In Wolford v. Thomas (1987) 190 Cal. App. 3d 347, although recognizing that "'where a complaint raises both legal and equitable issues, a jury trial may be obtained upon the issues raised by the legal cause'" ( id. at p. 353), the appellate court concluded a jury trial was not required where there was "'no possibility of severing the legal from the equitable.'" (Ibid.) As discussed, the gist of Banks's complaint was to cancel the quitclaim deed and quiet title to the property in Banks against Rabb. Thus, similar to the situation in Wolford, the bulk of the relief sought by Banks's complaint was equitable. (Wolford, at p. 353.) Further, as in Wolford at page 354, the fact that Banks's complaint also sought damages did not "convert this essentially equitable action into a legal one. It was infeasible for the court to sever the legal claim from the equitable one here. Moreover, the damage claims were incidental to the equitable claims." "One of the aspects of an equitable action is the balancing of the interests of the parties. To do equity a trial court must have various options available to it, including that of awarding damages." ( Wolford v. Thomas, supra, 190 Cal. App. 3d at p. 354.) Hence, upon correctly concluding the gist of Banks's complaint was equitable and severance of any legal claim was infeasible, the court acted properly in granting Rabb a court trial on the entirety of the complaint. (Ibid.)