Mason v. Farm Credit of S. Colo.
419 P.3d 975
Colo.2018Background
- Farm Credit sued Zachary Mason on loan-related claims and later amended its complaint to add his father, James C. Mason, alleging replevin, conversion, and an accounting for collateral and proceeds.
- Mason (defendant) demanded a jury trial in his answer; Farm Credit moved to strike the demand arguing the original complaint was primarily equitable so no jury right attached.
- The trial court granted Farm Credit’s motion; after a bench trial it found Mason liable for conversion.
- The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed, treating the action as equitable based on the original complaint and declining to treat the amended complaint as controlling.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether a plaintiff’s amended complaint (rather than the original complaint) controls the Rule 38 jury-trial availability analysis.
- The Supreme Court held the amended complaint controls; applying that rule, Farm Credit’s claims against Mason (conversion and replevin predominating) were primarily legal, so Mason was entitled to a jury trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 38 entitlement is assessed based on the original complaint or the plaintiff’s most-recently-filed (amended) complaint | Farm Credit: original complaint controls; amended claims cannot create a jury right | Mason: amended complaint supersedes original and controls the Rule 38 analysis | Amended complaint controls; trial court must assess jury right from most-recent complaint |
| Whether Rule 38 permits jury trial when claims in amended complaint are primarily legal | Farm Credit: even amended claims’ basic thrust is equitable | Mason: amended claims (replevin, conversion) are legal causes of action entitling him to a jury | Where amended complaint’s claims are primarily legal, Rule 38 entitles defendant to jury trial |
| Whether Rule 38 timing and pleading provisions allow jury demands on amended pleadings | Farm Credit: Rule 38 should be read to focus on original pleading status | Mason: Rules 15 and 38 allow jury demand on amended pleadings and demand timing refers to last pleading directed to the issue | Court: Rules 15 and 38 permit jury demands and analysis based on amended pleadings; timeliness tied to last pleading |
| Whether any precedents require ignoring amended complaints in jury-right analysis | Farm Credit: prior cases require focusing on original complaint | Mason: precedents do not compel that limit; some decisions considered amended complaints | Court: prior precedents do not mandate ignoring amended complaints; several past decisions already considered amended pleadings and the court disapproved contrary appellate characterizations |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaitz v. Dist. Court, 650 P.2d 553 (Colo. 1982) (interpreting Rule 38 to provide jury trial only for actions at law)
- Selfridge v. Leonard-Heffner Mach. Co., 117 P. 158 (Colo. 1911) (plaintiff’s complaint fixes nature of action; defendant counterclaims irrelevant to jury-right analysis)
- Currier v. Sutherland, 218 P.3d 709 (Colo. 2009) (an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint)
- Plains Iron Works Co. v. Haggott, 210 P. 696 (Colo. 1922) (considered allegations of the amended complaint in jury-right analysis)
- Peterson v. McMahon, 99 P.3d 594 (Colo. 2004) (tests for legal vs. equitable character: remedial and historical analyses)