STEWART MARTIN ROSENKRANTZ, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
BARNETT BANKS TRUST COMPANY, N.A., APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to refute the trial court's conclusions for a directed verdict on negligence and breach of fiduciary duties.
Plaintiff sued a bank for negligence and breach of fiduciary duties related to a trust. After a jury verdict for the plaintiff, the trial court entere…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Release cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
Plaintiff brought an action against defendant-bank for negligence and breach of fiduciary duties arising out of obligations to the settlor-beneficiary of a trust, which the bank allegedly assumed. Following a jury verdict for the plaintiff, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of the defendant in accordance with a motion for directed verdict. The plaintiff now appeals the trial court’s final judgment. We reverse.
The directed verdict was based on the court’s conclusions that (1) the plaintiff had ratified the defendant’s actions, (2) the plaintiff had released the defendant from these claims, and (3) the plaintiff had not proved damage. Upon a review of the trial record, we find sufficient evidence to refute the conclusions of the trial court and reverse the directed verdict. We recognize, however, that the appellee has raised a substantial issue, remaining unresolved, with respect to the actual amount of damages incurred.
We do affirm the additional directed verdict entered on the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Additionally, the judgment for attorney’s fees and costs is reversed. We find no error as to the other evidentiary issues raised.
Upon remand, the trial court may reconsider the motion for new trial and motion for remittitur. GARRETT and FARMER, JJ., concur.