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.”