ROBERT K. FLETCHER, PETITIONER,
v.
JOHN C. ANDERSON; LUIS J. BALLINA; GERALD G. BRAUER; LARRY C. CARR; HAROLD C. HILLCHER; PHILIP J. O'CONNELL; ESTATE OF EDWIN D. BARGGREN; ELNORE BARGGREN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF EDWIN D. BARGGREN; ELNORE BARGGREN, AS TRUSTEE OF THE EDWIN D. BARGGREN AND ELNORE BARGGREN LIVING TRUST, A/K/A EDWIN D. BARGGREN AND ELNORE BARGGREN LIVING TRUST U/A/D 5/20/80, 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.
Fletcher seeks certiorari review of an order striking his demand for jury trial in a contribution action against co-guarantors on a defaulted promissory note. The court grants the petition and remands, holding that whether jury trial is available depends on whether Fletcher seeks his proportionate aliquot share (law action with jury trial right) or seeks to enlarge the liability of solvent co-obligors (equitable action without jury trial right).
An action for contribution where the plaintiff seeks only his aliquot share of each co-obligor's proportionate liability is an action at law entitled to jury trial. However, if the plaintiff seeks to enlarge the liability of solvent co-obligors by shifting the burden of insolvent guarantors' shares, it is an equitable action without jury trial rights.
[1] An action for equitable contribution, while historically grounded in equity, is generally enforceable in actions at law.
[2] An obligor who has paid in excess of their pro rata share of a common obligation is entitled at law to contribution from other obligors for their aliquot share.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 doctrine of equitable contribution is grounded on principles of equity and natural justice and not on contract... While the principle arose in equity, it is generally enforceable in actions at law.”
Establishes that contribution, though rooted in equity, may be pursued as an action at law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFletcher and respondents were joint and several guarantors on a $1.2 million promissory note with Anchor Savings Bank for a bank formation venture. Al…
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 In Equity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner seeks certiorari review of a nonfinal order of the circuit court granting respondents’ motion to strike petitioner’s demand for jury trial. We grant the petition.
Petitioner and respondents were guarantors on a promissory note and guaranty agreement entered into with Anchor Savings Bank (“Anchor”). The guarantors had borrowed $1.2 million from Anchor to fund a joint enterprise, the formation of a bank. The guaranty agreement provided that the guarantors were jointly and severally liable for the note. The guarantors defaulted under the terms of the guaranty agreement and Anchor filed suit against the guarantors seeking the entire principal and balance.
Anchor obtained a judgment against all of the solvent guarantors, jointly and sev erally, in the amount of $1,104,490.61.
Pursuant to the judgment, Anchor purchased the bank stock which secured the loan at a judicial sale.
However, Anchor’s judgment remained unsatisfied by approximately $560,000. Anchor subsequently took action to garnish assets held by petitioner. Petitioner agreed to pay Anchor $220,000 and entered into a post judgment agreement and release of claims with Anchor. The respondents each paid Anchor $50,000 and each entered into separate release and settlement agreements with Anchor. Petitioner demanded contribution from the solvent guarantors for their proportionate shares of the judgment. Respondents refused his demand, and petitioner filed his complaint for contribution from the solvent guarantors and demanded a jury trial. Respondents filed a motion to strike petitioner’s demand for jury trial arguing that petitioner’s action for equitable contribution constituted an action in equity for which there is no right to jury trial.
The circuit court entered an order granting respondents’ motion and striking petitioner’s demand for jury trial.
The doctrine of equitable contribution is grounded on principles of equity and natural justice and not on contract. See 2 Samuel Williston & Walter H.E. Jaeger, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts § 345 (3d ed. 1959). The principle attempts to distribute equally among those who have a common obligation, the burden of performing that obligation. Id. at p.
765. While the principle arose in equity, it is generally enforceable in actions at law. Id.; Meckler v. Weiss, 80 So. 2d 608 (Fla.1955).
Thus, an obligor who has paid in excess of his prorata share of the obligation, is entitled at law to contribution from the other obligors for their aliquot share. See Love v. Gibson, 2 Fla. 598 (Fla.1849); Manning v. Campbell, 204 N.Y.S.2d 718 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1960); Cooper v. Greenberg, 191 Va. 495, 61 S.E. 2d 875 (Va.1950).
However, one is not entitled in an action at law to enlarge the liability of his co-obligors because some of the others are insolvent. See Williston § 345, at 777; Manning; Cooper. We can not tell from the complaint whether petitioner is seeking-an aliquot share of each guarantor’s contribution or is seeking to enlarge each solvent guarantor’s contribution. Further, we can not determine from the record before us the trial court’s reasons for striking the demand for jury trial. To the extent that petitioner seeks an aliquot share of contribution, the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law in striking petitioner's demand for jury trial. See Manning; Cooper. On the other hand, if petitioner seeks to enlarge the share of the solvent guarantors, it is an action in equity and he is not entitled to a jury trial. Id.
Accordingly, we grant the petition and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
RYDER, A.C.J., CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Campbell v. Gordon, 674 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…on the basis of supposed common law principles of contribution. “[A]n obligor who has paid in excess of his prorata share of the obligation, is entitled at law to contribution from the other obligors for their aliquot share.” Fletcher v. Anderson, 616 So. 2d 1201, 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); accord Meckler v. Weiss, 80 So. 2d 608 (Fla.1955); Berkan v. Brown, 242 So. 2d 207 [*788] (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), cert. denied, 246 So. 2d 111 (Fla.1971). See also Restatement of Restitution § 81 (1986) (“Unless otherwise agree…
-
Schrank v. Pearlman, 683 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…contribution, Florida law recognizes a right of equitable contribution. “The [equitable contribution] principle attempts to distribute equally among those who have a common obligation, the burden of performing that obligation.” Fletcher v. Anderson, 616 So. 2d 1201, 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (citation omitted). “Thus, an obligor who has paid in excess of his prorata share of the obligation, is entitled at law to contribution from the other obligors for their aliquot share.” Id. (citations omitted). As summarize…
-
Desrosiers v. Russell, 660 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…bifity on the note guaranteed. Curtis v. Cichon, 462 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). In the event that one of the guarantors has paid more than his share of the amount owed, he is entitled to demand contribution from the others. Fletcher v. Anderson, 616 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); 38 Am.Jur.2d Guaranty § 128 (1968). The trial court accurately noted that contribution was the appropriate theory of recovery in this case. It also correctly recognized the evidence estabfished that neither Price nor Desrosiers…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Meckler v. Weiss, 80 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1955)
- Love v. Gibson, 2 Fla. 598 (Fla. 1849)