Barge v. Simeton, 84-676
| Decision Date | 05 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-676,84-676 |
| Citation | 460 So.2d 939 |
| Parties | Stephen T. BARGE, Appellant, v. Rosa SIMETON, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James E. Copeland of the Law Offices of Roger C. Hurd, P.A., North Palm Beach, for appellant.
Charles Musgrove and Dan Hayes, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant Barge sued appellee Simeton in county court for damages for unpaid work performed by Barge pursuant to a contract to improve Simeton's real property. Simeton counterclaimed against Barge for damages for defective work and for filing a fraudulent lien on Simeton's property and demanded a jury trial. The cause was transferred to the circuit court where, pursuant to Simeton's motion, the court set the cause for trial by jury on July 11, 1983. Prior to trial Barge's lawyer withdrew. Thereafter, Simeton filed a motion to remove the case from the jury trial docket and try it non-jury because 1) upon preparation for trial counsel determined the case could "more appropriately" be tried without a jury, and 2) counsel had a conflict in that he was scheduled to try another case in Fort Lauderdale during the same trial period. The cause was tried non-jury on February 23, 1984, resulting in a judgment against Barge and for Simeton on Barge's complaint and for Simeton on her counterclaim in the amount of $300 compensatory damages, $500 punitive damages, attorney's fees of $1500, and costs of $121.29.
Barge obtained new counsel and filed a motion to set aside "default and default final judgment" together with an affidavit stating he had not received either the motion to try the case non-jury or the notice of non-jury trial. Finally, without awaiting a decision on the aforesaid motion Barge perfected this appeal.
The thrust of Simeton's defense of the trial court's action is Barge's lack of diligence, his failure to attend the hearing on motion to remove the case from the jury docket or the trial of the case. Barge, of course, says he did not receive notice of either event. Be that as it may, we believe that issue is irrelevant. Whether Barge received notice or not, he had a right to a jury trial. To paraphrase the First District Court of Appeal in Saunders v. Saunders, 346 So.2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), Barge was entitled to place his confidence in the jury system, being confident that a jury would reasonably assess the damages in the case. The mere fact Barge failed to show up to pursue his claim does not mean he was not entitled to a jury determination...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baron Auctioneer, Inc. v. Ball, 93-2548
...v. Ullman, 571 So.2d 443 (Fla.1990); Barth v. Florida State Constructors Service, Inc., 327 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); Barge v. Simeton, 460 So.2d 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). The fact that a party participates in a non-jury trial without raising an objection constitutes waiver of the right to jury t......
-
Stewart v. Universal Investments Unlimited, Inc.
...Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., N.A., 420 So.2d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Chenery v. Crans, 497 So.2d 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Barge v. Simeton, 460 So.2d 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Kies v. Florida Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc., 435 So.2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Ansel v. Kizer, 428 So.2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 1......
-
City of Pembroke Pines v. Atlas, 84-631
...the pleadings under the facts of this case. Appellant, however, correctly asserts its right to jury trial on damages. Barge v. Simeton, 460 So.2d 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Jayre, Inc. v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., 420 So.2d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA We reverse and remand for jury trial upon the quest......
-
Haynes v. Arman
...who makes the demand [for jury trial], once made it cannot be withdrawn without the consent of all parties” (quoting Barge v. Simeton, 460 So.2d 939, 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) )); see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.430(d) (“A demand for trial by jury may not be withdrawn without the consent of the pa......