Opinion ID: 2789494
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Aider and Abettor Liability

Text: Under Florida law, appellants must establish four elements to succeed on their claim that BANA aided and abetted Rosemont’s breach of fiduciary duty: (1) Rosemont owed a fiduciary duty to appellants; (2) which Rosemont breached; (3) BANA knew about Rosemont’s breach; and (4) it substantially assisted with Rosemont’s breach. See In re Caribbean K Line, Ltd., 288 B.R. 908, 919 (S.D. Fla. 2002); Ft. Myers Dev. Corp. v. J.W. McWilliams Co., 122 So. 264, 268 (Fla. 1929). The district court dismissed appellants’ claims because they could not establish that BANA knew of any alleged breach, much less assisted with it. Because each of these elements is required, and the failure of any one of them is decisive, we address only the third element requiring BANA’s knowledge of Rosemont’s breach. Appellants allege only that BANA “had knowledge” of Rosemont’s breaches of fiduciary duty—including Rosemont’s representation to appellants that it had the proper licenses and registrations; Rosemont’s telling appellants they did not need to register or get licenses; and Rosemont’s failing to inform appellants that such licenses and registrations were required. In support of this allegation, appellants allege that Rosemont “advised [BANA] that it 3 We need not reach the question of whether appellants were customers of BANA, or whether BANA would have owed appellants this duty of care in the context of a fiduciary relationship. 8 Case: 14-10952 Date Filed: 03/26/2015 Page: 9 of 9 committed the aforementioned acts prior to . . . open[ing] the [appellants’] [a]ccount[s].” At the same time, however, appellants’ complaints allege that Rosemont’s former president “advised [BANA] that Rosemont was going to obtain the appropriate money transmission license and registration . . . .” Of course BANA could not have known about the breach if Rosemont hid its fraud by saying it would get the registrations and licenses. Similar to the facts addressed by this court in Lawrence v. Bank of America, N.A., 455 Fed. App’x 904, 907 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam), appellants point to no other facts showing that BANA had actual knowledge of Rosemont’s actions. Because appellants failed to sufficiently allege BANA had actual knowledge of Rosemont’s breach, the district court properly dismissed their aiding and abetting claims as well. AFFIRMED. 9