Van Dusen v. Southeast Bank, N.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Van Dusen v. Southeast Bank, N.A.

513 So. 2d 1332, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2366, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10476

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 6, 1987

DocketNo. 86-2206

StatusPublished

This text of 513 So. 2d 1332 (Van Dusen v. Southeast Bank, N.A.) 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

Van Dusen v. Southeast Bank, N.A., 513 So. 2d 1332, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2366, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10476 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the first appearance of this case we reversed a summary judgment and remanded the case for trial, holding that a probate court order discharging the personal representative was no bar to an action by the heirs against the representative for a breach of fiduciary duty. Van Dusen v. Southeast First Nat’l Bank, 478 So.2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The facts are set out in that case.

After a presentation of the plaintiffs’ evidence at a jury trial, the court granted the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to, and indulging in every reasonable inference on behalf of the non-movant, there was no evidence on which the jury could lawfully return a verdict for the plaintiff. See City of Hialeah v. Rehm, 455 So.2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 462 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1985).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In the first appearance of this case we reversed a summary judgment and remanded the case for trial, holding that a probate court order discharging the personal representative was no bar to an action by the heirs against the representative for a breach of fiduciary duty. Van Dusen v. Southeast First Nat’l Bank, 478 So.2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The facts are set out in that case.

After a presentation of the plaintiffs’ evidence at a jury trial, the court granted the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to, and indulging in every reasonable inference on behalf of the non-movant, there was no evidence on which the jury could lawfully return a verdict for the plaintiff. See City of Hialeah v. Rehm, 455 So.2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 462 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1985).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

513 So. 2d 1332, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2366, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-dusen-v-southeast-bank-na-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack