Barrios v. Ruiloba (In Re Ruiloba)

S.D. Florida

Barrios v. Ruiloba (In Re Ruiloba)

58 B.R. 700

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida.

DecidedFebruary 5, 1986

Docket18-22945

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 58 B.R. 700 (Barrios v. Ruiloba (In Re Ruiloba)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barrios v. Ruiloba (In Re Ruiloba), 58 B.R. 700 (Fla. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING JURY TRIAL

THOMAS C. BRITTON, Bankruptcy Judge.

The plaintiff’s demand for jury trial in this adversary proceeding is denied.

The action is to determine dischargeability of a debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a). No right to a jury existed under the Common Law for such an action, which is a statutory remedy bottomed on principles of equity. Katchen v. Landy, 382 U.S. 323, 86 S.Ct. 467, 15 L.Ed.2d 391 (1966); Sibley v. Fulton Dekalb Collection Service, 677 F.2d 830 (11th Cir.1982); Pennels v. Barnes (In re Best Pack Seafood, Inc.), 45 B.R. 194 (Bankr.D.Me.1984).

The plaintiff has no right to a jury trial on the dischargeability issue. Matter of Merrill, 594 F.2d 1064, 1066 (5th Cir.1979). Plaintiffs did not pray for a judgment upon their claim. That would be the only issue triable as a matter of right before a jury. If this court determines that the debt is dischargeable, plaintiffs would not be entitled to a jury to prove the amount of their claim under the bankruptcy claims’ procedure. If this court determines that the debt is non-dischargeable, this court will abstain from fixing the debtor’s liability and plaintiffs’ damages, in order that either party may claim a jury and try the matter before the state court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER DENYING JURY TRIAL

THOMAS C. BRITTON, Bankruptcy Judge.

The plaintiff’s demand for jury trial in this adversary proceeding is denied.

The action is to determine dischargeability of a debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a). No right to a jury existed under the Common Law for such an action, which is a statutory remedy bottomed on principles of equity. Katchen v. Landy, 382 U.S. 323, 86 S.Ct. 467, 15 L.Ed.2d 391 (1966); Sibley v. Fulton Dekalb Collection Service, 677 F.2d 830 (11th Cir.1982); Pennels v. Barnes (In re Best Pack Seafood, Inc.), 45 B.R. 194 (Bankr.D.Me.1984).

The plaintiff has no right to a jury trial on the dischargeability issue. Matter of Merrill, 594 F.2d 1064, 1066 (5th Cir.1979). Plaintiffs did not pray for a judgment upon their claim. That would be the only issue triable as a matter of right before a jury. If this court determines that the debt is dischargeable, plaintiffs would not be entitled to a jury to prove the amount of their claim under the bankruptcy claims’ procedure. If this court determines that the debt is non-dischargeable, this court will abstain from fixing the debtor’s liability and plaintiffs’ damages, in order that either party may claim a jury and try the matter before the state court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 B.R. 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrios-v-ruiloba-in-re-ruiloba-flsb-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack