HANSARD CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND JEFFREY A. BURLEY, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
RITE AID OF FLORIDA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, RITE AID OF N.C., INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, RITE AID CORPORATION, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, AND BARRY A. HANSARD, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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.
Hansard Construction and Jeffrey Burley appealed a jury trial judgment in a civil action involving a fraudulent transfer claim under Florida's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court properly submitted the fraudulent transfer count to the jury because the catchall provision in the Act allowed for monetary damages, a traditional legal remedy entitling the parties to a jury trial.
The trial court properly submitted the fraudulent transfer claim to the jury. Although most remedies under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act are equitable, the catchall provision in section 726.108(1)(c)(3) is sufficiently broad to encompass monetary damages, which constitute a traditional legal remedy entitling parties to a jury trial under Florida law.
[1] Questions regarding the right to a jury trial should be resolved in favor of a jury trial whenever possible.
[2] The right to a jury trial is generally determined by whether the party seeking a jury trial is attempting to invoke rights and remedies traditionally enforceable in an ac…
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“Questions regarding the right to a jury trial should be resolved in favor of a jury trial, if possible.”
Establishes the foundational principle that jury trial rights should be liberally construed in favor of jury trials.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHansard Construction Corporation and Jeffrey Burley filed a multi-count complaint against Rite Aid entities and Barry Hansard. The complaint included …
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 Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, J.
In this appeal and cross-appeal of a final judgment following a jury trial in a civil action involving a multi-count complaint, a counter-claim and a crossclaim, we affirm and write only to briefly discuss the propriety of the trial court’s submission of count III of the counterclaim, a statutory fraudulent transfer action, to the jury.
Questions regarding the right to a jury trial should be resolved in favor of a jury trial, if possible. See King Mountain Condo. Ass’n v. Gundlach, 425 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The Florida test for determining the right to a jury trial has been stated to be “whether the party seeking a jury trial is trying to invoke rights and remedies of the sort traditionally enforceable in an action at law.” Id. at 571.
[I]t is well established that where the right or remedy is equitable in nature there is no right to a jury trial. Hawkins v. Rellim Inv. Co., 92 Fla. 784, 110 So. 350 (Fla.1926); Hathorne v. Panama Park Co., 44 Fla. 194, 32 So. 812 (Fla.1902); Hughes v. Hannah, 39 Fla. 365, 22 So. 613 (Fla.1897); Wiggins v. Williams, 36 Fla. 637, 18 So. 859 (Fla.1896). Thus, actions in equity do not fall within the protection of Article I, Section 22, of the Florida Constitution (1968) guaranteeing the right to a jury trial.
Robbins v. Section 3 Prop. Corp., 609 So. 2d 670, 671-72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), approved, 632 So. 2d 596 (Fla.1993).
Appellants argue that the trial court erred in submitting count III of the counterclaim to the jury since appellees sought only equitable, statutory remedies under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, chapter 726, Florida Statutes (1999). Contrary to appellees’ claim, the record discloses that, in the complaint, appellants sought “any relief available” and, at trial, asked for monetary damages in regard to this claim. Section 726.108(l)(c)(3) provides that a movant may, in addition to the remedies specifically enumerated, be entitled to “[a]ny other relief the circumstances may require.” Despite the fact that the other remedies set forth in the Act are equitable in nature, we find this catchall provision sufficiently broad to encompass the monetary judgment sought by appellants. Section 726.112 provides that Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act “shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uni form the law with respect to the subject of the law among states enacting it.” At least one other jurisdiction which has considered the issue head-on concluded, as we have, that a plaintiff may recover money damages against the transferor under the so-called catchall provision, section 726.108(l)(e)(3), of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. See Profeta v. Lombardo, 75 Ohio App.3d 621, 600 N.E. 2d 360 (1991).1 As such, we find that appellants sought a traditional legal remedy under section 726.108 and were entitled to a jury trial.2 Accordingly, the trial court did not err in submitting this claim to the jury. We distinguish this case from 381651 Alberta, Ltd. v. 279298 Alberta, Ltd., 675 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), where this court decided that a debtor was not entitled to a jury trial under section 726.108 because, there, the movants sought to set aside a conveyance of land, traditionally an equitable remedy.
We have considered the other issues raised on appeal and cross-appeal and find no error. AFFIRMED.
GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ„ concur. . The State of Maine also allows for money damages to be awarded against the transferor in an action under its Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. However, the UFTA, as enacted in Maine, contains a specific provision stating that the creditor may obtain "[d]amages in an amount not to exceed double the value of the property transferred or concealed.” 14 M.S.R.A. § 3578(1)(C)(3); see also Handy Boat Serv., Inc. v. Prof'l Servs., Inc., 711 A. 2d 1306, 1309-10 (Me.1998).
. Historically, actions to recover fraudulent conveyances were conducted before a jury if money or chattel were involved. See Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 44, 109 S.Ct. 2782, 106 L.Ed.2d 26 (1989). For an excellent historical perspective on the convergence, and sometimes confusion, of law and equity principles in Florida's courts, see Hutchens v. Maxicenters, U.S.A., 541 So. 2d 618, 619-24 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)(on motion for rehearing en banc)(Cowart, J., dissenting).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dedra B. Azonobi O'Neal v. Fla. A & M Univ., 989 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…trial. See B.J.Y. v. M.A., 617 So. 2d 1061, 1062 (Fla.1993); Hawkins v. Rellim Inv. Co., 92 Fla. 784, 110 So. 350, 351 (1926); Hathome v. Panama Park Co., 44 Fla. 194, 196, 32 So. 812, 813 (Fla.1902); Hansard Constr. Corp. v. Rite Aid of Fla., Inc., 783 So. 2d 307, 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). But Ms. O’Neal's invocation of the Act’s provisions authorizing damages recoverable at law gives rise to the right to trial by jury. The Act authorizes: "Compensation, if appropriate, for lost wages, benefits, or other lost…
-
FOX v. City OF Pompano Beach, 984 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…e, 698 So. 2d 1210, 1212-13 (Fla.1997). Questions regarding the right to a jury trial should be resolved in favor of the right to a jury trial, except where a remedy is wholly equitable in nature. See Hansard Constr. Corp. v. Rite Aid of Fla., Inc., 783 So. 2d 307, 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). In Rite Aid, this Court considered whether the right to a jury trial attached in an action brought pursuant to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, which contained a catch-all relief provision allowing for “ ‘[a]ny other re…
-
Bankfirst v. UBS Paine Webber, Inc., 842 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…“any other relief’ that circumstances may require to only traditional equitable remedies or does it permit any remedy which is equitable (and fair) under the circumstances? The court in Hansard Construction Corporation v. Rite Aid of Florida) Inc., 783 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), held that a plaintiff may recover money damages against the transferor under the “any other relief’’ provision. In Profeta v. Lombardo, 75 Ohio App.3d 621, 600 N.E. 2d 360 (1991), the Court approved money damages awarded under s…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Granfinanciera v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (U.S. 1989)
- Wiggins & Johnson v. Williams, 36 Fla. 637 (Fla. 1895)
- Hawkins v. Rellim Inv. Co., 92 Fla. 784 (Fla. 1926)
- Hughes v. Hannah, 39 Fla. 365 (Fla. 1897)
- King Mountain Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Gundlach, 425 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Hathorne v. Panama Park Co., 44 Fla. 194 (Fla. 1902)
- 381651 Alberta, Ltd. v. 279298 Alberta, Ltd., 675 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Robbins v. Section 3 Prop. Corp., 609 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Hutchens v. Maxicenters, 541 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Section 3 Prop. Corp. v. Robbins, 632 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1993)