Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: court of equity

Another important distinction between legal and equitable matters is that, despite the merger of the court systems, one is not entitled to a jury trial in a case, or on an issue in a case, that would have been heard and decided in a court of equity before the merger.

A dispute over a real estate easement would most likely encompass legal issues; however, equity matters could also be alleged in an easement case. In California, the same court (the Superior Court of the county where the property is situated) and the same judge would hear both the legal and equitable matters, but there could be different rules regarding a whether a jury would hear the issues and what defenses were available.

For example, suppose a suit to establish an easement by prescription and/or estoppel and then to quiet title and enjoin the neighbor from interfering with use of the easement. The presciption and estoppel issues determining whether the easement exists are legal and a jury could be demanded. However, the quiet title and injunction aspects of the case would be decided by the judge without jury input because these matters were only heard in equity courts and are still considered equitable proceedings.

Two other matters are worth noting as footnotes. First, a judge can use a jury in an advisory capacity in equity proceedings; the parties cannot demand a jury nor would its findings be binding on the court. Second, I don't believe California ever actually had separate courts; the same judges heard both law and equity cases, but the pleadings and procedures were different, as was the relief available. In 1850, the Practice Act further narrowed the distinction, but the jury entitlement and types of relief distinctions remain today, as well as a few others.

Re: court of equity

A long time ago, there used to be two (2) court systems, known as courts of law and chancery. Chancery courts were also known as courts of equity. Since you probably do not have access to a historical treatise on civil procedure, I would suggest the website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity. Wikipedia's entry is pretty informative and outlines the historical development of the concept of equity.

Today, in California, courts that hear law matters will also hear equitable matters, because the systems merged in the early twentieth century. The only jurisdiction in the United States with the two systems still separate, that I know of, is Delaware.

When a court uses it's equitable powers, it is fashioning a remedy that has nothing to do with the payment of a money judgment, and instead is issuing a writ or restraining order that compels or prohibits some specific action.

Very truly yours,

Re: court of equity

In addition to Mr. Roach's excellent explanation, a court sitting in equity could order property divided according to proof or determine ownership interests in property.