim for specific performance. The case was initially set for jury trial but was removed from the calendar when the court granted the Raskins’ motion for continuance. Approximately a year later, the case was reset on a non-jury calendar at the Raskins’ request. At the outset of the bench trial, the purchasers indicated their concern that issues which were common to both the legal and equitable claims be resolved by a jury. Nonetheless, due to calendar considerations, the court severed the counterclaim for specific performance and required that it be tried in a bench trial.
The controlling rule is set forth in Adams v. Citizens Bank of Brevard, 248 So. 2d 682, 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971): [W]here the compulsory counterclaim entitles the counter-claimant (upon timely demand) to a jury trial on issues which are sufficiently similar or related to the issues made by the equitable claim that a determination by the first fact finder would necessarily bind the latter one, such issues may not be tried non-jury by the court since to do so would deprive the counter-claimant of his constitutional right to trial by jury. [Citation omitted.]
In the case before us, there can be no question but that the resolution of the equitable counterclaim turned upon facts which were common to the legal claim. Moreover, since the record fails to demonstrate an affirmative waiver of the purchasers’ right to jury trial, see Boston Rug Galleries, Inc. v. William Iselin and Co., 212 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968), we hold that the trial court’s action of severing and trying the equitable counterclaim resulted in a deprivation of the defendants/counter-plaintiffs’ right to a jury trial. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
DELL, J., and PURDY, H. MARK, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yost v. Am. Nat'l Bank, 570 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…s together. See American National Bank of Jacksonville v. Norris, 368 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 342 (Fla.1979); Tower Estates, Inc. v. Slewett, 346 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). For example, in N.J. Willis Corp. v. Raskin, 430 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), the court reversed the severance of a mandatory equitable counterclaim, which involved issues related to the pending legal claim. The court found the resolution of the equitable counterclaim turned upon facts which were common t…
-
Sundale Assocs., Ltd. v. Se. Bank, N.A., 471 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…Ronel Refining, Inc., 421 [*104] So. 2d 46, 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Padgett v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association, 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, 83…
-
K.M.A. Assocs., Inc. v. Meros, 452 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…equitable count for a later trial without a jury. We believe that the issues involved in the malpractice count are so related to the issues made by the equitable claim that a jury trial should be afforded on all issues. N.J. Willis Corf. v. Raskin, 430 So. 2d 996 (Fla.4th DCA 1983); Napolitano v. H.L. Robertson & Associates, Inc., 311 So. 2d 757 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Westview Community Cemetery of Pompano Beach v. Lewis, 293 So. 2d 373 (Fla.4th DCA 1974). Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedi…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Adams v. Citizens Bank OF Brevard, 248 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Boston RUG Galleries, Inc. v. William Iselin & Co., Inc., 212 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)