Barrios v. Ruiloba (In Re Ruiloba)
Opinion
ORDER DENYING JURY TRIAL
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
58 B.R. 700 (Barrios v. Ruiloba (In Re Ruiloba)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.