Opinion ID: 853134
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Modern Detours

Text: Modern decisions on this topic reflect the difficulty of parsing through the issue. A fair amount of case law, including some of our own, demonstrates the risks of a shorthand, imprecise recitation of the rule. See, e.g., Fager v. Hundt, 610 N.E.2d 246, 253 n. 5 (Ind.1993) (Despite the longstanding rule that whenever a cause of action is in equity the entire action is drawn into equity, thus extinguishing the right to a jury trial, the converse is also true.). An overview of recent appellate decisions reveals continuing disagreement and a multitude of tests used for determining a litigant's right to jury trial. We accepted transfer to restate the basic principles. Much of this modern inconsistency can be traced to misuse of Hiatt v. Yergin, 152 Ind.App. 497, 284 N.E.2d 834 (1972), overruled on other grounds, Erdman v. White, 411 N.E.2d 653, 656 (Ind.Ct.App.1980). While much of the prior case law involved interpretation of the statutory guarantee, Hiatt was the first case to consider Trial Rule 38(A) as it was adopted in 1970. 152 Ind.App. at 512, 284 N.E.2d at 842. The case involved a breach of contract claim which sought specific performance of the agreement. 152 Ind.App. at 526, 284 N.E.2d at 850. Appellants' request for a jury trial had been denied. The Court of Appeals examined several prior decisions, much as we have done today. It cited both Towns, 115 Ind. at 480, 16 N.E. at 811, and Hendricks, 86 Ind. at 278, for the proposition that if any essential part of a cause [i.e., suit] is exclusively of equitable cognizance, the whole is drawn into equity. Hiatt, 152 Ind.App. at 517, 284 N.E.2d at 845. After a thoughtful analysis, the court held that [t]o determine if an action with mixed issues of fact sounds in equity or law, the court must turn to the complaint and pleadings as a whole. 152 Ind.App. at 518, 284 N.E.2d at 846 (citing Monnett v. Turpie, 132 Ind. 482, 32 N.E. 328 (1892)). The court concluded by saying that the right to trial by jury is determined by reference to the essential character and nature of the claim for relief sought. 152 Ind.App. at 525, 284 N.E.2d at 850. Unfortunately, later decisions misconstrued Hiatt `s holding, prying it loose from the rule of Towns, Hendricks, and Field. For instance, in Jones v. Marengo State Bank , the court cited Hiatt for the proposition that if an essential part of a cause of action is equitable the rest of the case is drawn into equity. 526 N.E.2d at 713 (emphasis added). Like the appellants in this case, the court failed to recognize the distinction between a cause and a cause of action. Some subsequent decisions have done likewise. See, e.g., Baker v. R & R Const., Inc., 662 N.E.2d 661, 665 (Ind.Ct.App.1996); Levinson v. Citizens Nat'l Bank of Evansville, 644 N.E.2d 1264, 1267 (Ind.Ct.App.1994); Weisman v. Hopf-Himsel, Inc., 535 N.E.2d at 1229. As we said above, the two are not interchangeable. If the essential features of a suit as a whole are equitable and the individual causes of action are not distinct or severable, the entitlement to a jury trial is extinguished. The opposite is also true. If a single cause of action in a multi-count complaint is plainly equitable and the other causes of action assert purely legal claims that are sufficiently distinct and severable, Trial Rule 38(A) requires a jury trial on the legal claims. A review of Rule 38(A) and more than 120 years of decisions reveals that Songer is correct in arguing that the simple inclusion of an equitable claim, standing alone, does not warrant drawing an entire case into equity. Such an approach violates Rule 38(A), and we disapprove cases holding otherwise. Something more than the mere presence of an equitable claim is necessary. [8] The appropriate question is whether the essential features of the suit are equitable. To determine if equity takes jurisdiction of the essential features of a suit, we evaluate the nature of the underlying substantive claim and look beyond both the label a party affixes to the action and the subsidiary issues that may arise within such claims. Courts must look to the substance and central character of the complaint, the rights and interests involved, and the relief demanded. In the appropriate case, the issues arising out of discovery may also be important. [9]