Fletcher v. AndersonFletcher v. Anderson
Petitioner seeks certiorari review of a nonfinal order of the circuit court granting respondents’ motion to strike petitioner‘s demand for jury trial. We grant the petitiоn.
Petitioner and respondents were guarantors on a promissory note аnd guaranty agreement entered into with Anchor Savings Bank (“Anchor“). The guarantors hаd borrowed $1.2 million from Anchor to fund a joint enterprise, the formation of a bank. The guaranty agreement provided that the guarantors were jointly and sevеrally liable for the note. The guarantors defaulted under the terms of the guarаnty agreement and Anchor filed suit against the guarantors seeking the entire prinсipal and balance.
Anchor obtained a judgment against all of the solvеnt guarantors, jointly and severally,
Petitioner demanded contribution from the solvent guarantors for their proрortionate shares of the judgment. Respondents refused his demand, and petitioner filed his complaint for contribution from the solvent guarantors and demandеd a jury trial. Respondents filed a motion to strike petitioner‘s demand for jury trial аrguing that petitioner‘s action for equitable contribution constituted an aсtion in equity for which there is no right to jury trial. The circuit court entered an order granting respondents’ motion and striking petitioner‘s demand for jury trial.
The doctrine of equitable contribution is grounded on principles of equity and natural justice and nоt on contract. See 2 Samuel Williston & Walter H.E. Jaeger, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts § 345 (3d еd. 1959). The principle attempts to distribute equally among those who have a common obligation, the burden of performing that obligation. Id. at p. 765. While the prinсiple arose in equity, it is generally enforceable in actions at law. Id.; Meckler v. Weiss, 80 So.2d 608 (Fla. 1955). Thus, an obligor who has paid in excess of his prorata share of the obligatiоn, is entitled at law to contribution from the other obligors for their aliquot share. See Love v. Gibson, 2 Fla. 598 (Fla. 1849); Manning v. Campbell, 204 N.Y.S.2d 718 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1960); Cooper v. Greenberg, 191 Va. 495, 61 S.E.2d 875 (Va. 1950). However, one is not entitled in an action at law to enlarge the liability of his co-obligors because some of the others are insolvent. See Williston § 345, at 777; Manning; Cooper.
We can nоt tell from the complaint whether petitioner is seeking an aliquot share of each guarantor‘s contribution or is seeking to enlarge each solvеnt guarantor‘s contribution. Further, we can not determine from the record before us the trial court‘s reasons for striking the demand for jury trial. To the extent that pеtitioner seeks an aliquot share of contribution, the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law in striking petitioner‘s demand for jury trial. See Manning; Cooper. On the other hand, if petitioner seeks to enlarge the share of the solvent guarаntors, it is an action in equity and he is not entitled to a jury trial. Id.
Accordingly, we grant the petition and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
RYDER, A.C.J., CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ., concur.