Case Name: JAYRE INCORPORATED and Hilliard Herzog, Appellants, v. WACHOVIA BANK AND TRUST CO., N.A., a National Banking Assn., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-10-26
Citations: 420 So. 2d 937
Docket Number: No. 81-2199
Parties: JAYRE INCORPORATED and Hilliard Herzog, Appellants, v. WACHOVIA BANK AND TRUST CO., N.A., a National Banking Assn., Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 420
Pages: 937–940

Head Matter:
JAYRE INCORPORATED and Hilliard Herzog, Appellants, v. WACHOVIA BANK AND TRUST CO., N.A., a National Banking Assn., Appellee.
No. 81-2199.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct. 26, 1982.
Seligman & Sandler and Kenneth San-dler, Hollywood, for appellants.
Frates & Novey and Terry S. Bienstock and Diane M. Van Ness, Tallahassee, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.

Opinion:
BARKDULL, Judge.
On May 1st, 1981, the appellee bank, as plaintiff, filed an action against the defendants that charged that, it, the bank, had erroneously transferred $87,200. to the bank account of the defendant corporation; that the corporation, through the individual defendant, as its president, had refused to return the funds and thereby converted them and in fact by their conversion and refusal the defendants were guilty of a theft under § 812.035 Florida Statutes (1979).
The complaint sought punitive damages, as well as treble damages pursuant to § 812.035; Florida Statutes (1979), and demanded a jury trial.
Service was had upon the defendants May 19, 1981. A default judgment was entered against both defendants for failure to plead on June 11,. 1981. A motion for final judgment was filed on June 11, 1981 (with no service upon the defendants) it recited the default and advised the court that this action was for fraud, theft and conversion. Final judgment was rendered on the same day against the defendants jointly and severally for the principal sum of $261,600. plus interest costs and attorneys fees.
A motion to set aside the default ultimately came on for hearing before the trial court, accompanied by an answer by the corporate defendant and a motion to dismiss by the individual, contending that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against him individually. The motion was primarily based (supported by an affidavit by counsel for the defendants) upon excusable neglect in failing to plead, since counsel for the defendants had an oral agreement with counsel for the plaintiff that the cause would be held in abeyance until an accounting with a third party could be completed.
Counsel for the plaintiff filed an affidavit that no such oral agreement in fact existed. The trial court denied the motion to set aside default and this appeal of the final judgment ensued.
We affirm as to the denial of the motion to set aside the default. Orthwein v. Cobbs Fruit & Preserving Company, 229 So.2d 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); Osceola Farms Co. v. Sanchez, 238 So.2d 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). Fla.R.Jud.Admin. 2.060(g).
We reverse the final judgment entered on the default, with directions to the trial judge to submit the matter of damages to a jury as requested by the plaintiff in its complaint. A plaintiff, after demanding a jury trial in its complaint cannot withdraw the' demand, absent consent of the defendant, even when a default judgment has been entered against the defendant. Schuppener v. Stein, 374 So.2d 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Loiselle v. Gladfelter, 160 So.2d 740 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1964), affirmed; Gladfelter v. Loiselle 165 So.2d 767 (Fla.1964). Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.430(d).
In oral argument counsel touched on the question of whether treble damages could be recovered in the trial court under Section 812.035(7) without proof of a prior criminal conviction. This opinion does not address this point. It was not presented to the trial court and was not a point on this appeal. Upon remand, the matter should' first be submitted to the trial court for a determination after a full review of the legislative background leading to the adoption of this Section in 1979; the Section not having heretofore received judicial scrutiny. After the trial court makes a ruling on this point, any aggrieved party may make a point in subsequent appellate proceedings as to the correctness of the trial judge's interpretation of Section 812.-035(7).
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final judgment is hereby reversed and the matter returned to the trial court for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.