Appeals Court Holds Denial of Jury Trial Not Immediately Appealable

 Adam F. Braillard

 In April of this year, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that a bank suing a property owner for unjust enrichment could not immediately appeal from the denial of its request

for a jury trial. The court concluded that the “doctrine of present execution” does not apply and that the bank’s claim can be addressed by appeal after final judgment, through remand and a new jury trial, if appropriate. The court further emphasized that piecemeal appeals are disfavored unless compelling policy considerations warrant immediate appellate review—none of which UniBank demonstrated.

 Background:

In 2018, GCP Newton Hotel, PL (“GCP Newton”) became a leaseholder and secured financing from UniBank for Savings (“Unibank”) to renovate a hotel located on property owned by Commonwealth Development LLC (“Comm Development”). In 2020, GCP Newton defaulted on both the UniBank loan and its lease obligations. In 2021, GCP Newton filed suit against Comm Development, seeking a declaration that it was not in default. Comm Development responded by terminating the lease and filing a summary process action, which was later consolidated with GCP Newton’s case.

UniBank intervened in September 2021, alleging that Comm Development had been unjustly enriched by renovations funded by UniBank without offering compensation. UniBank demanded a jury trial on its unjust enrichment claim, arguing that it presented a legal, not merely equitable, issue. Comm Development moved to strike the jury demand, which the judge granted without issuing a written opinion. UniBank appealed.

The Law and the Analysis:

This case addresses several key principles under Massachusetts appellate and civil procedure law, specifically:

·       Final Judgement Rule and Interlocutory Appeals:  The general rule is that appeals can only be taken from a final judgment (i.e., when the trial court has finished all proceedings on the matter). An ”interlocutory” order is an order made by a court during the course of a case, before final judgment or resolution. 

·       Doctrine of Present Execution: This is an exception to the final judgment rule allowing for immediate appeal of some interlocutory orders provided (i) the order is collateral to the main dispute, and (ii) the party would suffer harm that cannot be remedied later on appeal from a final judgment.

·       Unjust Enrichment: This is a remedy that can be used in Massachusetts to prevent unjust outcomes when one party unfairly benefits from another's loss.  However, there must be a valued benefit to the party, that party must know of that benefit, and it would be unjust for the benefiting party to retain the benefit.

The court addressed UniBank's appeal of the interlocutory order denying a jury trial on its unjust enrichment claim. It noted that normally, appeals can only be made from final judgments, but there is an exception under the "doctrine of present execution" for orders that are collateral to the underlying dispute and cannot be remedied later. UniBank argued that the denial of a jury trial could not be fixed after judgment. The court disagreed, noting that if UniBank's appeal after judgment is successful, the case could be remanded for a new trial with a jury, addressing all issues in a single appeal. The court rejected UniBank's claim that the denial of a jury trial would cause irremediable harm.

UniBank's unjust enrichment claim, which sought to recover loan proceeds from a third party, was also examined. The court found the claim novel and not supported by precedent, as it did not involve a contractual relationship with the third party and was not based on tort or property principles. The court clarified that unjust enrichment claims typically require some wrong or duty, which was lacking in UniBank's case. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, noting that UniBank could raise the issue of unjust enrichment in the trial court.

Also noteworthy: the court also stated that "Unjust enrichment is not a concept to be cut loose from the moorings of claims recognized at common law.” In other words, unjust enrichment is not a free-floating catch-all equitable remedy available to address all perceived unfairness.  The court concluded that UniBank’s theory, if accepted, would dramatically expand unjust enrichment liability and lacked support in Massachusetts case law.

Conclusion:

The Appeals Court dismissed UniBank’s interlocutory appeal, holding that (i) the denial of a jury trial is not immediately appealable under the doctrine of present execution, (ii) unjust enrichment must be grounded in recognized legal or equitable claims, and (iii) while the right to a jury trial is fundamental, it does not justify immediate appellate intervention absent irreparable harm.

With more than 20 years of experience in transactional and commercial land use development, Adam is a partner in Prince Lobel’s Real Estate and Telecommunications practices and is at the forefront of the firm’s Renewable Energy and Cannabis practice groups. For questions about this case, please contact abraillard@princelobel.com.