646 S.W.3d 771
Tex.2022Background
- Texas Constitution guarantees the right to jury trial twice: Article I §15 (Bill of Rights) and Article V §10 (Judiciary Article), the latter covering "all causes," including equity.
- This matter arose from a trust-modification suit under Texas Property Code §112.054 (statutory codification of equitable deviation); the court of appeals held a jury trial was required under the statute and Rules of Civil Procedure.
- The Supreme Court (per Justice Busby concurrence) remanded to the court of appeals to address whether the Judiciary Article itself guarantees a jury trial for trust-modification suits because petitioners raised that constitutional argument late.
- Justice Busby concurs with the remand and rejects the court of appeals’ statutory holding that §112.054 (and incorporation of procedural rules) independently created a jury right.
- Busby urges a clearer, historically grounded framework for jury-trial jurisprudence, proposing organization of precedent into four categories and focusing on whether disputed matters are factual (for a jury) or equitable/discretionary (for the court).
- The concurrence outlines four analytical categories: (1) Bill of Rights/common-law actions as of 1876; (2) Judiciary Article issues—fact vs. equitable discretion; (3) ancillary or remedial proceedings lacking essential "cause" characteristics; and (4) matters governed by other constitutional provisions (e.g., election contests, administrative appeals, custody historically).
Issues
| Issue | Petitioners' Argument | Respondents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Judiciary Article guarantees a jury in trust-modification (deviation) suits | Judiciary Article does not extend to trust-modification suits (petitioners) | Trust-modification disputes implicate disputed facts and thus a jury right (respondents) | Supreme Court remanded to court of appeals to decide constitutional question (petitioners raised it late) |
| Whether Trust Code §112.054 and incorporation of the Rules create a statutory jury right | Statute does not create/alter constitutional jury rights (petitioners) | Statute and rules require a jury trial on disputed issues (respondents) | Justice Busby agrees the court of appeals’ statutory holding was incorrect — statutory text alone does not supply the constitutional jury right |
| How to determine when equitable issues require a jury | Court should retain discretion over equitable matters (petitioners) | Disputed factual issues necessary to resolution of equitable relief must be submitted to a jury (respondents) | Court reiterates: contested fact issues that must be resolved before equitable relief are for a jury; pure equitable policy/dispensing-of-relief questions remain for the judge |
| Whether certain proceedings are exempt from Judiciary Article because they are ancillary or governed by other constitutional provisions | Some adversary proceedings are not "causes" or are controlled by other constitutional text and thus need not have juries | Opposing view: broader reading of "all causes" captures many proceedings | Busby outlines categories: ancillary/remedial proceedings may lack jury right; separate constitutional grants (e.g., election contests, administrative functions, historical custody jurisdiction) may displace jury right unless statute provides otherwise |
Key Cases Cited
- Forbau v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 876 S.W.2d 132 (Tex. 1994) (describes jury trial as a substantive liberty guarantee)
- White v. White, 196 S.W. 508 (Tex. 1917) (historical importance of the jury right)
- State v. Credit Bureau of Laredo, Inc., 530 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. 1975) (criticizes ad hoc exceptions to Judiciary Article; lists "special circumstances")
- Tex. Workers' Comp. Comm'n v. Garcia, 893 S.W.2d 504 (Tex. 1995) (distinguishes Bill of Rights versus Judiciary Article protections)
- Barshop v. Medina Cnty. Underground Water Conserv'n Dist., 925 S.W.2d 618 (Tex. 1996) (Bill of Rights jury right applies only if analogous action was triable by jury in 1876)
- San Jacinto Oil Co. v. Culberson, 101 S.W. 197 (Tex. 1907) (equitable proceedings: disputed issues of fact may be submitted to a jury)
- Hill v. Shamoun & Norman, LLP, 544 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. 2018) (party entitled to jury when contested fact issues must be resolved before equitable relief)
- Burrow v. Arce, 997 S.W.2d 229 (Tex. 1999) (distinguishes jury-resolvable factual issues from court's equitable discretion)
- State v. Tex. Pet Foods, Inc., 591 S.W.2d 800 (Tex. 1979) (a jury does not decide expediency/necessity/propriety of equitable relief)
- G.T. Leach Builders, LLC v. Sapphire V.P., LP, 458 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. 2015) (procedural considerations on raising alternative grounds and remand)
- Davis v. Davis, 34 Tex. 15 (Tex. 1871) (probate/proceedings: jury right where factual contests arise)