Hanson v. First State Bank & Trust, s. 41629
| Decision Date | 02 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 41629,41630,s. 41629 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | HANSON v. FIRST STATE BANK & TRUST. FIRST STATE BANK & TRUST v. HANSON. |
Jay D. Bennett, Sidney O. Smith, Jr., Alston & Bird, Atlanta, for Anne Scherberger Hanson et al.
H. Holcombe Perry, Jr., Perry, Walters & Lippitt, Albany, for First State Bank and Trust Co.
This is a dispute between a trustee bank and beneficiaries under a trust. Although it began as a suit for declaratory judgment by the trustee, it evolved into an action by the beneficiaries for removal of the trustee, damages and return of certain fees.
Numerous complex issues arose during the jury trial and each party moved for a directed verdict. The order entered by the trial court followed an extensive colloquoy between the court and counsel. It recites that counsel for all parties agreed that there were no factual questions to be decided by the jury, thus committing the case to the court for decision. The order states it was entered after the court considered the evidence and the law. The order of the court, which contains no findings of fact or conclusions of law, denied some of the relief sought by the beneficiaries but granted certain other relief, including $15,000 together with interest and the removal of the trustee.
Before we reach the substantive issues, we must decide whether findings of fact and conclusions of law are necessary. Findings and conclusions are not ordinarily required in a jury trial. On the other hand, in a case tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, findings and conclusions are generally required by OCGA § 9-11-52(a), unless they are waived by the parties. There was no waiver in this case.
There is a question of whether this was a jury trial or whether it began as a jury trial and was converted into a bench trial. There are further questions of whether under the current law juries can be utilized to decide the equity issues in a case and, if they can, whether findings of fact and conclusions of law are required in any event. This case involves questions of equity. There is no constitutional right to a trial by a jury in equity cases. Williams v. Overstreet, 230 Ga. 112, 195 S.E.2d 906 (1973). In Cawthon v. Douglas County, 248 Ga. 760, 286 S.E.2d 30 (1982), we held that there is no statutory right to a trial by jury in equity cases. Former Code Ann. § 37-1104 does not appear in the Official Code of Georgia. The former section made provision for a special verdict. We do not view the failure to include this section in the Official Code of Georgia as a limitation upon the inherent right of a court of equity to call for special verdicts if, in its discretion, it desires to seek a jury's aid as a fact-finding body. We hold that a court of equity has such discretion, but when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Milliken & Co.
...in not empanelling a jury to assist it in resolving a question of fact. It may do so, if it so chooses. See Hanson v. First State Bank, etc., 254 Ga. 235, 236, 327 S.E.2d 730 (1985); Guhl v. Davis, 242 Ga. 356, 249 S.E.2d 43 (1978); Shaw v. W.M. Wrigley, Jr. Co., 183 Ga.App. 699, 359 S.E.2d......
-
Montana v. Blount
...failed to rebut the legal presumption of "reasonable necessity" and "reasonable enjoyment of the easement." Hanson v. First State Bank, etc., 254 Ga. 235, 236, 327 S.E.2d 730 (1985). The trial court made the required findings of fact and conclusions of law for the trial of the issues by the......
-
Bagley v. Robertson
...set aside a deed and conveyance, exercised its inherent right to seek a jury's aid as a fact-finding body. Hanson v. First State Bank & Trust, 254 Ga. 235, 236, 327 S.E.2d 730 (1985). However, because of the advisory nature of the jury in this case, the trial court was not bound by the fact......
-
Union Camp Corp. v. Savannah Bldg. Trades Council
...account of this. While in appropriate cases we have remanded for findings of fact and conclusions of law, see, Hanson v. First State Bank & c., 254 Ga. 235, 327 S.E.2d 730 (1985), we know of no authority, and Union Camp cites none to us, for voiding the 2. Certain authority of the courts of......