Also known as: suits in equity · equity suit · equitable suit
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A civil suit stating an equitable claim and asking for an exclusively equitable remedy.
Sofia Stern sued Summit Bank for reformation of a loan agreement after discovering a mutual drafting error. Following a nonjury trial that ended in judgment for the bank, Sofia located internal memos showing the bank had known of the error all along. The court considered whether to reopen the record and amend its findings on the basis of traditional equitable rehearing grounds.
Sebastian Santos, a minority shareholder, filed suit against Sterling Manufacturing's directors alleging self-dealing in a corporate asset sale. The complaint sought an accounting and constructive trust over the proceeds. The court treated the action as one in which both legal and equitable issues were presented for decision.
Petitioners, who were stockholders in the Lehman Corporation, a closed-end investment company, brought a derivative action in federal district court against the corporation's directors and its brokers, Lehman Brothers. They alleged that Lehman Brothers had obtained control through an illegally large representation on the board in violation of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and used that control to extract excessive brokerage fees from the corporation. The complaint charged the directors with converting corporate assets and with gross abuse of trust, gross misconduct, willful misfeasance, bad faith, and gross negligence. It also accused both the directors and Lehman Brothers of breaching fiduciary duties, committing waste and spoliation, and violating the brokerage contract. Petitioners requested that the defendants account for and pay to the corporation their profits and gains and its losses. They demanded a jury trial on the corporation’s claims. The district court denied the motion to strike the jury demand in part. It held that only the shareholder’s initial claim to speak for the corporation would be tried to the judge while the corporation’s underlying claims would be tried to a jury if the corporation itself had brought suit. Finding substantial grounds for difference of opinion, the district court certified the question for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that a derivative action is entirely equitable in nature and that no jury is available to try any part of it. Because of the conflict among the circuits, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseSasha Stone, a Florida beneficiary, brought an action in Florida court against a Delaware trustee to invalidate an inter vivos trust and the exercise of a power of appointment. Service on the trustee was made by publication. The Florida proceeding was characterized as a suit in equity to determine the trust's validity.
In 1935 Dora Browning Donner, then a domiciliary of Pennsylvania, executed a trust instrument in Delaware naming the Wilmington Trust Company as trustee. The corpus consisted of securities. Mrs. Donner reserved the income for life and retained a power of appointment over the remainder exercisable by inter vivos deed or will. She also retained the rights to amend, alter, or revoke the agreement, to change the trustee, and to require the consent of a trust advisor she appointed for sales of assets, investments, and participation in reorganizations. In 1944 Mrs. Donner became domiciled in Florida and remained there until her death in 1952. On December 3, 1949, while in Florida, she executed both her will and an inter vivos power of appointment. The appointment directed $200,000 to each of two trusts benefiting her grandchildren Donner Hanson and Joseph Donner Winsor, with the balance appointed to her executrix. Mrs. Donner died on November 20, 1952. Her will was admitted to probate in Florida, naming Elizabeth Donner Hanson as executrix. Fourteen months after the death, residuary legatees Katherine N. R. Denckla and Dorothy B. R. Stewart petitioned a Florida chancery court for a declaratory judgment concerning property passing under the residuary clause. Personal service was made on the executrix and beneficiaries. Nonresident defendants including the Wilmington Trust Company and the Delaware Trust Company were served by ordinary mail and local publication under Florida statutes. The Delaware trustee did not appear. After the Florida suit began, the executrix filed a declaratory judgment action in Delaware to determine rights to the trust assets held there. All trust companies and most beneficiaries appeared in the Delaware proceeding. The Florida chancellor initially ruled he lacked jurisdiction over the nonresident trustees because no personal service had been made and the trust corpus was outside Florida. He proceeded as to appearing parties and held the power of appointment testamentary and void under Florida law, so that the $400,000 passed under the residuary clause. The Delaware Chancellor ruled the trust and appointment valid under Delaware law and that the corpus had been properly paid to the appointees. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the jurisdictional ruling, held Florida law applied, and affirmed that the trust was invalid and the appointment ineffective. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed its own judgment and refused to accord full faith and credit to the Florida decree. The United States Supreme Court postponed the question of jurisdiction in the Florida appeal and granted certiorari to the Delaware Supreme Court. Both state supreme court judgments are before the Court.
View caseSabrina Shah filed an action against federal agents alleging an unconstitutional search and seeking return of seized property and injunctive relief. The complaint framed the request for prospective relief as a suit in equity separate from any damages claim.
