Login | August 15, 2025
Ohio Supreme Court reverses judgment in jury trial disagreement
KEITH ARNOLD
Special to the Legal News
Published: April 11, 2024
The Ohio Supreme Court this week held that the manner in which the Delaware County appellate court and a trial court interpreted a local rule violated the process by which a jury demand must be withdrawn.
The 7-0 court found that because the defendant––Mega Pool Warehouse Inc. ––never consented to the withdrawal of the jury demand made by the estate of Katherine Tomlinson, the matter should have proceeded to a jury trial.
“Under Civ.R. 38(D), once a jury demand has been perfected under Civ.R. 38, it can be withdrawn only upon consent of all the parties,” Justice Joe Deters wrote for the court.
Although the woman’s estate had withdrawn its request for a jury trial, Mega Pool still wanted a jury trial, the justice reasoned.
“The trial court determined that Mega Pool had waived its right to a jury trial because it had not paid a $500 jury deposit under the local rule, and the Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment,” Deters continued. “Mega Pool never consented to the withdrawal of the jury demand, so the trial court erred when it denied Mega Pool’s request for a jury trial. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Fifth District.”
According to a case summary, Tomlinson, who has since died, filed a lawsuit against Mega Pool in June 2018 regarding installation of a swimming pool and a deck.
Her complaint alleged breach of contract, breach of warranty, negligent workmanship and violations of the Consumer Sales Practices Act.Included with the woman’s complaint was a jury demand for which she paid a $500 jury deposit as required by Local Rule 25.04 of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, summary detailed.
Mega Pool neither separately requested a jury trial nor paid a jury deposit.
The trial was rescheduled multiple times due to pandemic-era regulations, summary continued.
Via teleconference, a magistrate notified parties of trial date changes from May 5 to Sept. 8, 2020, to Jan. 26, 2021.
Additionally, the magistrate ordered the parties to notify the court on or before Aug, 3, 2020, if they would be willing to waive jury trial and conduct a bench trial on Sept. 8 of that year.
On July 28, 2020, the magistrate emailed the parties to advise them that the court could proceed to trial on Sept. 8 with a visiting judge, summary provided.
The magistrate informed the parties that because Mega Pool had not made a timely jury deposit as required by the local rule that the matter would proceed as a bench trial.
Mega Pool in response filed a motion to maintain the Jan. 26, 2021, jury-trial date, arguing that it had not waived its right to a jury trial and that Tomlinson could not withdraw her jury demand without its consent.
Mega Pool also requested that the court maintain the Jan. 26, 2021, jury-trial date rather than proceed to trial Sept. 8, 2020, case background provided.
Attorneys for the woman’s estate opposed the motion, explaining that they no longer wanted to exercise the right to a jury trial and intended rather to seek a refund of the deposit.
In its denial of Mega Pool’s motion, the court found the company had waived its right to a jury trial by nonpayment of the jury deposit.
The case was tried to the bench on Sept. 8 and 9, 2020, summary provided.
The trial court entered verdicts in favor of the woman’s estate on claims for breach of contract, breach of warranty and violations of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, awarding damages and attorney fees.
Mega Pool appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeals after its motion for a new trial was denied.
The company’s appeal challenged the applicability of the Consumer Sales Practices Act to the case, challenged the awards of costs and attorney fees under the Consumer Sales Practices Act and argued that the trial court had denied its right to a jury trial.
An appellate panel affirmed the trial court’s judgment in part and reversed it in part, summary detailed.
Relevant to the appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellate panel concluded that the trial court had not erred in denying Mega Pool’s motion for a jury trial. The Supreme Court accepted Mega Pool’s appeal on the proposition of law that a civil litigant’s constitutional right to a jury trial is violated when a trial court’s local rule permits a party to withdraw a demand for a jury trial without consent of the parties.
“Once Tomlinson filed a jury demand and paid the jury deposit required by the trial court’s local rule, she could not withdraw the demand without Mega Pool’s consent,” Deters concluded. “Mega Pool was not required to pay an additional jury deposit. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Fifth District Court of Appeals and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.”
Copyright © 2024 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved