THE BANK OF MIAMI, APPELLANT,
v.
LUCILLE GREENE, 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.
Bank of Miami appeals a judgment entered after a non-jury trial on damages in a liability case previously remanded by this court. The court affirms, holding that the appellant's right to a jury trial was not revived by the remand for damages proceedings or by an amended complaint addressing the same damages issue.
The court affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the continuance or permitting the complaint amendment. More significantly, the court held that the appellant's right to a jury trial was not revived by the appellate court's reversal for further proceedings on damages, nor by the amended complaint addressing the same damages issue.
[1] A party's right to a jury trial is not revived by a court's reversal for further proceedings on the issue of damages.
[2] A party's right to a jury trial is not revived by an amended complaint that touches upon the same general issue of damages that was previously before the court.
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 appellant's right to trial by jury was not revived by this court's reversal for further proceedings on the issue of damages nor was it revived by the amended complaint which touched the same general issue of damages which was then before the court.”
Establishes the principal holding that reversal and remand for damages proceedings does not restore jury trial rights previously waived or lost.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case returns to the appellate court for the second time. In the prior appeal, the court affirmed liability but reversed for further proceedings o…
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 Amendment Of Pleadings To Conform To Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant (defendant in the trial court) seeks review of a final judgment for the appellee entered by the trial court pursuant to a non-jury trial on the issue of damages.
This is the second time this case is before this court. See Southern Industrial Savings Bank v. Greene, Fla.App., 1969, 224 So.2d 416. In the cited opinion, this court affirmed the trial court’s finding as to liability, but reversed for further proceedings on the issue of damages. Pursuant to mandate of this court, the appellee moved for an order setting a hearing date of October 8, 1969. On October 10, 1969, appellant filed its demand for jury trial. Trial was set non-jury during the week of December 15, 1969. Thereafter, appellant moved for and filed an amended answer, interrogatories to the appellee, and another demand for jury trial. The cause ultimately came on for non-jury trial on December 18, 1969, at which time appellant moved for a continuance on the ground that the ap-pellee had not filed answers to interrogatories until the day of the trial. The motion was denied and at trial, the appellee introduced testimony of an expert witness as to damages. At the conclusion of the trial, the appellee moved to amend her complaint to conform to the evidence, said evidence showing a greater loss than alleged in the complaint. The motion was granted and the trial court entered the final judgment appealed herein.
Appellant contends abuse of discretion by the trial court by denying his motion for a continuance and further by permitting ap-pellee to amend her complaint at the conclusion of the trial. A review of the record failed to disclose that the trial judge abused his discretion. Also see Rule 1.190 (b) R.C.P., 30 F.S.A.
The remaining issue raised by appellant is that the trial court erred in denying appellant a jury trial. The initial trial was non-jury. The appellant’s right to trial by jury was not revived by this court’s reversal for further proceedings on the issue of damages nor was it revived by the amended complaint which touched the same general issue of damages which was then before the court. See 20 Fla.Jur., Jury § 26. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DR. Phillips, Inc. v. L & W Supply Corp., 790 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…” depends on whether the amended pleadings contain new issues of fact, rather than new theories of recovery.” Adler, 492 So. 2d at 733 (citing Guajardo v. Estelle, 580 F. 2d 748 (5th Cir.1978)). The Adler court noted that in Bank of Miami v. Greene, 240 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), it was held that “the right to a jury trial was not revived by the filing of an amendment to the complaint that ‘touched the same general issue of damages which was then before the court.’ ” Adler, 492 So. 2d at 733 (citing Bank…
-
Adler v. Seligman OF Fla., Inc., 492 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…s interpreting the same rule indicate that the term “new issue” refers to whether the amended pleadings contain new issues of fact, rather than new theories of recovery. Guajardo v. Estelle, 580 F. 2d 748 (5th Cir.1978).2 In Bank of Miami v. Greene, 240 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), without reciting the facts, the court held that the right to a jury trial was not revived by the filing of an amendment to the complaint that “touched the same general issue of damages which was then before the court.” Id. at 162…
-
Duncan v. State, 240 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…st again prove fruitless, upon authority of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Brown v. State, Fla.1970, 237 So. 2d 129. See also this 2nd District Court’s opinions in Rogers v. State, 239 So. 2d 118; Woods v. State, 239 So. 2d 853; and Kinder v. State, 240 So. 2d 162. The lower Court’s order in the instant case, denying Duncan’s post-conviction motion for relief, must be and is— Affirmed. HOBSON, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- S. Indus. Sav. Bank v. Greene, 224 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)