Rosenkrantz v. Barnett Banks Trust Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rosenkrantz v. Barnett Banks Trust Co.

586 So. 2d 428, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8922, 1991 WL 174664

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 11, 1991

DocketNos. 90-1246, 90-1994

StatusPublished

This text of 586 So. 2d 428 (Rosenkrantz v. Barnett Banks Trust Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rosenkrantz v. Barnett Banks Trust Co., 586 So. 2d 428, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8922, 1991 WL 174664 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

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 [429]*429plaintiff 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 [429]*429plaintiff 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

586 So. 2d 428, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8922, 1991 WL 174664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenkrantz-v-barnett-banks-trust-co-fladistctapp-1991.