Case ID: so2d_513/html/1332-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Katherine L. VAN DUSEN, G. William Van Dusen, and Michael Van Dusen, lawful heirs of the Estate of William Van Dusen, Appellants, v. SOUTHEAST BANK, N.A., Appellee.
    No. 86-2206.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Oct. 6, 1987.
    Rehearing Denied Nov. 9, 1987.
    Peter Kneski, Miami, for appellants.
    Steel Hector and Norman Davis and W. Peter Burns, Miami, for appellee.
    Before HENDRY, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

In the first appearance of this case we reversed a summary judgment and remanded the case for trial, holding that a probate court order discharging the personal representative was no bar to an action by the heirs against the representative for a breach of fiduciary duty. Van Dusen v. Southeast First Nat’l Bank, 478 So.2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The facts are set out in that case.

After a presentation of the plaintiffs’ evidence at a jury trial, the court granted the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to, and indulging in every reasonable inference on behalf of the non-movant, there was no evidence on which the jury could lawfully return a verdict for the plaintiff. See City of Hialeah v. Rehm, 455 So.2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 462 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1985).

Affirmed.