Smith v. Orange County
Opinion
This is an appeal from a judgment in a land dispute case. The pleadings presented various issues to be tried by the court: one legal issue, and three equitable issues.
Because appellant timely requested a jury trial in the trespass action1 the trial court erred in lumping the legal and equitable causes of actions together and in refusing to hold a jury trial. A mixture of legal and equitable claims in the same case cannot deprive a party of a timely requested jury trial on the legal issues. Cerrito v. Kovitch, 457 So.2d 1021 (Fla.1984); Hobbs v. Florida First Nat’l. Bank, 480 So.2d 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Padgett v. First Federal Savings & Loan, 378 So.2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Where a dispute between two parties involves matters of both law and equity, it is within the trial court’s discretion to present the “mixed” issues to a jury for resolution of the factual disputes, or to sever the issues. Kies v. Florida Ins. Guaranty Association, Inc., 435 So.2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.270(b). Here, there is some indication it would be best for a jury to decide, not only the trespass action (where appellant is absolutely entitled to a jury trial), but the other issues as well. Thus, it would be proper upon remand for the court to so order.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
497 So. 2d 985 (Smith v. Orange County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.