Magram v. Raffel, 83-2548
| Decision Date | 03 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-2548,83-2548 |
| Parties | Isadore H. MAGRAM and Magram Motor Cars f/k/a Charlie Kolb's Auto City, Ltd., Inc., Petitioners, v. Blair A. RAFFEL and Allan R. Knight, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Worley & Harnage and Henry Harnage, Miami, for petitioners.
Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Tutan, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Lane and Shelley H. Leinicke, Miami, for respondents.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and BASKIN, JJ.
In this petition for writ of common law certiorari, petitioners seek review of the trial court's order denying them a jury trial on the liability issues contained in count IV of their complaint. We grant the petition.
In June, 1981, petitioners filed their second amended complaint alleging three counts of legal malpractice against respondents. Petitioners failed to demand a jury trial as to any of these counts within the time required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.430(b). They did, however, file a subsequent motion requesting leave to amend their second amended complaint to include a demand for jury trial pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.430(d). In response, the trial court ordered a non-jury trial on the liability issues in the three counts and a jury trial, if required, on the issue of damages. Following some initial discovery, petitioners filed a motion to amend the second amended complaint to add count IV, alleging the respondent-attorneys' breach of escrow agency relationship as to petitioner Magram. Petitioners made a timely demand for a jury trial as to count IV. The trial court granted petitioners' motion to add count IV and deemed it filed on the date of the order. The court ruled that as to count IV, the liability issues would be tried non-jury but damages would be tried by a jury. Although petitioners renewed their demand for jury trial as to all issues in count IV, the trial court again denied petitioners' request. Petition for writ of certiorari ensued.
As a general principle of review, common law certiorari is appropriate in exceptional cases, such as those in which "the lower court acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, or where the interlocutory order does not conform to the essential requirements of law and may reasonably cause material injury throughout the subsequent proceedings for which the remedy by appeal will be inadequate...." Kauffman v. King, 89 So.2d 24, 26 (Fla.1956). This court has held that certiorari is the appropriate remedy to address the present issue involving an interlocutory order denying the right to jury trial. Spring v. Ronel Refining, Inc., 421 So.2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
In ordering a non-jury trial for the liability issues in petitioners'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sundale Associates, Ltd. v. Southeast Bank, N.A.
...(Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Padgett v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association, 378 So.2d 58, 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); see Magram v. Raffel, 443 So.2d 396, 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); N.J. Willis Corp. v. Raskin, 430 So.2d 996, 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Construction Systems and Engineering, Inc. v. Jenn......
-
Dahlawi v. Ramlawi
...appeal. See W.R. Grace & Co. Conn. v. Waters, 638 So.2d 502 (Fla.1994); Kauffman v. King, 89 So.2d 24 (Fla.1956); Magram v. Raffel, 443 So.2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Sarasota-Manatee Airport Auth. v. Alderman, 238 So.2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). Accordingly, we grant the petition for certiora......
-
Adler v. Seligman of Florida, Inc., 85-32
...which added counts in fraud and civil theft was sufficient to revive the time for demand for jury trial. In Magram v. Raffel, 443 So.2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), the court ruled that it was error to deny a jury trial where the amended complaint added a count for breach of an agency relationsh......
-
Johnson Engineering, Inc. v. Pate, 90-01333
...jurisdiction. Quality Coffee Service, Inc. v. Tallahassee Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 474 So.2d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Magram v. Raffel, 443 So.2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority v. Alderman, 238 So.2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). But see Tucker v. Rudnianyn, 517 So.2d 7......