Court Opinion

ID: 9553633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:32:59.273955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:31:55.277421
License: Public Domain

Justice ERICKSON
specially concurring:
I join the majority’s opinion insofar as it holds that respondent Susan DiFede (Su*545san) waived the attorney-client privilege with respect to her conversation with attorney Jack Foutch. In addition, I agree that the jury’s verdict was advisory only, and not binding on the court. However, because I would decide the jury issue on narrower grounds than the majority does, I concur separately.
First, I conclude that Young v. Colorado National Bank, 148 Colo. 104, 365 P.2d 701 (1961), has no application to either the real property transfer case (No. 79CV1840), or the change-of-beneficiary case (No. 79CV1848). In neither case was there a jury demand by any party. I read Young as requiring such a demand before the parties and the court can be deemed to be bound by consent to the verdict of a jury in an equitable case:
Where the plaintiff demands a jury trial of a non-jury case and neither the defendant nor the court objects, consent to such trial is deemed to have been given, and the jury’s verdict has “the same effect as if a jury trial had been a matter of right.”
Young, 148 Colo. at 115, 365 P.2d at 708 (emphasis added).
The requirement of a demand on the record serves to put the parties and court on notice that, if they do not object, they will be deemed to have consented to the trial of the equitable issues to a jury. Susan cites Jaynes v. Marrow, 144 Colo. 138, 355 P.2d 529 (1960), for the proposition that a trial court may order a trial by jury without a timely jury demand being filed. However, Jaynes did not hold that a trial court could order a binding jury trial in a non-jury proceeding. Jaynes held that, in a proceeding in which a party may seek a trial by jury as of right, but fails to do so in a timely manner, the court may order a jury trial under C.R.C.P. 39(b). The present case falls under C.R.C.P. 39(c), and thus Jaynes is inapplicable.
Susan also cites Shuman v. Tuschom, 29 Colo.App. 152, 481 P.2d 741 (1971), in support of her argument that the parties and court consented to jury trial under C.R.C.P. 39(c). However, the plaintiffs in Shuman made “[a]n unqualified demand for a jury trial ..., and defendants made no objection.” 29 Colo.App. at 156, 481 P.2d at 742.
The question, therefore, is whether the parties, and court, consented to a jury trial in the probate case, No. 79PR0582, where Susan did make a demand for jury trial and paid the jury fee. I would conclude that, under Young, Susan has not demonstrated that the court consented to a binding jury trial in the probate case.
The pretrial order relied on by Susan as evincing consent, was actually entered in No. 79CV1840, and reflected that the probate case, No. 79PR0582, was to be consolidated for purposes of trial. There is no separate order for trial by jury in No. 79PR0582. Because the record in the probate case reflects no action taken one way or another with respect to Susan’s jury demand, I would decline to find that Susan has shown that the “court and counsel [had] embark[ed] upon a non-jury statutory proceeding in such manner that it is [to be] treated as a jury case....” Young, 148 Colo, at 114-15, 365 P.2d at 708. The record does not show that the jury issue ever arose in the probate case until the morning of trial, at which time the court expressly reserved the issue of whether the jury would be advisory or not. Since Susan was aware, prior to the start of the trial, that the court was reserving the question of the binding effect of the jury’s verdict, this case is distinguishable from Young. In Young, the trial judge first indicated that the jury might be advisory only at the close of the plaintiff’s case in chief. Id. at 113, 365 P.2d at 707. That entire part of the proceedings, therefore, was tried with at least one of the parties believing that the jury was the actual trier of fact. In the present case, there was no element of reasonable reliance on the part of Susan that the jury verdict would be binding. Under these circumstances, Susan has not shown, under Young, that the court consented to try the probate case to a jury whose verdict would be binding. Since there was no consent, the court could properly treat the verdict of the jury as advisory only. In my view the trial court’s decision to reserve the determination of the *546éffect of the jury’s verdict until after trial was not a model procedure for other courts to follow, but I would not hold that it was reversible error to do so. I therefore concur with the majority’s holding that the court of appeals erred when it held that the jury’s verdict was binding under Young.
Accordingly, I specially concur.