Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HERMAN H. RECHT v. CITY PITTSBURGH (08/04/88)

decided: August 4, 1988.

HERMAN H. RECHT, APPELLANT
v.
CITY OF PITTSBURGH, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, in the case of Herman Recht v. City of Pittsburgh, No. GD 84-21787.

COUNSEL

Herman H. Recht, for himself.

Robert B. Smith Assistant City Solicitor, with him, D. R. Pellegrini, City Solicitor, for appellee.

Judges Barry and Smith, and Senior Judge Narick, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Senior Judge Narick.

Author: Narick

[ 118 Pa. Commw. Page 382]

The sole issue raised by Herman H. Recht (Appellant) in this appeal is whether the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County erred in denying him a jury trial.

Appellant originally filed a complaint in equity on December 4, 1984, seeking to prevent the City of Pittsburgh (Appellee) from razing an apartment building he owned in the City's 13th Ward. Robert B. Smith, Assistant City Solicitor, filed an appearance on behalf of the Appellee, on December 12, 1984, wherein he demanded a jury trial. Appellee then filed an answer and new matter on December 28, 1984. Apparently, nothing further was done until April 30, 1986, when Appellant filed a praecipe to place the case at issue. The case was assigned to a chancellor, who, on May 27, 1986, issued an order striking the complaint in equity because of the existence of an adequate remedy at law (Appellant's property having apparently been razed in the intervening period). Appellant was granted 30 days within which to file a "Complaint in Civil Action," which he did on June 16, 1986. Neither this complaint nor Appellee's subsequent answer and new matter, filed July 11, 1986, contained a demand for a jury trial.

The case was ordered to a non-jury trial by order dated January 5, 1987. On January 8, 1987, Appellant, by his new counsel (who had entered his appearance on November 12, 1986) moved for a continuance, and requested a jury trial in writing.*fn1 The motions judge

[ 118 Pa. Commw. Page 383]

    granted the request for continuance but denied the request for a jury trial.

The case proceeded to trial, which was held January 26, 1987. The court entered a decision for Appellee on that same date and dismissed Appellant's exceptions by order dated May 5, 1987.

The trial court denied Appellant's request for a jury trial because it determined that Appellant had waived his right for failure to make his request "not later than twenty (20) days after service of the last permissible pleading." See Pa. R.C.P. No. (Rule) 1007.1(a). It further dismissed Appellant's argument that Rule 1007.1(c)(1) entitled him to rely upon Appellee's request for a jury trial, finding that, when Appellee made its original demand in the equity case, no right to a jury trial existed. The May 27, 1986 order terminated the equity action, the trial court reasoned, and it then became incumbent upon the Appellant to demand a jury trial as provided by Rule 1007.1(a) in the newly-commenced civil action. We must disagree with this reasoning.

First of all, Pa. R.C.P. No. 1509(c)*fn2 provides that where a "full, complete and adequate non-statutory remedy at law" exists, "the court shall certify the [equity] action to the law side of the court." Generally, the courts have read this rule to require transfer and not dismissal of the action. See, e.g., Trimble Services, Inc. v. Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, 445 Pa. 333, 284 A.2d 744 (1971). Here, although the May 27 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.