[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

“A cause of action for aiding and abetting the breach of a fiduciary duty requires a plaintiff to establish:

1. a fiduciary duty on the part of a primary wrongdoer;
2. a breach of that fiduciary duty;
3. knowledge of the breach by the alleged aider and abettor; and
4. the aider and abettor’s substantial assistance or encouragement of the wrongdoing.”

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

“A cause of action for aiding and abetting the breach of a fiduciary duty requires a plaintiff to establish:

1. a fiduciary duty on the part of a primary wrongdoer;
2. a breach of that fiduciary duty;
3. knowledge of the breach by the alleged aider and abettor; and
4. the aider and abettor’s substantial assistance or encouragement of the wrongdoing.”

Logan v. Morgan Lewis & Bockius, 350 So. 3d 404, 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)(citation omitted).

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Second District: Integrated Health Services at Cent. Florida, Inc. v. Estate of DeSantis by & through DeSantis, 407 So. 3d 547, 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025); Logan v. Morgan Lewis & Bockius, 350 So. 3d 404, 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022); Abdo v. Abdo, 263 So. 3d 141, 146 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).

Third District: MP, LLC v. Sterling Holding, LLC, 231 So. 3d 517, 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Fonseca v. Taverna Imps., Inc., 212 So. 3d 431, 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).

Fourth District: Guarino v. Mandel, 327 So. 3d 853, 865 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Taubenfeld v. Lasko, 324 So. 3d 529, 540-41 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: B-Smith Enters., LP v. Bank of Am., 2023 WL 2034419, *2 (11th Cir. Feb. 16, 2023); Med. & Chiropractic Clinic, Inc. v. Oppenheim, 981 F.3d 983, 990 (11^th Cir. 2020); S&B/BIBB Hines PB 3 Joint Venture v. Progress Energy Fla., Inc., 365 Fed. Appx. 202, 207 (11th Cir. 2010).

Southern District: Restless Media GmbH v. Johnson, No. 22-80120-CIV, 2024 WL 5433129, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2024); Grace Cmty. Dev. Corp. of Fla., Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., 2023 WL 3171962, *3 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 22, 2023); Bayport Fin. Serv. (USA) Inc. v. BayBoston Managers, LLC, 2023 WL 2633298, *9 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2023); B-Smith Enters., LP v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2021 WL 8316764, *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2021).

Middle District: Centennial Bank v. Servisfirst Bank Inc., 2022 WL 10207685, *18 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 13, 2022); Anderson v. Talentsy, Inc., 599 F. Supp. 3d 1207, 1214 (M.D. Fla. 2022); Kremer v. Lysich, 2021 WL 6125467, *5 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 26, 2021); Aileron Inv. Mgmt., LLC v. Am. Lending Ctr., LLC, 2021 WL 7448243, *5 (M.D. Fla. July 12, 2021).

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Aiding and Abetting

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(o), Fla. Stat. (four years).

(3) The parties did not enter a fiduciary relationship, but rather conducted business in an arm’s length transaction in which there is no duty to protect the other party or disclose facts which the other party could have discovered by its own diligence. Watkins v. NCNB Nat. Bank, N.A., 622 So. 2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), rev. denied, 634 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1994); Baron v. Acasta Capital, No. 16-25118-Scola, 2017 WL 3084416, at *5 (S.D. Fla. July 19, 2017); CDG Int’l Corp. v. Q Capital Strategies, LLC, No. 17-23902-CIV, 2018 WL 278891, at *9 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2018).

(4) The Defendant’s alleged actions followed full disclosure to and the consent of the Plaintiff. Avila South Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Kappa Corp., 347 So. 2d 599, 606-607 (Fla. 1977).

(5) A fiduciary relationship arises only where a party affirmatively accepts or undertakes the duties of a fiduciary. Harris v. Zeuch, 103 Fla. 183, 137 So. 135, 138-139 (1931).

(6) A bank and its customers generally deal at arm’s-length as creditor and debtor, and a fiduciary relationship is not presumed. See Bldg. Educ. Corp. v. OceanBank, 982 So. 2d 37, 40–41 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) but see Barnett Bank of West Fla. v. Hooper, 498 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1986) (holding “where a bank becomes involved in a transaction with a customer with whom it has established a relationship of trust and confidence, and it is a transaction from which the bank is likely to benefit at the customer’s expense, the bank may be found to have assumed a duty to disclose facts material to the transaction …”).

(7) The delayed discovery doctrine does not toll the running of the statute of limitations for a breach of fiduciary duty claim. Zainulabeddin v. Univ. of S. Fl. Board of Trustees, No. 8:16-cv-637-T-30TGW, 2017 WL 5202998, at *11 (M.D. Fla. April 19, 2017).

[/MM_Access_Decision]