McDonald v. MimsMcDonald v. Mims
In this divеrsity case, appellant seeks to overturn an order granting defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. Because we conсlude that the motion was erroneously granted, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Appellants, Cecil and Charlotte Hackett, filed this action against Reynolds Securities seeking damages for the negligent handling of their stock accounts. Specifically, thе Hacketts contend that the wrongful actions of Reynolds’ employee, Roger Vasselais, and the failure of Reynolds to properly supervise and control Vasselais, resulted in net losses exceeding $3.5 million. Defendants responded that the Hacketts had ratified the trаnsactions in question and further that any recovery was barred by estoppel. Arguing that the Hacketts continually received confirmatiоn slips concerning all of the transactions and thus were aware of the state of the accounts, defendants assert that Hackеtt’s failure to seasonably complain or object bars any recovery. At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, the trial judge dirеcted a verdict for defendant on three grounds: (1) the Hacketts had failed, to establish that Vasselais had engaged in fraud, self-dealing, or overreaching; (2) the Hacketts had ratified every transaction; and (3) the Hacketts were barred by estop-pel.
When reviewing an appeal from a directed verdict, this court applies the standard established in Boeing Company v. Shipman,
On motions for directed verdict . the Court should consider аll of the evidence — not just that evidence which supports the non-mover’s case — but in the light and with all reasonable inferences most fаvorable to the party opposed to the motion. If the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of onе party that the Court believes that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict, granting of the motions is proper. On the other hand, if there is substantial evidence opposed to the motions, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable аnd fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motions should be denied, and the case submitted to the jury.
With this standard in mind, we examine the facts of this case. With respect to the finding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish fraud, self-dealing, and overreaching, the record reveals several facts from which misconduct may reasonably be inferred. Vasselais handled the Hackett аccount on a discretionary basis, a practice contrary to rules established by his employer. This could indicate a failure by Reynolds to supervise their brokers as closely as required by the fiduciary duty owed to Reynolds’ customers. Vasselais, ignoring instructions from Hackett to invest in growth stocks and to avoid speculative issues, continually purchased stocks which were somewhat less than blue chip. Appellants presented evidence indicating that Vasselais had recommended and purchased particular issues for the plaintiffs, while selling from his personal account stock in the same corporations. Finally, notwithstanding notice of the deteriorating condition of the Hackett’s accounts, supervisory personnel at Reynolds made only cursory inquiries into Vasselais’ activities. These activities cеrtainly provided an opportunity for abuse, and a reasonable jury could infer from plaintiff’s evidence that Vasselais did in fact abuse his position. We agree with plaintiffs that directed verdict was improperly granted on the first question.
The trial court also sustained two affirmаtive defenses raised by defendant. With respect to the defense of ratification, we note simply that Florida law requires that an individual intent to ratify the acts in question, Toffel v. Baugher,
Finally, the trial court held that plaintiffs were estopped because they had received аll relevant information, yet had failed to seasonably complain. Apparently, the substantive basis for that ruling was Hayden, Stone, Inc. v. Brown,
We conclude that plaintiff’s evidence provides an ample basis from which a jury could reasonably сonclude that Vasselais engaged in the activities alleged, that Reynolds did not adequately supervise Vasselais, and that Hackett nеither ratified nor failed to seasonably object to Vasselais’ actions. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded.