You are here: / Fiduciary Duty
, ,

ALTHOUGH THE TRUSTEE DID NOT PROVIDE AN ACCOUNTING, HE NEVER REPUDIATED HIS FIDUCIARY DUTIES; THEREFORE THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ACCOUNTING WAS NOT TRIGGERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the cause of action for an accounting of a trust should not have been limited to the six years before the filing of the complaint. Although the trustee did not provide a requested accounting. the trustee did not openly repudiate his fiduciary duties, so the six-year statute of limitations was never triggered:

The statute of limitations for a cause of action seeking an accounting is six years (see CPLR 213 [1] … ). It is well settled that the limitations period begins to run only when ” ‘the trustee openly repudiates his [or her] fiduciary obligations’ ” and ” ‘a mere lapse of time is insufficient without proof of an open repudiation’ ” … . “The party seeking the benefit of the statute of limitations defense bears the burden of proof on the issue of open repudiation” … . Here, defendants “failed to sustain their burden of establishing that [defendant] had openly repudiated [his] fiduciary obligations to [plaintiffs] so as to start the statute of limitations clock” … . Although defendant failed to provide plaintiffs with an accounting, he never outright refused to do so. Further, defendant continued to conduct his duties as trustee by handling the taxes and expenses for the trust, and making the necessary disbursements to plaintiffs as beneficiaries. Thus, the cause of action for an accounting had not accrued at the time plaintiffs commenced this action. Massey-Hughes v Massey, 2021 NY Slip Op 07405, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

/0 Comments/by
, , , , ,

PLAINTIFF WAS ACQUITTED OF CHARGES STEMMING FROM THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATION OF INSURANCE PROCEEDS DUE OTHER BENEFICIARIES AND THEN SUED TWO INSURANCE COMPANIES; THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, CONVERSION AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY DID NOT ACCRUE UPON ACQUITTAL AND WERE THERFORE TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the causes of action that did not require plaintiff’s innocence in a criminal matter were time barred. Plaintiff was acquitted of charges stemming from the allegation she appropriated life insurance proceeds which were due to other beneficiaries. Plaintiff then sued two insurance companies alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and aiding and abetting breach of a fiduciary duty. None of those causes of action accrued upon plaintiff’s acquittal. All were therefore time-barred:

Contrary to … the court’s conclusion, those causes of action did not accrue at the time the criminal proceeding terminated. The termination of a criminal proceeding is relevant for claims for malicious prosecution and legal malpractice arising out of a criminal proceeding … . For those claims, a plaintiff is required to make a showing of innocence, and thus the claims do not accrue until the plaintiff can assert the element of his or her innocence on the criminal charges … . Plaintiff here does not need to assert her innocence on the criminal charges as an element of the causes of action for breach of contract, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty … . Morrow v Brighthouse Life Ins. Co. of NY, 2021 NY Slip Op 07373, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

PLAINTIFFS DEMONSTRATED A DEMAND ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO PURSUE A DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS FUTILE; THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, A CLAIM FOR WHICH NO DAMAGES NEED BE ALLEGED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the requirement that a demand on the board of directors to pursue a derivative action was futile and therefore is excused. In addition, the complaint adequately alleged a breach of fiduciary duty:

Plaintiffs properly alleged demand futility as required under Business Corporation Law § 626 (c) by asserting that at least four out of seven of the members of derivative plaintiff/nominal defendant Xerox Holdings Corporation’s board of directors were controlled by Icahn, Xerox’s largest single shareholder, and thus lacked the independence to make an impartial decision on bringing suit … . * * *

… [T]he claim for breach of fiduciary duty was pleaded with the particularity required by CPLR 3016(b), as the complaint states that the Icahn defendants used confidential information about Xerox’s planned acquisition of HP Inc. to buy HP common shares before news of the acquisition became public and before HP’s stock price increased … . …

… [P]laintiffs’ claims do not fail for lack of damages, as damages “have never been considered to be an essential requirement for a cause of action founded on a breach of fiduciary duty” … . The function of an action for breach of fiduciary duty “is not merely to compensate the plaintiff for wrongs committed by the defendant but . . . to prevent them, by removing from . . . trustees all inducement to attempt dealing for their own benefit in matters . . . to which their . . . trust relates” … . Miami Firefighters’ Relief & Pension Fund v Icahn, 2021 NY Slip Op 06446, First Dept 11-18-21

 

/by
, , , ,

DEFENDANT ATTORNEY WAS UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFFS LEARNED OF DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FRAUD MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED; THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY IS SIX YEARS BECAUSE OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the fraud, unjust enrichment and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty causes of action were timely brought against defendant attorney. Defendant attorney represented a party who was found to have defrauded plaintiffs in an arbitration resulting in a $56,4 million judgment. Plaintiffs alleged the attorney’s participation in the fraud was not discovered until the arbitration proceedings:

The limitations period for fraud is the greater of six years from the date of the fraud or two years from the time when, with reasonable diligence, the plaintiff could have uncovered the fraud (CPLR 213[8] … ). In order to prevail, the defendant must show that there is no issue of fact under either prong. Here, defendant failed to show dispositively that plaintiffs were in possession of facts that would have triggered inquiry notice under CPLR 213(8) more than two years before the action was commenced … . …

Nor are plaintiff’s unjust enrichment or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims time-barred. Both claims are subject to the six-year statute of limitations because they are based on allegations of actual fraud (CPLR 213[8] …). Sabourin v Chodos, 2021 NY Slip Op 03392, First Dept 5-27-21

 

/by
, ,

THE FIDUCIARY TOLLING RULE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ACTION AGAINST AN EXECUTOR (WHO WAS REMOVED BY THE COURT) UNTIL THE SUCESSOR FIDUCIARY WAS APPOINTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined the constructive trust action based upon alleged self-dealing by an executor who was removed by the court was not time-barred. The fiduciary tolling rule applied:

Under the fiduciary tolling rule, a claim alleging wrongful conduct by an individual in his or her fiduciary capacity does not accrue until there is an open repudiation of the fiduciary obligation or a judicial settlement of the fiduciary’s account … . This rule tolls the statute of limitations “for all misconduct committed by the fiduciary prior to repudiation of its obligation or termination of the [fiduciary] relationship” … since, absent either repudiation or removal, the aggrieved parties “were entitled to assume that the [fiduciary] would perform his [or her fiduciary] responsibilities” … , and it is highly unlikely that a sitting fiduciary would assert a constructive trust claim against himself or herself. …  Under this rule, the toll continues until a successor fiduciary is appointed … . Matter of George, 2021 NY Slip Op 03231, Third Dept 5-20-21

 

/by
, ,

PURSUANT TO THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT (SCPA), AN ADMINISTRATOR MAY BE SUSPENDED WITHOUT A PETITION OR ISSUANCE OF PROCESS FOR MISAPPROPRIATING ESTATE PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined the motion to suspend the administrators of the estate should have been granted. The administrators had allowed the estate to languish for 20 years and there was evidence estate property had been misappropriated by one administrator:

Pursuant to SCPA 719, “the court may make a decree suspending . . . or revoking letters issued to a fiduciary from the court . . . without a petition or the issuance of process” where, among other things, “any of the facts provided in [SCPA] 711 are brought to the attention of the court” (SCPA 719[10] … . The circumstances set forth under SCPA 711 justifying “a decree suspending . . . or revoking those letters” include a fiduciary “having wasted or improperly applied the assets of the estate” … or having “removed property of the estate . . . without prior approval of the court” … . “The removal of a fiduciary pursuant to SCPA 711 and 719 is equivalent to ‘a judicial nullification of the testator’s choice and may only be decreed when the grounds set forth in the relevant statutes have been clearly established'” … . The grounds set forth under SCPA 711 may be clearly established “by undisputed facts or concessions, where the fiduciary’s in-court conduct causes such facts to be within the court’s knowledge, or where facts warranting amendment of letters are presented to the court during a related evidentiary proceeding” … . “Thus, revoking a fiduciary’s letters . . . pursuant to SCPA 719 will constitute an abuse of discretion ‘where the facts are disputed, where conflicting inferences may be drawn therefrom, . . . or where there are claimed mitigating facts that, if established, would render summary removal an inappropriate remedy'” … .

