Crusselle v. Mong, 59 So. 3d 1178

Crusselle sues Mong after a failed riverfront property investment involving an option and right of first refusal; trial court directed a verdict for Mong on breach of fiduciary duty and denied punitive damages; the dispute centers on whether an implied fiduciary relationship existed and whether reliance could be shown; the parties’ relationship intensified as Mong proposed investments and promised to take care of Crusselle in her dotage; Crusselle purchased the riverfront property for Mong’s benefit and entered into a purchase option with specific payments and maintenance duties by Crusselle; the real estate transaction occurred amid market downturns and a souring relationship; the trial court’s ruling was reviewed de novo on the breach-of-fiduciary-duty issue; the court reversed the directed verdict and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in directing a verdict on breach of fiduciary duty?	Crusselle argues an implied fiduciary duty existed.	Mong contends no fiduciary duty was established as a matter of law.	Directed verdict reversed; issue for jury on breach.

Blizzard v. Appliance Direct, Inc., 16 So.3d 922 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (directed verdict de novo review standard discussed)
Fell v. Carlin, 6 So.3d 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (review of directed verdict de novo)
Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. Perez-Melen, 855 So.2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (conflicting evidence creates jury question on fiduciary duty)
Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc., 644 So.2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (implied fiduciary relationship based on transaction context)
Doe v. Evans, 814 So.2d 370 (Fla.2002) (fiduciary relation may arise from trust and protection expectations)
Masztal v. City of Miami, 971 So.2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (implied fiduciary relationship from dependency and undertaking)
Harrell v. Branson, 344 So.2d 604 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (fiduciary relation may be moral or personal, not just legal)