In Schmid v. Simmons, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that the common law “clean up” doctrine is still good law, discussed when a party is entitled to a jury trial on civil disputes, and clarified how a litigants may waive the right to jury trial on legal claims. 311 Neb. 48 (2022).
The Nebraska Constitution guarantees the right to trial by jury. However, on civil matters, which are generally disputes about money or other non-criminal matters, the state Constitution allows the Legislature to modify this right to allow juries less than 12 to decide matters in courts inferior to the District Courts, and, in such cases, the decision may be rendered by five-sixths majority of the jury. Neb. Const. art. I, § 6.
Litigants still have a right to seek a jury trial on legal claims—those involving disputes over specific real or personal property and money damages—but not on equitable claims, which may be tried “to the bench” without a jury. Whether a claim is legal or equitable rests upon the “main object” of the claim, which is shown by the issue the lawsuit seeks to resolve.
Under the “clean up” doctrine, a court may determine equitable issues and then “clean up” other legal issues in the case, even where a defendant asserts a legal claim as a defense or counterclaim. The purpose of this doctrine is to preserve judicial efficiency by allowing the same court to hear and determine all disputed issues in a single lawsuit.
Applied to the facts, the Court found proper the district court’s decision to resolve plaintiff’s equitable claims (quiet title, declaratory judgment, LLC accounting, and judicial dissolution) and then “clean up” defendant’s amended counterclaims seeking damages for breach of contract, a legal claim. Because the District Court retained jurisdiction to quiet title and determine rights of LLC members, and because the parties agreed the matter before the court was equitable, the District Court correctly applied the “clean up” to resolve any remaining legal claims all equitable claims were decided.
The Court further clarified the manner in which parties may waive the right to trial by jury on a breach of contract action, or with the court’s agreement in other actions, finding that waiver could be accomplished in three ways: (1) by consent of a party where the other party fails to appear, (2) by written consent delivered to the clerk of court, or (3) by oral consent in open court on the record. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1126.
E|S attorneys are experts in civil trials, whether to a jury or to a judge, whether in equity or common law. Bonnie Boryca and E|S litigators can be reached at 402-397-2200.
Thanks to E|S law clerk Ross Serena for contributing to the above article.