Blackburn v. Blackburn

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Blackburn v. Blackburn

393 So. 2d 51, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 18722

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 30, 1981

DocketNo. 80-231

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 393 So. 2d 51 (Blackburn v. Blackburn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blackburn v. Blackburn, 393 So. 2d 51, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 18722 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHEB, Chief Judge.

J. Frank Blackburn filed an action for replevin against appellant Lewis E. Blackburn. Appellant filed his answer and counterclaim incorporating a demand for jury trial. He renewed the demand at pretrial conference. The court, nevertheless, denied the demand, conducted a nonjury trial and [52]*52entered final judgment for Frank Blackburn. In this appeal the appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his demand for jury trial.

A litigant has a right to a jury trial when the issue presented in a case would have been heard at common, law. Carney v. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700, 74 So. 866 (1917); see Dudley v. Harrison, McCready & Co., 127 Fla. 687, 173 So. 820 (1937); In re U. S. Financial Services Litigation, 609 F.2d 411 (9th Cir.1979). Replevin was a common-law action. Three States Lumber Co. v. Blanks, 133 F. 479 (6th Cir. 1904); Road Material and Equipment Co. v. McGowan, 229 Miss. 611, 91 So.2d 554 (1956). Consequently, a party in a replevin action is entitled to a jury trial as long as he timely demands it and does not waive the right. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.430.

Here, appellant filed a timely demand under rule 1.430(b) for a jury trial in his answer and counterclaim. Further, the record does not indicate that he ever waived that right. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a jury trial on all issues triable by jury.

GRIMES and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

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

SCHEB, Chief Judge.

J. Frank Blackburn filed an action for replevin against appellant Lewis E. Blackburn. Appellant filed his answer and counterclaim incorporating a demand for jury trial. He renewed the demand at pretrial conference. The court, nevertheless, denied the demand, conducted a nonjury trial and [52]*52entered final judgment for Frank Blackburn. In this appeal the appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his demand for jury trial.

A litigant has a right to a jury trial when the issue presented in a case would have been heard at common, law. Carney v. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700, 74 So. 866 (1917); see Dudley v. Harrison, McCready & Co., 127 Fla. 687, 173 So. 820 (1937); In re U. S. Financial Services Litigation, 609 F.2d 411 (9th Cir.1979). Replevin was a common-law action. Three States Lumber Co. v. Blanks, 133 F. 479 (6th Cir. 1904); Road Material and Equipment Co. v. McGowan, 229 Miss. 611, 91 So.2d 554 (1956). Consequently, a party in a replevin action is entitled to a jury trial as long as he timely demands it and does not waive the right. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.430.

Here, appellant filed a timely demand under rule 1.430(b) for a jury trial in his answer and counterclaim. Further, the record does not indicate that he ever waived that right. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a jury trial on all issues triable by jury.

GRIMES and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

393 So. 2d 51, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 18722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blackburn-v-blackburn-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack