 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Moe v. Moe2/15/2005
n a fiduciary capacity in communicating information to Kennard Moe about the status of their dissolution.
"A fiduciary relation exists when confidence is reposed on one side and there is resulting superiority and influence on the other." Stark, 205 Minn. at 145, 285 N.W. at 470 (quotation omitted). Simply reposing faith and confidence in a person does not create a fiduciary duty. Id. The record indisputably shows that Kennard Moe initiated the Moes' separation and retained an attorney for the purpose of obtaining the dissolution. Maxine Moe proceeded without an attorney. Kennard Moe testified that, after their dissolution and the death of Maxine Moe's son, he assisted her in obtaining a different attorney to pursue a wrongful-death action. The record establishes that Kennard Moe has owned and operated a profitable, small business for at least the past five years, that he managed the sale of the property that he received under the marital-termination agreement, and that he also managed the Moes' finances after consolidating their households on Maxine Moe's forty-acre parcel. The record provides no evidence that Maxine Moe had superior knowledge or influence that would give rise to a fiduciary relationship with respect to Kennard Moe; the evidence is, in fact, to the contrary.
Numerous jurisdictions have concluded that a claim of fraud cannot be sustained when a spouse or purported spouse claims a misrepresentation of law against the other but no evidence demonstrates that the complaining spouse was disadvantaged or dependent on the other. See Spolnik v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 94 F. Supp. 2d 998, 1003-04 (S.D. Ind. 2000) (concluding that claim for fraud was not actionable when misrepresentation was one of law and, "despite their marriage relationship, there is no evidence of the requisite special relationship of trust and confidence" or that complainant was dependent spouse); Kienitz v. Sager, 40 Haw. 1, 22 (1953) (Stainback, J., Concurring in part and dissenting in part) (denying complainant affirmative relief in action for fraud against his purported spouse when complainant's marriage was invalid because his spouse's former marriage had not been properly dissolved, stating "the least he could do was see that her divorce was legal" when he "aided and abetted" her in obtaining divorce for purpose of marrying him); Loringer v. Kaplan, 137 N.W.2d 716, 719 (Neb. 1965) (stating that " t would be against public policy to hold that [complainant] could claim lack of knowledge of the contents and legal effect of a [interlocutory divorce decree] which she herself sought," and therefore complainant could not sustain action for fraud against her purported spouse when he misrepresented legal effect of decree); Simms v. Simms, 221 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1961) (stating no action for fraud could be established between purported spouses when "exploration of the subject as to the legal effect of the [prior,] incestuous marriage [of one of the parties] was equally available to both [parties]").
The status of the dissolution proceedings is a legal representation equally within the knowledge of both Kennard and Maxine Moe. Maxine Moe had no special knowledge of the law or superior fiduciary position that would permit Kennard Moe to maintain an action for fraudulent misrepresentation of their marital status. The district court erred in awarding Kennard Moe damages on the basis of a claim that is not actionable.
III.
The record fails to provide evidence to satisfy the elements necessary to prove fraud. To establish fraud, a plaintiff must demonstrate reasonable reliance on the representation that resulted in damages. Cohen v. Appert, 463 N.W.2d 787, 789 (Minn. App. 1
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|