What is a breach of fiduciary duty by a trustee?

Useful Rulings on Breach of Fiduciary Duty by a Trustee

Recent Rulings on Breach of Fiduciary Duty by a Trustee

ANTONE NINO AND NASRIN SHAKERI NINO, A PARTNERSHIP VS NASRIN SHAKERI NINO, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS GENERAL PARTNER, ETC., ET AL.

The FAC asserts causes of action for: (1) damages for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and constructive fraud by general partner; (2) misappropriation and conversion of partnership assets by general partner; (3) accounting by general partner; (4) restitution and disgorgement of partnership assets misappropriated by general partner; (5) cancellation and damages for voidable transactions; (6) declaration of voidness of illegal financial transactions between attorney and clients induced by undue influence

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

KENNETH ADLER, ET AL. VS SHIRLEE LYNN BLISS

Though a large portion of the allegations are superfluous and unnecessary, Plaintiff has alleged some facts that support a breach of fiduciary duty cause of action regarding the attorney-client relationship. However, Plaintiff has not alleged how Bliss violated her duties regarding the property. As there is a viable basis for the 2nd cause of action to go forward, the Court will overrule the demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LEON ADJODHA VS ROBERT WRIGHT, ET AL.

Breach of fiduciary duty (2nd cause of action) To state a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, Plaintiff must allege: (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship; (2) its breach; and (3) damage proximately caused by that breach. (Roberts v. Lomanto (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 1553, 1562.) A fiduciary relationship is any relation existing between parties to a transaction wherein one of the parties is in duty bound to act with the utmost good faith for the benefit of the other party. (Wolf v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STEVEN POWERS VS MARCOS VIVIAN, ET AL.

Third Cause of Action: Breach of Fiduciary Duty “The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are: (1) the existence of a fiduciary duty; (2) breach of the fiduciary duty; and (3) damage proximately caused by the breach.” (Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1086.) Moving Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s third cause of action fails because no fiduciary duty exists between Moving Defendants and Plaintiff. (Demurrer 7-9.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CHAIKEN VS. THE REUTLINGER COMMUNITY

) (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty (against the individual defendants) The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are the existence of a fiduciary relationship, breach of fiduciary duty, and damages. (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 820.) Plaintiffs in this case continue to be unable to set forth a fiduciary relationship that would give rise to a breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

KENNETH A LOVEMAN VS AILEEN LEAVITT

The FAC asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, (4) partition of property, (5) accounting, (6) willful misconduct, (7) negligence, and (8) restitution and unjust enrichment. The FAC alleges in pertinent part as follows. Morton and Leavitt were sisters. Morton and Leavitt formed a partnership in the real estate business (Partnership).

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CHRISTOPHER S. VINCENT, ET AL. V. JOI K. STEPHENS

At the same time plaintiffs initiated the current civil action against defendant as trustee of the Stephens Family Trust A for (1) breach of trust, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) negligence, and (4) accounting. Defendant now moves the Court for an order disqualifying Mullen & Henzell, LLP (“Mullen & Henzell”) and all its members from representation of plaintiffs Vincent S. Stephens and Shelby G. Stephens in the current proceedings.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

THOMAS J MEZA, ET AL. VS BASILE & ASSOCIATES, ET AL.

Basile Defendants’ Demurrer Plaintiff’s complaint alleges four causes of action, for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, wrongful foreclosure, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Basile defendants are named in the first, second, and fourth causes of action, for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and IIED. Basile defendants demur only to plaintiffs’ second and fourth causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

NAI CHI HSU VS FOREMAX INVESTMENT LLC, ET AL.

The essential elements of a breach of fiduciary duty claim are: (1) the existence of a fiduciary duty; (2) breach of that duty; and (3) damage caused by the breach. (Gutierrez v. Girardi (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 925, 932; Pellegrini v. Weiss (2008) 165 Cal. App. 4th 515, 524.) A fiduciary duty is founded upon a special relationship imposed by law or under circumstances in which “confidence is reposed by persons in the integrity of others” who voluntarily accept the confidence.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

CANDICE, AN INDIVIDUAL WARREN VS FOXPOINT MEDIA, LLC, A MISSOURI CORPORATION, ET AL.

Given the Court’s finding that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against Neumann, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against Foxpoint. Based on the foregoing, Defendant Foxpoint’s demurrer to the fourth cause of action is OVERRULED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

WOO HYUN KIM VS HEE SU KIM, ET AL.

On September 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendant for: C/A 1: Imposition of a Resulting Trust C/A 2: Imposition of a Constructive Trust C/A 3: Breach of Fiduciary Duty C/A 4: Breach of Fiduciary Duty C/A 5: Breach of Fiduciary Duty C/A 6: Constructive Fraud C/A 7: Conversion C/A 8: Elder Abuse On January 31, 2020, Plaintiff passed away.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ANTONE NINO AND NASRIN SHAKERI NINO, A PARTNERSHIP VS NASRIN SHAKERI NINO, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS GENERAL PARTNER, ETC., ET AL.

The FAC asserts causes of action for: (1) damages for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and constructive fraud by general partner; (2) misappropriation and conversion of partnership assets by general partner; (3) accounting by general partner; (4) restitution and disgorgement of partnership assets misappropriated by general partner; (5) cancellation and damages for voidable transactions; (6) declaration of voidness of illegal financial transactions between attorney and clients induced by undue influence

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

LEONARD BLATT V. RENA FELICIA SMITH

Tentative emailed Complaint Plaintiff Leonard Blatt filed his complaint for violations of the Elder and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (W&I Code §§ 15600, et seq.) and breach of fiduciary duty against defendant Rena Felicia Smith, individually and as trustee of the Thomas Blatt Living Trust dated August 19, 2015 (the “Trust”). Plaintiff alleges: Plaintiff is the son of decedent Thomas “Toivi” Blatt and is a residual beneficiary of the Trust.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

CAROLYN HIGGINS , ET AL. VS FOUQUETTE CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION , ET AL.

