MARTELL & SONS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
THE HONORABLE MILTON A. FRIEDMAN, AS JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND SIDNEY LEFCOURT, AS SPECIAL MASTER, 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.
Martell & Sons sought to overturn a trial court order striking its jury trial demand in a breach of construction contracts case. The court held that complexity and accounting issues alone do not justify denying a constitutional right to jury trial when the complaint alleges fixed and certain amounts due on contracts.
A trial court cannot deny the constitutional right to jury trial merely because a case is complicated or involves accounting and mathematical problems that juries can readily determine. Where a complaint alleges fixed and certain amounts due on contracts, the action is one at law triable by jury, not an equitable matter.
[1] A jury trial is constitutionally guaranteed for issues that are legal in nature, and complexity or the need for elementary accounting does not, by itself, negate this rig…
[2] An action seeking a fixed and certain amount due and owing under contracts is an action at law, entitling parties 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“It is not sufficient to deny to the parties the constitutional right to a trial by jury merely because a case is complicated or because questions of addition, subtraction and other mathematical problems arise which require elementary accounting on the part of the jury to arrive at a verdict.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that case complexity and accounting issues do not justify denying jury trial rights
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartell & Sons filed an action at law alleging breach of six separate construction contracts and demanding a jury trial. After several amendments to t…
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 Action At Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner (plaintiff) commenced this action in the trial court as an action at law on a complaint for breach of a series of construction contracts, demanding trial by jury. After several amendments to the complaint and a request by plaintiff to alter the amounts allegedly due and owing, the trial court, on defendant’s motion, struck the demand for jury trial,1 and assigned the case to a special master. The reason advanced here by respondents as justification for denying plaintiff a jury trial is that the issues raised were sufficiently complex to warrant an equity accounting.
Respondents agree that plaintiff is entitled to a trial by jury as to those issues which are triable by jury, i.e., what were the terms of the agreement and whether there was a breach, but contend that the accounting aspects of the action are separable and equitable in nature, as to which there is no right to a trial by jury.
The controlling principle of law was stated succinctly in Rizzo v. Euclid Urbana Company, 118 So. 2d 553, 554-555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960):
It is not sufficient to deny to the parties the constitutional right to a trial by jury merely because a case is complicated or because questions of addition, subtraction and other mathematical problems arise which require elementary accounting on the part of the jury to arrive at a verdict.
Rizzo relied upon two earlier Florida Supreme Court cases. In Massengale v. O’Hara, 63 Fla. 521, 58 So. 42 (1912) it was held that where the complaint did not allege complicated accounts for adjustment that could not be readily determined in an action at law, an accounting in equity could not be maintained. Similarly, in Frierson v. Frierson, 110 Fla. 416, 149 So. 18 (1933), the supreme court held that where a claim was made by complaint for an amount fixed and certain, the action was to be maintained at law and not in equity.
The amended complaint filed in this cause is in twelve counts, claiming amounts fixed and certain as due and owing on six separate contracts. The action is one at law as to which there is a right to trial by jury.
We treat the petition as certiorari, grant same, quash the order on review and remand for further consistent proceedings.
. Approximately three months prior to entry of the order which is the subject of this appeal, defendant filed its first motion to strike plaintiffs demand for jury trial on the ground that the case involved extensive, complicated accounting and should be heard in equity. That motion was denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amin Dahlawi v. Zahid Ramlawi, 644 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…will entail an extensive and complicated accounting involving six corporations. While a jury may be permitted to conduct a simple accounting in a breach of contract dispute involving a fixed and certain amount, see Martell & Sons, Inc. v. Friedman, 461 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 469 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1985); Rizzo v. Euclid Urbana Co., 118 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960), complicated partnership accountings are to be conducted in equity by the trial court, and not by the jury. See RBC I, Inc. v. AJ…
-
Paoli v. Natherson, 732 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…rmine a withdrawing partner’s interest. The jury merely had to decide the dollar amount of the partnership assets and subtract the dollar amount of the partnership liabilities, and apply the contractual formula. See Martell & Sons, Inc. v. Friedman, 461 So. 2d 1023, 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) The jury’s verdict must stand. We now address the accounting performed by the circuit court after the jury trial. We agree with Paoli that the judgment on the counterclaim, which resulted from the accounting, was in conflic…
-
Miami EYE Inst., Inc. v. Nelvis Velazquez, M.D., 559 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Yates v. Ball, 132 Fla. 132, 181 So. 341 (1937); Goslin v. Racal Data Communications, Inc., 468 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 479 So. 2d 117 (Fla.1985); Martell & Sons, Inc. v. Friedman, 461 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 469 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1985); Av-Med, Inc. v. French, 458 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).…
Authorities Cited
- Maud Frierson and Mattie Frierson v. Frierson, 110 Fla. 416 (Fla. 1933)
- Rizzo v. Euclid Urbana Co., 118 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- St. Elmo Massengale v. O'Hara, 63 Fla. 521 (Fla. 1912)