The trial court entered judgment as outlined above along with extensive findings of fact. This appeal ensued. The Bakers assert that the trial court committed reversible error by denying them a jury trial reasoning that, even if they had not been entitled to a jury trial in the first lawsuit which had been initiated as a foreclosure action, they were still entitled to a jury trial in their separate lawsuit brought against the Bank. Thus, the Bakers argue, the trial court erred by consolidating the two actions without providing them a jury trial on the issues involving the Bank. When determining whether actions should be consolidated or tried separately, the trial court balances the interests of convenience and economy against the likelihood of substantial prejudice to the party objecting to consolidation.
Consolidation is favored when it serves the interests of judicial economy.
The trial court is afforded broad discretion in determining whether actions should be consolidated for trial. In the present case, there is no reasonable dispute that the two separate lawsuits shared a common nucleus of facts. The Bakers' concern over the project involved the propriety and documentation of the Builders' requests for disbursements from the Bank and the corresponding propriety of the Bank's disbursements of the loan proceeds and its oversight of the project. As manifested by the voluminous record filed in this case, there was a huge amount of detailed evidence regarding the multitude of transactions involved in the construction project. Judicial economy was well-served by consolidation.