X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Neal C. Small executed a $2,700,000 promissory note payable to General Electric Capital Corp. to finance the purchase of a jet, and NCS Lear, Inc. executed a guaranty. Both the note and the guaranty contained jury waiver provisions. Years later, Small defaulted on the note. General Electric thereafter repossessed the jet and sued Small and NCS Lear for $1,408,878.74, the balance of the debt. General Electric requested a nonjury trial in its original petition, attaching copies of the note and guaranty to document the jury waiver, and the case was set on the nonjury docket. Several months later, Small filed a jury demand and paid the jury fee; however, General Electric claims it did not receive notice of this demand. Thereafter, the case was twice reset for trial, and each time the trial court sent a form letter to the parties, indicating that the case was on the jury docket. After about 10 months, General Electric noticed that its case was not on the nonjury docket. After confirming that this was not a clerical mistake, General Electric moved to strike Small’s jury demand, claiming that it had not been given notice. When the trial court refused to return the case to the nonjury docket, General Electric sought mandamus relief, but the court of appeals also declined to enforce the jury-waiver provision. General Electric claims that it is entitled to enforce its contractual jury waiver, because Small failed to serve notice of his jury demand, and General Electric promptly requested that the case be returned to the nonjury docket after learning of the demand. Small contends, however, that he did send notice, and that even if General Electric did not receive that notice immediately, it nevertheless waived its contractual right by failing to raise the issue for 10 months. When the trial court refused to return the case to the nonjury docket, General Electric sought mandamus relief, but the court of appeals also declined to enforce the jury-waiver provision. HOLDING:The writ of mandamus was conditionally granted. The court found no evidence here of General Electric’s specific intention to waive its contractual right nor did it find implied intent from the surrounding facts and circumstances. The circumstances may have indicated inattention or a certain lack of care on the part of General Electric, the court stated, but they did not imply that General Electric intended to waive its previously asserted contractual right by not complaining sooner. The court found that the waiver was entered into knowingly and voluntarily as required to enforce such a waiver. The waiver provision was written in capital letters and bold print, prima facie evidence of a knowing and voluntary waiver. The court concluded that mandamus was appropriate to enforce a valid contractual jury waiver. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to enforce the jury waiver because the contractual provision was not proven to be invalid nor impliedly waived by the knowing conduct of the party seeking its enforcement. Without hearing oral argument, the court conditionally granted mandamus relief and directed the trial court to return the case to the non-jury trial docket. OPINION:Per curiam; O’Neill, J., did not participate in the decision.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.