Quantcast

Ohio Supreme Court clarifies rules on withdrawing requests for jury trials

LEGAL NEWSLINE

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Ohio Supreme Court clarifies rules on withdrawing requests for jury trials

State Supreme Court
Webp g0p4ocxp8j4976yhb6ps8pbanicp

Justice Patrick F. Fischer | Ohio Supreme Court Website

The Supreme Court of Ohio has issued a ruling stating that once a jury trial is requested in a civil case, the request cannot be withdrawn unless all parties involved agree. This decision reverses a previous judgment by the Fifth District Court of Appeals which allowed for unilateral withdrawal of a jury demand.

The case at hand involved a dispute between Katherine Tomlinson and Mega Pool Warehouse over the installation of an inground swimming pool. Tomlinson had initially requested a jury trial and paid the required $500 deposit, but later opted for a bench trial. However, Mega Pool insisted on proceeding with a jury trial.

Justice Joseph T. Deters wrote that the lower courts erred in denying Mega Pool's request for a jury trial due to their failure to pay the deposit. He clarified that according to Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, once one party demands a jury trial, all parties must consent to any change to a bench trial. "Once a party perfects a jury demand, the right to a jury trial is secured for all the parties," Justice Deters stated.

The case faced several delays due to scheduling conflicts and the COVID-19 pandemic. Initially set for May 2020, it was postponed multiple times before finally being heard as a bench trial in September 2020 after Tomlinson agreed to waive her right to a jury trial. The court awarded damages and attorney fees to Tomlinson’s estate following her death.

Mega Pool appealed this decision on grounds that their right to a jury trial was denied, leading them ultimately to take their appeal to the Supreme Court. The high court found that Delaware County’s local rule requiring each party seeking a jury trial to pay separately contradicted state rules.

Justice Deters noted that if only the paying party could withdraw from the request, it would contradict state law Civ.R. 38(D). The Supreme Court has remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News