(d) [three-year statute of limitations for fraud claim, quiet title action based on fraud, breach of fiduciary duty claim based on fraud], § 343 [four-year statute of limitations for claim for cancellation of instrument, breach of fiduciary duty claim not based on fraud, claim for declaratory relief]; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15657.7 [four-year statute of limitations for claim for financial elder abuse].)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

RANCHO LAS CRUCES, LLC, ET AL. V. ROBERT RAMIREZ, ET AL.

Defendant also seeks an order adjudicating that plaintiff has no defense to defendant’s first, third, tenth, and twelfth causes of action for declaratory relief, breach of fiduciary duty, trespass, and conversion asserted in defendant’s cross-complaint. Defendant’s motion will be denied for failure to comply with court rules and procedures.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

HUGO IVAN MALDONADO VS LUIS GONZALEZ, ET AL.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not alleged the existence of a fiduciary duty between Plaintiff and Defendants that would support the breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy to commit breach of fiduciary duty claims. Plaintiff merely states that “Defendants owed a fiduciary duty to Mr. Maldonado.” (Complaint, ¶¶ 30, 117.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ANDREA LOMBARDI VS RONALD F LOMBARDI AND KATHLEEN A LOMBARDI

Breach of Fiduciary Duty (5th COA) – Lombardi Sons Defendants assert that the fifth cause of action fails to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action against the Lombardi Sons for breach of fiduciary duty. (Notice of Demurrer, pg. 3.) “To establish a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of a fiduciary relationship, breach of that duty and damages. [Citations]” (Charnay v. Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 170, 182.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

HUGO IVAN MALDONADO VS LUIS GONZALEZ, ET AL.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not alleged the existence of a fiduciary duty between Plaintiff and Defendants that would support the breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy to commit breach of fiduciary duty claims. Plaintiff merely states that “Defendants owed a fiduciary duty to Mr. Maldonado.” (Complaint, ¶¶ 30, 117.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

HALLETT V. JACQUET, ET AL.

Fourth Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty The elements of breach of fiduciary duty are (1) existence of a fiduciary duty, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) damages. (Twomey v. Mitchum, Jones & Templeton Inc. (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 690.) A contractual relationship, without more, does not necessarily create a fiduciary relationship. (See Persson v. Smart Inventions, Inc. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1160.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

CHRISTINE LAROCQUE FRANZ VS ELIEZER APPEL, ET AL.

The elements of constructive fraud are: (1) a fiduciary relationship; (2) nondisclosure (breach of fiduciary duty); (3) intent to deceive (but see Civ. Code §1573 [intent not required]); and (4) reliance and resulting injury (causation). (Stokes v. Henson (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 187, 197.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STEVEN W. KEREKES, AN INDIVIDUAL VS DANIEL C. FERGUSON, AS TRUSTEE OF THE AMENDED AND RESTATED FERGUSON TRUST AND AS EXECUTOR, ET AL.

Ferguson filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff alleging: (1) professional negligence; (2) breach of contract; and (3) breach of fiduciary duty. On April 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of errata to the Complaint. Plaintiff now moves to compel Daniel C. Ferguson, as trustee of the Amended and Restated Ferguson Trust and executor of the last will and testament of Joline C. Ferguson (Defendant), to submit to binding arbitration of all claims alleged in the Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

ALFREDO ROBLES VS CARLOS ZECENA

Procedural history Robles filed the Complaint on May 8, 2019, and the FAC on June 10, 2019, alleging six causes of action: Breach of contract Accounting Breach of fiduciary duty Declaratory relief Quiet title Injunctive relief On August 9, 2019, Zecena filed a Cross-Complaint against Robles alleging one cause of action: Common Counts – Money had and received On November 26, 2019, Zecena filed the instant Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

AKIRA KOKUBU VS TAKASHI SUDO, ET AL.

The Sudo FAXC asserts causes of action for (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) fraud – concealment, (3) conspiracy to commit fraud, (4) equitable estoppel, (5) voidable transfer – Civil Code section 34349.04, (6) breach of contract, (7) unjust enrichment, and (8) accounting. The Sudo FAXC repeats the same factual allegations contained in the SAC. D.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MEIGHAN E.E. HOWARD, AS TRUSTEE OF THE MEIGHAN HOWARD IRREVOCABLE GIFT TRUST NO. 1, ET AL. VS M. NEIL SOLARZ, ET AL.

Neil Solarz (“Solarz”) (collectively, “Defendants”) demur to the 1st (professional negligence) and 2nd (breach of fiduciary duty) causes of action in the complaint of Plaintiff Meighan E.E. Howard, an individual (“Meighan”), and as Trustee of the Meighan Howard 2012 Irrevocable Gift Trust No. 1 (“GT1”) and as Trustee of the Meighan Howard 2012 Irrevocable Gift Trust No. 2 (“GT2”) (collectively, “Plaintiff”).

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

ZHENG V. ZHENG

Issue No. 5—Seventh cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty: there are no triable issues of fact because Cross-Complainant fails to satisfy the statute of frauds requirement showing that Cross-Defendants agreed to owe any fiduciary duty to cross-complainant. No evidence or facts have been offered showing that any fiduciary duties were owed to Cross-Complainant. Thus, there is no evidence to support a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. Everest Investors 8 v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 58     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.