Statements from a Judicial Verdict

In a recent decision, Judge Edward Nicholas included the following statements in his Final Judgment:

“Mr. Masterson gave the Court a primer on the criteria necessary to establish a fiduciary duty, both express and by implication. His analysis was thorough, objective and well-reasoned – and the Court afforded his testimony great weight.” “Ultimately, this Court agrees with Mr. Masterson.” Bank of America v. Holmes, et al, 2009CA12859, 12th Circuit, Manatee County, Florida.

My testimony in that case addressed the elements necessary for the existence of a trust/fiduciary relationship. Judge Nicholas summarily referred to my reasoning:

“He stated that no fiduciary duty attached for many reasons, including, but not limited to, because the Plaintiff never held title to the asset, because no money ever came under the Plaintiff’s control, because the Bank had no legal interest in the property/asset, and because the parties were simply lender and borrower. Mr. Masterson concluded that no fiduciary duty arose in the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.”

About Steve Masterson

Court-appointed Trustee and Personal Representative, providing neutral, third-party, administration of Trusts and Estates; estate planning consultant to families, attorneys, and fiduciaries; and expert witness for trust and estate litigation matters. See my website at
This entry was posted in Duties of Trustee, fiduciary, trustee, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s