Opinion ID: 3059960
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alteration of HUD-1 settlement statement

Text: Millette argues that Tarnove breached her fiduciary duty as closing agent because she altered the HUD-1 settlement statement without Millette’s consent. After Millette closed on the purchase of the property and home, Webster Bank requested that Tarnove change the HUD-1 statement to reflect a charge to Millette of $8,790 for a real estate broker commission. Tarnove prepared and faxed the changed statement to Webster Bank. Tarnove did not inform Millette about Webster Bank’s request and Millette did not consent to an alteration of the HUD-1 statement. As a result of the 15 alteration, Millette was required to pay an additional $8,790 for a real estate broker commission. The district court granted Tarnove’s Rule 50(a) motion on this claim, concluding that Millette failed to produce any evidence of damages. (Dkt. 611 at 1185-86.) While we agree that Millette did not produce any evidence of damages stemming from Tarnove’s failure to produce a title report, the alleged alteration of the HUD-1 statement is a different matter. Contrary to the district court’s no-damage finding, the record shows that Millette did suffer some damages as a result of the alteration of the closing statement. Her construction loan was charged an additional $8,790, when the construction holdback was reduced from $207,210 to $198,420. Thus, Millette’s purported failure to prove damages does not entitle Tarnove to judgment as a matter of law on the claim that she breached her fiduciary duty by altering the HUD-1 settlement statement.7 7 Our conclusion that Millette has produced some evidence of damage does not foreclose the possibility that Tarnove may be entitled to judgment for some alternative reason. For example, on this record, we cannot be sure that Tarnove’s conduct breached her fiduciary duty to Millette. That issue was not addressed during the trial and has not been addressed on appeal. We therefore leave to the district court the issue of whether Tarnove breached her duty as closing agent by submitting the altered document to Webster Bank. Because we have vacated the Rule 50(a) judgment in favor of Tarnove, we do not reach the issue of whether Tarnove is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 768.79. 16