Court Opinion

ID: 9689628
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:41:38.88665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:50.869310
License: Public Domain

PEDERSON, Justice,
on petition for rehearing.
In his petition for rehearing Kouba asserts that he is entitled to a jury trial in the mandamus proceeding held to determine whether he filed a complete tax return, within the meaning of § 57-38-31, NDCC. This right to a jury trial does not automatically attach to every judicial proceeding. Rule 38(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., provides that:
“Any party may demand a trial by jury of any issue triable of right by jury by serving upon the other parties a demand therefor in writing at any time after the commencement of the action and not later than 10 days after the service of the last pleading directed to such issue. Such demand may be indorsed upon a pleading of the party.”
A party waives a jury trial if he does not make a timely demand. Rule 38(e), N.D.R. Civ.P.
Kouba demanded a jury trial in his Affidavit in Support of Motion to Dismiss. His demand for a jury trial was timely made in response to the tax department’s petition for writ of mandamus.1
*173Having made a proper demand, the question is whether Kouba has raised any issue of fact that would entitle him to a jury trial.
Kouba asserts that the citizen is guaranteed a jury trial in all tax matters. In support of this assertion, Kouba relies upon United States v. Anderson, 584 F.2d 369 (10th Cir. 1978), a case which had not been published when our opinion was prepared. That case involved the question whether the Seventh Amendment preserves a jury trial in an action brought by the government for the collection of revenue.2 In Anderson the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that:
“Study of the history of the Court of Exchequer shows that, under the common law of England in 1791, an action by the Crown to recover a judgment for taxes was a suit at common law in which the right of jury trial existed .. United States v. Anderson, 584 F.2d at 373, supra, citing Damsky v. Zavatt, 289 F.2d 46 (2d Cir. 1961).
In Anderson, the court held that because an action to collect taxes was an action for debt at common law, the taxpayer’s right to a jury trial was preserved by the Seventh Amendment. In reaching this conclusion, however, the court cautioned that the right to a jury trial afforded by the Seventh Amendment “turns on the nature of the issue to be tried rather than the character of the overall action.” United States v. Anderson, 584 F.2d at 373, supra, citing Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531, 538, 90 S.Ct. 733, 24 L.Ed.2d 729 (1970).
Here, the mandamus proceeding did not contain any issue of fact to be tried by a jury. This proceeding was held to determine whether Kouba filed a return from which his tax liability could be ascertained. This issue was for the court to decide as a matter of law. In addition, the determination of thé validity of Kouba’s assertion of the Fifth Amendment on his tax form was for the court to decide as a matter of law.
In summary, because there was no factual issue for the jury, the petition for rehearing is denied.

. The district court may order a jury trial in a writ of mandamus proceeding pursuant to § 32-34-06, NDCC, provided there is a factual question raised affecting the substantial right of the parties.

. The Seventh Amendment provides:
“In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”