JACK D. SMITH A/K/A JACK DEMPSEY SMITH AND MARY N. SMITH A/K/A MARY NELL SMITH, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
BARNETT BANK OF MURRAY HILL, A STATE BANKING CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this mortgage foreclosure appeal, the court held that defendants have a constitutional right to a jury trial on their usury counterclaim for money damages, even though the counterclaim was filed in an equitable proceeding. The court reversed the trial court's order denying a jury trial on the usury issues while dismissing the fraud counterclaim for repeated pleading failures.
Defendants have a constitutional right to jury trial on their usury counterclaim for money damages. The trial court erred in ordering the usury counterclaim tried without a jury. The source of the right of action (statute versus common law) is insignificant to determining the right to jury trial when the claim seeks money damages of a type traditionally afforded jury trial at common law.
[1] A statutory right of action for money damages entitles a party to a jury trial, even if the right is not recognized at common law.
[2] The right to a jury trial extends to claims for money damages created by modern legislation.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The right of action afforded by Section 687.04, Florida Statutes (1975) is a right of action for money damages, for which a jury trial is appropriate. It is insignificant to the determination of counterclaimants' right to a jury trial that the right of action they assert is created by statute rather than by common law.”
Establishes the core holding that statutory money damage claims are entitled to jury trial rights just as common law claims are.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJack and Mary Smith were defendants in a mortgage foreclosure action brought by Barnett Bank of Murray Hill. The Smiths filed a counterclaim for usury…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Common Law cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
This is an interlocutory appeal in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding, formerly cognizable in equity. Fla.App.R. 4.2a. Defendants complain principally of the trial court’s order which set counterclaim issues of usury for trial with the foreclosure issues without a jury and which dismissed Count II of defendants’ second amended counterclaim and their second amended affirmative defense alleging fraud. The trial court properly dismissed the fraud defense and counterclaim with prejudice after defendants failed in three pleading attempts. We reverse the order setting the usury counterclaim for trial without a jury.
The Declaration of Rights secures the right of jury trial for cases in which a jury trial was traditionally afforded at common law. Article I, Section 22, Florida Constitution; Flint River Steamboat Co. v. Roberts, Allen & Co., 2 Fla. 102 (1848); Buckman v. State ex rel. Spencer, 34 Fla. 48, 15 So. 697 (1894). No right of action for recovery of usurious interest paid or other damages was afforded at common law. Coe v. Muller, 74 Fla. 399, 77 So. 88 (1917); Matlack Properties, Inc. v. Citizens & Southern Nat’l Bank, 120 Fla. 77, 162 So. 148 (1935). However, an action for the recovery of money as damages was among the class of cases in which the common law afforded a right of jury trial. Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 82 S.Ct. 894, 8 L.Ed.2d 44 (1962); Waddell v. State ex rel. Meeks, 235 Ark. 293, 357 S.W. 2d 651 (1962).
The right of action afforded by Section 687.04, Florida Statutes (1975) is a right of action for money damages, for which a jury trial is appropriate. It is insignificant to the determination of coun-terclaimants’ right to a jury trial that the right of action they assert is created by statute rather than by common law. If the rule were otherwise, claims for money damages based on modern legislation would be subject to denial of a jury trial, and the right to jury trial would shrink as time and legislation change the citizen’s rights of redress and access to the courts. Compare Fleitmann v. Welsbach Street Lighting Co., 240 U.S. 27, 29, 36 S.Ct. 233, 234, 60 L.Ed. 505, 507 (1916) (“[Wjhen a penalty of triple damages is sought to be inflicted [under the Sherman Act], the statute should not be read as attempting to authorize liability to be enforced otherwise than through the verdict of a jury in a court of common law.”); Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 504, 79 S.Ct. 948, 953, 3 L.Ed.2d 988, 994 (1959) (“[T]he right to trial by jury applies to treble damage suits under the antitrust laws, and is, in fact, an essential part of the congressional plan for making competition rather than monopoly the rule of trade . . . .”); Admiral Corp. v. Admiral Employment Bureau, Inc., 151 F.Supp. 629, 631 (N.D.Ill.1957) (“There exists the right to have the jury pass on the question of the willfulness of the violation [under the Lanham Trade-mark Act] before [a treble damage] award is made.”); Bailey v. Central Vermont Ry., 319 U.S. 350, 354, 63 S.Ct. 1062, 1064, 87 L.Ed. 1444, 1448 (1943) (“The right to trial by jury is a basic and fundamental feature of our system of federal jurisprudence. . . . It is part and parcel of the remedy afforded railroad workers under the Employers’ Liability Act.”)
The filing of a compulsory counterclaim for relief cognizable at law in an action for equitable relief does not waive jury trial on the counterclaim issues. Hightower v. Bigoney, 156 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1963).
The trial court’s order denying a jury trial on the usury counterclaim for money damages is REVERSED; but the interlocutory appeal is otherwise DISMISSED.
MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
King Mountain Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Gundlach, 425 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…also guarantees the right to trial by jury in legal actions,2 Florida courts looked to federal case law for guid- [*571] anee in developing a suitable test. See High Tower v. Bigoney, 156 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1963); Smith v. Barnett Bank of Murray Hill, 350 So. 2d 358, 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Dobbs, Remedies § 2.6 at 80 n. 53 (1973 West). The federal test is often phrased in terms of whether, “the action involves rights and remedies of the sort traditionally-enforced in an action at law, rather than an action in…
-
Broward Cnty. v. la Rosa, 505 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1987)…y trial in all cases that traditionally afforded a jury trial at common law. Construction Systems & Engineering, Inc. v. Jennings Construction Corp., 413 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), review denied, 426 So. 2d 26 (Fla.1983); Smith v. Barnett Bank, 350 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Broward County argues that the constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply in the instant case because common law did not recognize civil rights when Florida adopted its constitution. We reject this argument as inapplica…
-
Cerrito v. Kovitch, 457 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1984)…ry statute creates a right of action for damages activating the constitutional right of jury trial and also challenged the trial court’s ruling that there was no ground to deny foreclosure under the usury law. They relied upon Smith v. Barnett Bank, 350 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), which held that a cause of action for money damages, even though based on modern legislation rather than the common law, carries with it the right to a jury trial. The district court of appeal rejected the argument that the usu…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (U.S. 1959)
- Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1962)
- Bailey v. Cent. Vt. Ry., Inc., 319 U.S. 350 (U.S. 1943)
- Fleitmann v. Welsbach St. Lighting Co., 240 U.S. 27 (U.S. 1916)
- Hightower v. Bigoney, 156 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1963)
- Coe v. Muller, 74 Fla. 399 (Fla. 1917)
- Courtland Buckman v. The State of Fla. ex rel. Champlin H. Spencer, 34 Fla. 48 (Fla. 1894)
- Flint River Steam Boat Co. v. Roberts, 2 Fla. 102 (Fla. 1848)
- Matlack Props., Inc. v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank, 120 Fla. 77 (Fla. 1935)