Gleason v. Gleason - 64 Ohio App. 3d 667, 582 N.E.2d 657 (1991)

Rule:

Generally, a party is not entitled to a jury when he seeks specific performance. However, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2311.04 states that all issues not specifically set forth therein are to be tried by a court subject to its power to order any issue to be tried by a jury. Further Ohio R. Civ. P. 39(C) states that the court, with the consent of both parties, may order a trial of any issue with a jury. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2311.04 allows the court to order any issue to be tried by jury. That power is not absolute, however. If a party objects to the jury trial and the court orders a jury trial over the objection, there is reversible error if the objecting party is prejudiced by the jury trial. The court will not permit parties to take advantage of invited errors.

Facts:

Appellant son owed the farm, and the mother had a life estate in the farm. Appellee contended that his parents orally promised that they would transfer a one-half interest in the farm to him if he would maintain and pay expenses related to the farm. Instead, the mother transferred the farm to appellant son. Consequently, appellee filed an action for specific performance. Appellants answered and denied that any agreement existed. The jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee awarding him a one-half interest in the farm. The court entered judgment upon the verdict. Appellants challenged the decision, arguing that the court erred in allowing the jury to consider the issue of specific performance. 

Issue:

Did the court err in allowing the jury to consider the issue of specific performance? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

In affirming, the court held that the trial court did not err in allowing the jury to consider the issue of specific performance. Because all parties sought a jury trial and a jury trial was set, there was no reason why the jury could not decide an equitable issue pursuant to Ohio R. Civ. P. 39(C). The court also determined that sufficient evidence was presented to allow an instruction on specific performance. According to the court, appellee's failure to present evidence that proved that legal remedies were inadequate did not prevent the jury from considering whether specific performance was an appropriate remedy because unique land was the subject of the contested agreement. The court also found that the jury was properly permitted to consider part performance and the applicability of the statute of frauds.