It is hard to base your case on a breach of fiduciary duty when there is a contract in place between the parties. Contracting parties owe no special duties to each other beyond the terms of the contract. Branch Banking & Tr. Co. v. Thompson, 107 N.C. App. 53, 61, 418 S.E.2d 694, 699 (1992).
But the NC Business Court twice in January allowed fiduciary duty claims to survive when the relationship between the parties was based on a contract. The cases are Austin v. Regal Investment Advisors, 2018 NCBC 3 and Can-Dev, ULC v. SSTI Centennial, LLC, 2018 NCBC 9.
Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Investment Advisor Gets Past Motion To Dismiss
The Plaintiffs in the Austin case, who had invested funds with the Defendants acting as their investment advisors, sued when the individual Defendant (Barnes) persuaded them to invest in a sketchy venture. A key claim against the investment advisors was for breach of fiduciary duty.
You probably think that an investment advisor stands in a fiduciary relationship to his client as a matter of law (a de jure relationship), but no NC appellate decision has so held. Judge Robinson didn’t see any need to take that step, and instead ruled that the facts alleged in the Complaint were sufficient at the Motion to Dismiss stage to support a de facto fiduciary relationship. Op. ¶43. He said:
that the Complaint’s allegations regarding the relationship between the parties, the amount of discretion given to Mr. Barnes and Regal to manage Plaintiffs’ investments, and the circumstances of the Triton investment, together with the allegations that Plaintiffs, who were not sophisticated investors, relied on Mr. Barnes and Regal for their financial expertise to manage their investment accounts, are sufficient at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage to plead the existence of a de facto fiduciary relationship.
Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Claim Survived Motion For Summary Judgment When Contracting Party “Held All The Cards”
So does it get tougher to get beyond the summary judgment stage when you are claiming a de facto fiduciary relationship? It didn’t for the Plaintiff in the Can-Dev decision. That Plaintiff had entered into a joint venture deal with the Defendants to develop self-storage facilities in Canada. The contractual relationship was carefully detailed, and Judge Robinson noted the well accepted principle that
parties to a contract do not thereby become each others’ fiduciaries; they generally owe no special duty to one another beyond the terms of the contract[.]
Op. ¶40 (quoting Branch Banking & Tr. Co. v. Thompson, 107 N.C. App. 53, 61, 41, 8 S.E.2d 694, 699 (1992)).
He then observed that:
the existence of a contract does not foreclose the possibility that a contracting party may repose trust and confidence in the other party, beyond the terms of the contract, such that the other party, in equity and good conscience, becomes bound to act in good faith and with due regard to the interests of the one reposing confidence.
The standard for proving a de facto fiduciary relationship “is a demanding one.” Op. ¶37. The NC Court of Appeals has said that “[o]nly when one party figuratively holds all the cards — all the financial power or technical information, for example — have North Carolina courts found that the special circumstance of a fiduciary relationship has arisen.” Lockerman v. S. River Elec. Membership Corp., 794 S.E.2d 346, 352 (2016).
Plaintiff Can-Dev got over that hurdle (and at the summary judgment stage, which is all the more impressive). The Defendants had taken over control of the development projects which were the subject of the contracts, and had failed to provide financial information regarding the projects to the Plaintiff. Plaintiffs argued, successfully quoting the Court of Appeals’ decision in Lockerman, that this “resulted in Defendants “literally ‘[holding] all the cards — all the financial power [and] technical information[.]’”
* * *
This isn’t the end of the road for the Plaintiffs in either of these cases. They still have to prove their claims at trial, because whether a de facto fiduciary relationship exists it is “is generally a question of fact for the jury.” Can-Dev at ¶40.