Here, the record contains undisputed evidence of conflict between the administrators, and evidence that the animosity between them has interfered with the expeditious administration of the decedent’s estate, which they have allowed to languish for nearly two decades … . Moreover, Menfus [one of the administrators] admitted … he executed a deed to one of the subject properties to himself, and permitted his father to live in the other property rent free. Matter of Steward, 2021 NY Slip Op 02395, Second Dept 4-21-21

 

/by
, , , , ,

IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE CONTRACT WHETHER DEFENDANT TRUSTEE WAS TO PERFORM A MERELY MINISTERIAL FUNCTION OR A GATEWAY FUNCTION IN ACCEPTING ASSETS FOR THE TRUST FROM A NONPARTY WHICH WAS ACTING FRAUDULENTLY; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DAMAGES ASSOCIATED WITH ACCEPTING NON-NEGOTIABLE ASSETS WERE DIRECT OR INDIRECT AND WHETHER A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS BREACHED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, reversing Supreme Court, determined the breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty action against defendant trustee, Wilmington, should not have been dismissed. Wilmington acted as a trustee for assets transferred to the trust by a nonparty. The contract stated Wilmington would be responsible only for its own negligence but also stated no non-negotiable assets were to be placed into the trust. The nonparty which transferred assets to the trust acted fraudulently and made risky investments rendering the trust assets out-of-compliance with state law. Plaintiff sued Wilmington for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Wilmington argued that any damages suffered by plaintiff from the assets transferred by the nonparty were indirect, not direct, and therefore barred by the trust agreements:

… [I]t can be argued that, in light of Wilmington’s promise not to accept nonnegotiable assets into the trusts, and to be responsible for its own negligence, maintaining the value of the assets in the trusts was inherent in the service Wilmington agreed to provide. Thus, there is merit to plaintiffs’ argument that when the assets proved not to be negotiable, they lost the benefit of their bargain and were entitled to recover as direct damages the diminution in value, and the concomitant costs of restoring the assets to negotiable status, such as professional fees. * * *

… [A]t this stage of the litigation, it is difficult to discern whether the parties contemplated that Wilmington would have to pay the damages sought by plaintiffs if it failed to perform under the trust agreements. Again, the agreements provided that Wilmington would be liable for “its own negligence,” which a reasonable factfinder could consider as recognition that Wilmington, if it did not perform its duties in accordance with a minimum level of care, would need to pay more than the nominal damages represented by its fee. * * *

Even though the breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims involved the same conduct, the fiduciary duty claim alleges a breach of a noncontractual duty relating to the trustee’s independent duty to perform nondiscretionary ministerial duties with respect to the negotiability of assets. Thus, the fact that Wilmington’s failure to prevent nonnegotiable assets from entering the trusts breached both fiduciary and contractual duties does not bar plaintiffs from seeking damages related to the former … . Bankers Conseco Life Ins. Co. v Wilmington Trust, N.A., 2021 NY Slip Op 02355, First Dept 4-20-21

 

/by
, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PART PERFORMANCE DEFEATED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS DEFENSE TO THE ALLEGED ORAL CONTRACT AND WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS HELD AS A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE PROVIDED FUNDS TO DEFENDANT TO PURCHASE PROPERTY WHICH. PURSUANT TO THE ORAL AGREEMENT, WOULD BE TRANSFERRED BY DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, affirming the denial of defendant’s summary judgment motion, determined there were question of fact about (1) whether part performance defeated the statute of frauds defense, (2) whether there was a fiduciary relationship between plaintiff and defendant and (3) whether the property was therefore held by defendant as a constructive trust. Plaintiff and defendant were close friends. Plaintiff alleged, pursuant to an oral agreement, he provided funds to defendant for the purchase of property which plaintiff would manage until defendant transferred it to the plaintiff. The defendant alleged there was no such agreement, plaintiff did not provide funds for the purchase of the property and defendant owned the property outright:

