Romrell v. Zions First Nat. Bank, N. A., 16211
| Decision Date | 30 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 16211,16211 |
| Parties | Elva ROMRELL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ZIONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK, N. A., and Zions First National Bank of Ogden, Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
John H. Allen and Janeen J. Aggen of Callister, Greene & Nebeker, Salt Lake City, for defendants and appellants.
Arthur H. Nielsen, G. Richard Hill and F. Burton Howard, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.
Defendants appeal from a judgment granting specific performance of an oral contract to sell real property in Weber County, Utah. Defendants contend that the trial court erred (1) in refusing to grant their motion for a directed verdict or for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict since the evidence did not support the existence of an enforceable contract or of sufficient part performance to take the alleged contract out of the statute of frauds; (2) in instructing the jury as to the law on estoppel; (3) in refusing to instruct the jury on the difference between foreclosure of real property and foreclosure of personal property and on the effect of filing a bankruptcy petition; and (4) in submitting the question of whether specific performance should be granted to the jury on a general verdict rather than special interrogatories. For reasons set out below, we do not reach these issues but reverse and remand for entry of appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Plaintiff in this action sought specific performance of a real estate contract and, alternatively, damages for breach of contract and fraud. The parties stipulated in a pretrial order that should plaintiff be found entitled to specific performance, her other claims for relief would be dismissed as moot.
Plaintiff made timely demand for a jury trial. The disputed issues of fact and of law were specified in the pretrial order. At the conclusion of trial, the matter was submitted to the jury on a general verdict. The court had refused to submit the case to the jury on special interrogatories as requested by defendants. The jury's verdict was set out in the court's minute entry as follows:
We, the jury impanelled in this action, hereby find the issues in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants and find the Plaintiff is entitled to an Order directing defendants convey to plaintiff the property in dispute.
DATED this 19th day of October, 1978
John W. Peterson
The minute entry also stated: "Plaintiff's counsel to prepare and submit the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the Decree for the Court's signature." An order entitled "Judgment on the Verdict" was signed and entered on October 25, 1978. Based upon the jury's general verdict, plaintiff was awarded title to the real property subject to her payment of the purchase price and defendants were ordered upon receiving payment to convey to plaintiff good and marketable title to the property. The court made no findings of fact or conclusions of law.
An action for specific performance is an equitable action. It is axiomatic that the trial court, not the jury, decides the issues in equity cases. The jury's role is limited to aiding the court in its decision. This Court described the roles of the judge and jury in equity cases in Kesler v. Rogers, Utah, 542 P.2d 354, 358-59 (1975), as follows:
When a jury is used in an equity case, it acts in an advisory capacity. It is true that when the court has sought the aid of a jury, it should give due consideration to the jury's findings or conclusions, and not disregard them lightly. Nevertheless, in such cases, it is still his prerogative to accept or reject the findings or conclusions of the jury in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience and sense of justice. (Citations omitted.)
The trial judge may of course completely reject the verdict of an advisory jury in an equity case. The court's acceptance or rejection of the verdict is not subject to appellate review. Hargrove v. American Central Insurance Co., 125 F.2d 225 (10th Cir. 1942). The defendant's contentions that the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict and in refusing to instruct the jury as requested by defendants are therefore not well taken.
Rule 39(c), Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that even in actions not triable of right by a jury, the court may, with the consent of both parties, order a trial by a jury whose verdict has the same effect as if trial by jury were of right. The record in the present case does not indicate the intention to have a jury act other than as an advisory jury. Indeed, the intention of the trial court to regard the jury verdict as merely advisory is indicated by its minute entry directing the submission of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The rule in cases such as the instant one is that when there is a demand for a jury trial in an equity case, the jury will serve only in an advisory capacity unless both parties have clearly consented to accept a jury verdict.
In the instant case the trial court had the responsibility to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, notwithstanding the advisory verdict of a jury. Rule 52(a), U.R.C.P., states in part:
In all actions tried (on) the facts without a jury or with an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Von Hake v. Thomas
...24(c)), as a general rule we will not consider an issue raised for the first time in a reply brief. See Romrell v. Zions First Nat'l Bank, 611 P.2d 392, 395 (Utah 1980). Thomas presents no reason for us to disregard that general policy, and we decline to do so. We note, however, that the Un......
-
Parks v. Zions First Nat. Bank
...214 P. 313, 315 (1923). See also 655 P.2d at 1114.24 State ex rel. K.D.S., Utah, 578 P.2d 9, 11 (1978).25 Romrell v. Zions First National Bank, Utah, 611 P.2d 392, 394-95 (1980); Boyer Company v. Lignell, Utah, 567 P.2d 1112, 1113 (1977).26 Kinkella v. Baugh, Utah, 660 P.2d 233, 236 (1983);......
-
Selvage v. J.J. Johnson & Associates
...until its reply brief. As a general rule, an issue raised in a reply brief will not be considered on appeal. Romrell v. Zions First Nat'l Bank, N.A., 611 P.2d 392, 395 (Utah 1980). Furthermore, Sear-Brown did not marshal the evidence supporting the trial court's pertinent findings, instead ......
-
Hill v. Estate of Allred
...and twenty-seven. "Failure of the trial court to make findings on all material issues is reversible error." Romrell v. Zions First Nat'l Bank, N.A., 611 P.2d 392, 394-95 (Utah 1980). Although it is error for a court to fail to make findings on all material issues raised by the pleadings[,] ......