Opinion ID: 1224814
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legal Versus Equitable IssuesGeneral Principles

Text: The Dixons argue that the trial court should have decided the reformation and breach of settlement agreement issues first because they were equitable in nature. The Dixons also argue that the TICR, NIED/IIED, and malice claims were predicated upon a finding that a settlement agreement existed and that, because the trial court found that no such enforceable agreement existed, it therefore erred in denying the Dixons' motions for directed verdict and JNOV or new trial. Lee, on the other hand, maintains that, in determining whether to grant the equitable relief sought, the trial court was required to submit all factual determinations regarding her legal claims to the jury and that any findings of fact common to both the equitable and legal claims were binding on the trial court in its equitable determinations. Lee therefore submits that the trial court, having failed to find that the jury's factual determinations were unsupported by the evidence, erred when it disregarded the jury's factual findings as to the equitable reformation and breach of settlement agreement claims. We begin our analysis by considering (1) which issues were required to be tried before a jury and (2) whether the jury's factual findings on those issues were binding on the trial court in its determination of issues that were not triable as of right to a jury. Such an inquiry presents a question of law, which we review de novo. See Mehau v. Reed, 76 Hawai`i 101, 869 P.2d 1320 (1994); Kimball v. Lincoln, 72 Haw. 117, 809 P.2d 1130 (1991). Article I, section 13 of the Hawai`i Constitution guarantees that, [i]n suits at common law where the value in controversy shall exceed five thousand dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. HRCP Rule 38(a) provides that the right of trial by jury as given by the Constitution or a statute of the State or the United States shall be preserved to the parties inviolate. The right given by the Hawai`i Constitution and preserved by HRCP Rule 38(a) is the right to a jury trial in suits at common law. The test to determine whether a suit is at common law is ... whether the cause of action seeks legal or equitable relief. In other words, courts look to the nature of the remedy to determine whether a jury trial is warranted. Historically, actions in equity were heard by a judge; actions at law were triable by a jury. Mehau, 76 Hawai`i at 110, 869 P.2d at 1329 (citations omitted). Furthermore, [i]t is well settled that a jury question goes to the particular issue rather than the overall case. Id. at 111, 869 P.2d at 1330 (citation omitted) (emphasis added); see also HRCP Rule 39. Where legal and equitable claims are present in the same case, this court has long held that the trial court is precluded from ruling, in the first instance, on any equitable claims that may determine the outcome of the legal claims. Harada v. Burns, 50 Haw. 528, 445 P.2d 376 (1968). In the federal courts, there is no question that, when legal and equitable issues turn on the same operative facts, a jury must decide the legal issue first. See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 441 F.2d 637 (5th Cir.1971). Furthermore, when a jury is called upon to make findings in connection with both legal and equitable matters resting upon the same set of facts, the trial court is bound by the jury's findings of fact when making its equitable determinations. See, e.g., Zions First Nat. v. Rocky Mountain Irrigation Inc., 795 P.2d 658, 662 (Utah 1990); International Harvester Credit v. Pioneer Tractor, 626 P.2d 418, 421 n. 2 (Utah 1981) (citation omitted); Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 79 S.Ct. 948, 3 L.Ed.2d 988 (1959); see generally Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §§ 2305, 2306, & 2338 (1971).