On the morning of November 26, 1965, agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics entered Webster Bivens's apartment in the Bronx. The agents broke open the door, handcuffed Bivens in front of his wife and young children, and thoroughly searched the apartment. They then transported Bivens to the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, where he was interrogated, booked, and subjected to a visual strip search. Several days later Bivens was released on his own recognizance, and he was never indicted or prosecuted for any offense. Bivens filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the six agents in their individual capacities. His complaint sought fifteen thousand dollars in damages from each agent and alleged that the arrest and search were effected without a warrant, that unreasonable force was employed, and that the arrest was made without probable cause. Bivens claimed to have suffered great humiliation, embarrassment, and mental suffering as a result of the agents' conduct. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the judgment.
View caseSamantha Stone and other voters sued state officials alleging that legislative districts violated equal protection. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief to redraw the districts. The action was brought as a suit in equity to redress the claimed constitutional injury.
In 1901 the Tennessee General Assembly enacted a statute apportioning the Senate with thirty-three members and the House of Representatives with ninety-nine members among the state's ninety-five counties. The Tennessee Constitution required a decennial enumeration of qualified voters and reapportionment of both houses on that basis. The General Assembly performed reapportionments after the enumerations of 1871, 1881, and 1891. After 1901 every proposal for reapportionment failed to pass. Between 1901 and 1960 the state's population grew from 2,020,616 to 3,567,089. The number of persons eligible to vote rose from 487,380 to 2,092,891. Substantial redistribution occurred from rural to urban counties. Appellants were residents and qualified voters of the urban counties of Davidson, Hamilton, Knox, Montgomery, and Shelby. They brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against the Secretary of State, Attorney General, Coordinator of Elections, and members of the State Board of Elections. The complaint was filed under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. It alleged that continued application of the 1901 statute debased their votes and denied equal protection of the laws. The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the statute was unconstitutional. It also sought an injunction against conducting further elections under the statute. Alternative relief included at-large elections or a court-ordered reapportionment. A three-judge district court convened under 28 U.S.C. § 2281 dismissed the complaint. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter and that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court characterized the controversy as a nonjusticiable political question. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction. The case was argued in April 1961, set for reargument, reargued in October 1961, and decided on March 26, 1962.
View caseSimon Stern, a former husband, was sued in federal court by his ex-wife to enforce a state divorce decree awarding alimony. The complaint sought an injunction compelling compliance with the out-of-state judgment. The proceeding was treated as a suit in equity to enforce the earlier decree.
In September 1989 Carol Ankenbrandt, a citizen of Missouri, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of her daughters L. R. and S. R. against Jon A. Richards and Debra Kesler, both citizens of Louisiana. The complaint alleged that Richards, the divorced father of the children, and Kesler, his female companion, had committed acts of sexual and physical abuse against the daughters and sought monetary damages. Federal jurisdiction rested solely on the diversity-of-citizenship provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. One month earlier, on August 9, 1989, a juvenile court in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, had entered a judgment under state child-protection statutes that permanently terminated Richards' parental rights on account of the alleged abuse and permanently enjoined him from any contact with the children. On December 10, 1990, the District Court granted the respondents' motion to dismiss. The court cited In re Burrus for the proposition that the whole subject of domestic relations belongs to the laws of the States and invoked the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction. It also relied on the abstention principles of Younger v. Harris to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished opinion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to three questions concerning the existence and scope of any domestic relations exception and the propriety of Younger abstention in the case.
View caseA suit in equity seeks remedies such as specific performance, injunction, reformation, or rescission that were historically available only from courts of equity. An action at law seeks money damages or other relief historically available from courts of law. The distinction survives in the Federal Rules for purposes such as determining the availability of jury trial and the standard for granting a new trial after a nonjury proceeding.
After a nonjury trial the court may grant a new trial for any reason for which a rehearing has historically been granted in a suit in equity. Traditional equitable grounds include newly discovered evidence that could not have been found earlier with due diligence and that is likely to change the outcome. The motion must be filed within 28 days of judgment.
Supporting sources
No. The parol evidence rule limits the use of prior agreements to contradict an integrated writing in actions at law. In a suit in equity for reformation based on mutual mistake, courts routinely consider drafts, negotiations, and other extrinsic evidence to determine whether the writing fails to express the parties' actual agreement.
Supporting sources