Builderama, Inc. v. Morton
This text of 415 S.E.2d 796 (Builderama, Inc. v. Morton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The issue is whether the trial judge erred in denying appellant Otto Morton d/b/a Morton Home Builders a jury trial. We reverse and remand for trial.
I. FACTS
Respondent Builderama, Inc. instituted a collection action against appellant for the balance due on a commercial credit account. Appellant denied the allegations of the complaint, asserted a counterclaim, and demanded a jury trial. The trial judge denied appellant’s demand for a jury trial and referred the action to the master-in-equity.
II. DISCUSSION
Appellant asserts that the trial judge erred in denying him a jury trial. We agree.
Issues of fact in an action for the recovery of money must be tried by a jury, unless a jury trial be waived. Rule 38(a), SCRCP. The compulsory order of reference to the master-in[441]*441equity deprived appellant of a mode of trial to which he is entitled as a matter of right, and thus was improper.
We hold that the trial judge erred in denying appellant a jury trial. The order of the trial judge denying appellant’s demand for a jury trial is reversed, and the case remanded for trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
415 S.E.2d 796, 307 S.C. 440, 1992 S.C. LEXIS 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/builderama-inc-v-morton-sc-1992.