ISADORE H. MAGRAM AND MAGRAM MOTOR CARS F/K/A CHARLIE KOLB'S AUTO CITY, LTD., INC., PETITIONERS,
v.
BLAIR A. RAFFEL AND ALLAN R. KNIGHT, RESPONDENTS
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.
Petitioners sought review of a trial court order denying them a jury trial on liability issues in a newly added count of their legal malpractice complaint. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal granted the petition, holding that a timely jury demand on the fourth count could not be denied even though the petitioners had waived jury trial on earlier counts, because the issues were substantially similar and denying jury trial would violate their constitutional right.
The trial court's order denying jury trial on the liability issues in count IV was improper and departed from essential requirements of law. Where one is entitled to a jury trial on sufficiently similar or related issues, and a determination by the trial court on liability would necessarily bind the jury on damages, the litigant cannot be deprived of the constitutional right to jury trial by having those issues tried non-jury.
[1] Common law certiorari is an appropriate remedy to review an interlocutory order denying the right to a jury trial.
[2] A timely demand for a jury trial on issues sufficiently similar or related to issues not triable by jury may preserve the right to a jury trial on all related issues, eve…
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“where one is entitled to a jury trial on issues sufficiently similar or related to the issues not triable to a jury, and where a determination by the first factfinder would necessarily bind the later factfinder, such issues may not be tried non-jury by the court because to do so would deprive the litigant of his constitutional right to trial by jury”
Establishes the core legal principle that prevents trial courts from splitting jury-triable issues when they are substantially related and dependent on the same factual findings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn June 1981, petitioners filed a second amended complaint alleging three counts of legal malpractice against respondent attorneys but failed to timel…
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 Common Law Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
[*397] BASKIN, Judge.
In this petition for writ of common law certiorari, petitioners seek review of the trial court’s order denying them a jury trial on the liability issues contained in count IV of their complaint. We grant the petition.
In June, 1981, petitioners filed their second amended complaint alleging three counts of legal malpractice against respondents. Petitioners failed to demand a jury trial as to any of these counts within the time required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.430(b).
They did, however, file a subsequent motion requesting leave to amend their second amended complaint to include a demand for jury trial pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.430(d).
In response, the trial court ordered a non-jury trial on the liability issues in the three counts and a jury trial, if required, on the issue of damages. Following some initial discovery, petitioners filed a motion to amend the second amended complaint to add count IV, alleging the respondent-attorneys’ breach of escrow agency relationship as to petitioner Magram. Petitioners made a timely demand for a jury trial as to count IV.
The trial court granted petitioners’ motion to add count IV and deemed it filed on the date of the order. The court ruled that as to count IV, the liability issues would be tried non-jury but damages would be tried by a jury. Although petitioners renewed their demand for jury trial as to all issues in count IV, the trial court again denied petitioners’ request. Petition for writ of certiorari ensued.
As a general principle of review, common law certiorari is appropriate in exceptional cases, such as those in which “the lower court acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, or where the interlocutory order does not conform to the essential requirements of law and may reasonably cause material injury throughout the subsequent proceedings for which the remedy by appeal will be inadequate....” Kauffman v. King, 89 So. 2d 24, 26 (Fla.1956). This court has held that certiorari is the appropriate remedy to address the present issue involving an interlocutory order denying the right to jury trial. Spring v. Ronel Refining, Inc., 421 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
In ordering a non-jury trial for the liability issues in petitioners’ amended count IV, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law. The demand for jury trial was proper and timely under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.430(b), and the issues contained in amended count IV are triable to a jury as a matter of right. See Biadi v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corp., 374 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Furthermore, although the petitioners have waived their right to a jury trial on the first three counts by failing to make a timely demand under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.430(b), the jury demand was timely on the fourth count.
We agree with the court’s opinion in Adams v. Citizens Bank of Brevard, 248 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), that where one is entitled to a jury trial on issues sufficiently similar or related to the issues not triable to a jury, and where a determination by the first factfinder would necessarily bind the later factfinder, such issues may not be tried non-jury by the court because to do so would deprive the litigant of his constitutional right to trial by jury. See also Beacon Theaters, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 79 S.Ct. 948, 3 L.Ed.2d 988 (1959); Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 82 S.Ct. 894, 8 L.Ed.2d 44 (1962); Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority v. Aiderman, 238 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970).
Order quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Amin Dahlawi v. Zahid Ramlawi, 644 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…law, and may result in irreparable injury throughout the subsequent proceedings which cannot be remedied by plenary appeal. See W.R. Grace & Co. Conn. v. Waters, 638 So. 2d 502 (Fla.1994); Kauffman v. King, 89 So. 2d 24 (Fla.1956); Magram v. Raffel, 443 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Sarasota-Manatee Airport Auth. v. Alderman, 238 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). Accordingly, we grant the petition for certiorari and quash that part of the trial court’s order directing that any partnership accounting be conducte…
-
Sundale Assocs., Ltd. v. Se. Bank, N.A., 471 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ues. Adams v. Citizens Bank of Brevard, 248 So. 2d at 684; Spring v. 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…
-
Dick Dykes v. Trustbank Savings, 567 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…sure action until the petitioners’ class action in federal court is resolved. Because the trial court’s actions, as will be explained below, effectively deny the petitioners of their right to a jury trial, we have jurisdiction. See Magram v. Raffel, 443 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The petitioners have allegedly defaulted on purported mortgages given in exchange for investment securities in the form of luxury condominium hotel units that were to be built within two years. Respondent filed complaints agains…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (U.S. 1959)
- Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1962)
- Kauffman v. Annabel King, 89 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1956)
- Spring v. Ronel Ref., Inc., 421 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Adams v. Citizens Bank OF Brevard, 248 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Sarasota-Manatee Airport Auth. v. Alderman, 238 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Biadi v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., 374 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)