HAZEN KREIS, II; HAZEN KREIS, III; AND RAYMOND LOVEDAY, APPELLANTS,
v.
TURTLE REEF CONDOMINIUM I, INC., APPELLEE
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.
Appellants demanded a jury trial in a case involving both legal and equitable claims, but the trial court denied the demand and conducted a bench trial, reasoning the issues were too complex. The appellate court held that the constitutional right to jury trial cannot be waived merely because a case involves mixed legal and equitable issues, even if they are inextricably intertwined.
A trial court cannot deprive a litigant of the constitutional right to a jury trial merely because the action involves both legal and equitable issues or because those issues are inextricably intertwined. The right to jury trial is secured by the Florida Constitution and cannot be forfeited based on case complexity.
[1] The existence of an equitable claim in an action does not deprive a litigant of the right to a jury trial when legal claims are also present.
[2] When legal and equitable issues are inextricably intertwined, a party cannot be deprived of the right 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“The right to trial by jury shall be secure and remain inviolate.”
States the constitutional guarantee that is the foundation for the court's holding
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Hazen Kreis II, Hazen Kreis III, and Raymond Loveday brought an action against Turtle Reef Condominium I, Inc. involving both legal and equ…
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 Inextricably Intertwined Issues cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The litigants in this case presented the trial court with a complex blend of both legal and equitable claims. The trial judge found them so complex that he denied appellants’ demand for a jury trial and instead tried the case without a jury. Appellants argue that this was error. We agree.
“The right to trial by jury shall be secure and remain inviolate.” Art. 1, § 22, Fla. Const. When an action involves both legal and equitable issues, as is the case here, the mere existence of an equitable claim cannot deprive a litigant of this right to a jury. 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); Adams v. Citizens Bank of Brevard, 248 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Moreover, when legal and equitable issues are inextricably intertwined, as they were characterized by the trial court in this case, a party cannot be deprived of the properly demanded right to a jury. Cheek v. McGowan Supply Co., 404 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
It is unfortunate that nine days of non-jury trial must be thus swept away, but the imperative of the constitution permits no less.1 We, therefore, reverse and remand with instructions to retry this case before a jury.
STONE and FARMER, JJ., and WALDEN, JAMES, H., Senior Judge, concur. . As the record amply demonstrates a proper demand for a jury and a clear and unconditional pretrial ruling by the judge that he alone would try the case, we cannot accept appellees’ argument that the absence of a trial transcript requires an affirmance on the theory that we have no way of knowing whether appellant did something at the bench trial to waive the jury. We carefully note that appellees do not contend that during the non-jury trial the judge changed his mind and offered to empanel a jury or that appellant actually did something at the trial that amounted to a waiver of a jury. Their contention is merely that no transcript means no clear showing of error, in spite of the record plainly showing the decision of the trial judge to take the case from a jury because of the complexity and interconnectedness of the issues.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities 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)
- Adams v. Citizens Bank OF Brevard, 248 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Cheek v. McGOWAN Elec. Supply Co., 404 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)