… [W]hile the plaintiff’s work in negotiating the purchase of the subject property and in managing it might be susceptible to other explanations, his contribution of approximately $1.5 million toward its purchase, albeit partially in the form of loans from the defendant, would be “unintelligible or at least extraordinary” without reference to the alleged oral agreement … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that although the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that the alleged oral agreement was barred by the statute of frauds, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact regarding part performance … . …

The four factors to be considered in ascertaining whether the imposition of a constructive trust is warranted are the existence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship, a promise, a transfer in reliance thereon, and unjust enrichment … . …

… [T]he transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant was not arm’s length but rather took place in the context of a friendship characterized not only by shared interests, cultural affiliations, and personal trust, but also by reliance on one another in business matters, including loans in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. While any single factor might not be sufficient, by itself, to establish a fiduciary relationship … . …

… [T]he terms of the agreement as described by the plaintiff and as evidenced by the parties’ actions are not fatally indefinite. The “doctrine of definiteness” … should not be “applied with a heavy hand” … . …

… [T]he plaintiff’s promise to manage the property and pay its expenses was “a specific, bargained for legal detriment” irrespective of its value to the defendant … . Accordingly, the alleged oral agreement does not fail for lack of consideration. Toobian v Golzad, 2021 NY Slip Op 02185, Second Dept 4-7-21

The trial in this matter was held, plaintiff prevailed, and the Second Department affirmed: Toobian v Golzad, 2021 NY Slip Op 02186, Second Dept 4-7-21

 

/by
, , ,

THE COMPLAINT BY THE CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS AGAINST THE CONDOMINIUM MANAGING AGENT STATED DISTINCT CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BOTH BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT; THE LAW FIRM WHICH REPRESENTED THE MANAGING AGENT IN AN UNRELATED MATTER INVOLVING THE CONDOMINIUM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this dispute between the board of managers of Brightwater Condominium and the condominium managing agent, FirstService, determined the complaint stated causes of action for both breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract, and the law firm (Woods) which represented FirstService in another matter with only a tangential relationship with Brightwater should not have been disqualified:

Managing agents of a condominium may owe a fiduciary duty to the condominium, depending on the functions they assume … . A fiduciary, in the context of condominium management, “is one who transacts business, or who handles money or property, which is not [its] own or for [its] own benefit, but for the benefit of another person, as to whom [it] stands in a relation implying and necessitating great confidence and trust on the one part and a high degree of good faith on the other part” … . …

Although a cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty which is based on the same facts and seeks identical damages is duplicative of a breach of contract cause of action and should be dismissed on that basis … , here, in addition to breaches of the management agreement, Brightwater alleges specific breaches of trust which are outside the duties set forth in the management agreement, such as misappropriation of funds, and instances of self-dealing, set forth with specificity. …

FirstService did not dispute Brightwater’s showing that no confidential information was obtained from FirstService by the Woods Firm in connection with that prior action. As there is no indication in the record that confidential information was disclosed, there is no basis for disqualification … . Board of Mgrs. of Brightwater Towers Condominium v FirstService Residential N.Y., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02128, Second Dept 4-7-21

 

/by
, ,

WHERE FRAUD IS THE BASIS OF A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS SIX YEARS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that where the basis of a claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty is fraud, the statute of limitations is six years:

[Defendant] Katten contends that even if the claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty is taken at face value, the statute of limitations is three years because plaintiff seeks damages, not equitable relief … . However, “a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty based on allegations of actual fraud is subject to a six-year limitations period” … . Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Albert Hallac for breach of fiduciary duty is based on allegations of actual fraud; hence, the statute of limitations for the claim against Katten for aiding and abetting Hallac’s breach of fiduciary duty is six years. Wimbledon Fin. Master Fund, Ltd. v Hallac, 2021 NY Slip Op 01881, First Dept 3-25-21

 

/by

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

[gravityform id=”1″ title=”false” description=”false” tabindex=”2″]

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy