breach of fiduciary duty claim in Georgia

2025Instead, we examine the injury alleged and the conduct giving rise to the claim to determine the appropriate statute of limitation.” Godwin v. Mizpah Farms, LLLP, 330 Ga. App. 31, 38 (3) (b) ( 766 SE2d 497 ) (2014). 7 In dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty claim, the trial court concluded that the allegations of that claim were “essentially the same acts and omissions” asserted in the “malpractice action,” to which a four-year statute of limitation applied, and, therefore, the same statute of limitation applied and barred the breach of fiduciary duty claim.

2025Instead, we examine the injury alleged and the conduct giving rise to the claim to determine the appropriate statute of limitation.” Godwin v. Mizpah Farms, LLLP, 330 Ga. App. 31, 38 (3) (b) ( 766 SE2d 497 ) (2014). 7 In dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty claim, the trial court concluded that the allegations of that claim were “essentially the same acts and omissions” asserted in the “malpractice action,” to which a four-year statute of limitation applied, and, therefore, the same statute of limitation applied and barred the breach of fiduciary duty claim.

2020See Pfeiffer v. Georgia Dept. of Transp., 275 Ga. 827, 829 (2) ( 573 SE2d 389 ) (2002); Crippen v. Outback Steakhouse Intl., L.P., 321 Ga. App. 167, 170 (1) ( 741 SE2d 280 ) (2013) (“Issues presented for the first time on appeal furnish nothing for us to review, for this is a court for correction of errors of law committed by the trial court where proper 3 The economic loss doctrine “generally provides that a contracting party who suffers purely economic losses must seek his remedy in contract and not in tort.” (Citations omitted.) D.J.

2020See Pfeiffer v. Georgia Dept. of Transp., 275 Ga. 827, 829 (2) ( 573 SE2d 389 ) (2002); Crippen v. Outback Steakhouse Intl., L.P., 321 Ga. App. 167, 170 (1) ( 741 SE2d 280 ) (2013) (“Issues presented for the first time on appeal furnish nothing for us to review, for this is a court for correction of errors of law committed by the trial court where proper 3 The economic loss doctrine “generally provides that a contracting party who suffers purely economic losses must seek his remedy in contract and not in tort.” (Citations omitted.) D.J.

2024And Smiley and Oehlerich belong to a line of Court of Appeals cases holding that Georgia law prohibits a plaintiff from 22 maintaining separate causes of action where each cause of action is based on the same conduct, the same damages, and a breach of a duty arising from the same source.10 10 See Smiley, 352 Ga. App. at 776 (2) (835 SE2d 803) (2019) (“Where, as here, the breach of fiduciary duty claim arises from the same source as the legal malpractice and misrepresentation claim (the attorney-client relationship), was allegedly breached by the same conduct (the failure to disclose the additi

2024And Smiley and Oehlerich belong to a line of Court of Appeals cases holding that Georgia law prohibits a plaintiff from 22 maintaining separate causes of action where each cause of action is based on the same conduct, the same damages, and a breach of a duty arising from the same source.10 10 See Smiley, 352 Ga. App. at 776 (2) (835 SE2d 803) (2019) (“Where, as here, the breach of fiduciary duty claim arises from the same source as the legal malpractice and misrepresentation claim (the attorney-client relationship), was allegedly breached by the same conduct (the failure to disclose the additi

2018Co. , 244 Ga. App. 271 , 275-76 (1), 534 S.E.2d 917 (2000) (holding that there was insufficient evidence of fraud to toll the statute of limitation for a beneficiary's breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim arising from real-estate transactions when there was no evidence that the trustee deterred the beneficiary from hiring an independent auditor or forensic accountant to review the relevant documents or that any such action by the trustee deterred the beneficiary from filing her suit). 36 See Frame , 269 Ga. at 847 (1), 507 S.E.2d 411 (holding that, even when a confidential relationship exists, "the

2018Co. , 244 Ga. App. 271 , 275-76 (1), 534 S.E.2d 917 (2000) (holding that there was insufficient evidence of fraud to toll the statute of limitation for a beneficiary's breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim arising from real-estate transactions when there was no evidence that the trustee deterred the beneficiary from hiring an independent auditor or forensic accountant to review the relevant documents or that any such action by the trustee deterred the beneficiary from filing her suit). 36 See Frame , 269 Ga. at 847 (1), 507 S.E.2d 411 (holding that, even when a confidential relationship exists, "the

2018Co. , 244 Ga. App. 271 , 275-76 (1), 534 S.E.2d 917 (2000) (holding that there was insufficient evidence of fraud to toll the statute of limitation for a beneficiary's breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim arising from real-estate transactions when there was no evidence that the trustee deterred the beneficiary from hiring an independent auditor or forensic accountant to review the relevant documents or that any such action by the trustee deterred the beneficiary from filing her suit). 36 See Frame , 269 Ga. at 847 (1), 507 S.E.2d 411 (holding that, even when a confidential relationship exists, "the

2018Co. , 244 Ga. App. 271 , 275-76 (1), 534 S.E.2d 917 (2000) (holding that there was insufficient evidence of fraud to toll the statute of limitation for a beneficiary's breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim arising from real-estate transactions when there was no evidence that the trustee deterred the beneficiary from hiring an independent auditor or forensic accountant to review the relevant documents or that any such action by the trustee deterred the beneficiary from filing her suit). 36 See Frame , 269 Ga. at 847 (1), 507 S.E.2d 411 (holding that, even when a confidential relationship exists, "the

2018Co. , 244 Ga. App. 271 , 275-76 (1), 534 S.E.2d 917 (2000) (holding that there was insufficient evidence of fraud to toll the statute of limitation for a beneficiary's breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim arising from real-estate transactions when there was no evidence that the trustee deterred the beneficiary from hiring an independent auditor or forensic accountant to review the relevant documents or that any such action by the trustee deterred the beneficiary from filing her suit). 36 See Frame , 269 Ga. at 847 (1), 507 S.E.2d 411 (holding that, even when a confidential relationship exists, "the

2018Co. , 244 Ga. App. 271 , 275-76 (1), 534 S.E.2d 917 (2000) (holding that there was insufficient evidence of fraud to toll the statute of limitation for a beneficiary's breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim arising from real-estate transactions when there was no evidence that the trustee deterred the beneficiary from hiring an independent auditor or forensic accountant to review the relevant documents or that any such action by the trustee deterred the beneficiary from filing her suit). 36 See Frame , 269 Ga. at 847 (1), 507 S.E.2d 411 (holding that, even when a confidential relationship exists, "the

2013Shields, 273 Ga. at 777-778 (II); Playnation Play Systems v. Hammer, 277 Ga. App. 675, 676-677 ( 627 SE2d 415 ) (2006). 5.

2013Shields, 273 Ga. at 777-778 (II); Playnation Play Systems v. Hammer, 277 Ga. App. 675, 676-677 ( 627 SE2d 415 ) (2006). 5.

2026Joel, Att’y at Law, P.C. v. Chastain, 254 Ga. App. 592, 595 (1) ( 562 SE2d 746 ) (2002) (“As Chastain’s legal representative, Joel’s P.C. had 4 To the extent Chisholm argues a breach of fiduciary duty claim is so distinct from other torts they are not capable of comparison, that argument is unavailing.

2026Joel, Att’y at Law, P.C. v. Chastain, 254 Ga. App. 592, 595 (1) ( 562 SE2d 746 ) (2002) (“As Chastain’s legal representative, Joel’s P.C. had 4 To the extent Chisholm argues a breach of fiduciary duty claim is so distinct from other torts they are not capable of comparison, that argument is unavailing.

2025See OCGA § 53-12-302 (a) (4) (within an action for breach of trust, the trial court may, in its discretion, award reasonable attorney fees); Jonas v. Jonas, 280 Ga. App. 155, 163 (3) (d) ( 633 SE2d 544 ) (2006) (punitive damages are available against defendants who breach a fiduciary duty). 11 him by virtue of his being a named beneficiary of the trust.11 See Peterson v. Peterson, 303 Ga. 211, 217 (3) ( 811 SE2d 309 ) (2018) (allowing beneficiaries to pursue breach of fiduciary duty claims against co-trustees based on the latter not properly funding a bypass trust and taking other actions that

2025Racette v. Bank of Am., N.A., 318 Ga. App. 171, 181 (6) ( 733 SE2d 457 ) (2012).

2025Racette v. Bank of Am., N.A., 318 Ga. App. 171, 181 (6) ( 733 SE2d 457 ) (2012).

2025See OCGA § 53-12-302 (a) (4) (within an action for breach of trust, the trial court may, in its discretion, award reasonable attorney fees); Jonas v. Jonas, 280 Ga. App. 155, 163 (3) (d) ( 633 SE2d 544 ) (2006) (punitive damages are available against defendants who breach a fiduciary duty). 11 him by virtue of his being a named beneficiary of the trust.11 See Peterson v. Peterson, 303 Ga. 211, 217 (3) ( 811 SE2d 309 ) (2018) (allowing beneficiaries to pursue breach of fiduciary duty claims against co-trustees based on the latter not properly funding a bypass trust and taking other actions that

2025See OCGA § 53-12-302 (a) (4) (within an action for breach of trust, the trial court may, in its discretion, award reasonable attorney fees); Jonas v. Jonas, 280 Ga. App. 155, 163 (3) (d) ( 633 SE2d 544 ) (2006) (punitive damages are available against defendants who breach a fiduciary duty). 11 him by virtue of his being a named beneficiary of the trust.11 See Peterson v. Peterson, 303 Ga. 211, 217 (3) ( 811 SE2d 309 ) (2018) (allowing beneficiaries to pursue breach of fiduciary duty claims against co-trustees based on the latter not properly funding a bypass trust and taking other actions that

2024And Smiley and Oehlerich belong to a line of Court of Appeals cases holding that Georgia law prohibits a plaintiff from 22 maintaining separate causes of action where each cause of action is based on the same conduct, the same damages, and a breach of a duty arising from the same source.10 10 See Smiley, 352 Ga. App. at 776 (2) (835 SE2d 803) (2019) (“Where, as here, the breach of fiduciary duty claim arises from the same source as the legal malpractice and misrepresentation claim (the attorney-client relationship), was allegedly breached by the same conduct (the failure to disclose the additi

2024And Smiley and Oehlerich belong to a line of Court of Appeals cases holding that Georgia law prohibits a plaintiff from 22 maintaining separate causes of action where each cause of action is based on the same conduct, the same damages, and a breach of a duty arising from the same source.10 10 See Smiley, 352 Ga. App. at 776 (2) (835 SE2d 803) (2019) (“Where, as here, the breach of fiduciary duty claim arises from the same source as the legal malpractice and misrepresentation claim (the attorney-client relationship), was allegedly breached by the same conduct (the failure to disclose the additi

2024And Smiley and Oehlerich belong to a line of Court of Appeals cases holding that Georgia law prohibits a plaintiff from 22 maintaining separate causes of action where each cause of action is based on the same conduct, the same damages, and a breach of a duty arising from the same source.10 10 See Smiley, 352 Ga. App. at 776 (2) (835 SE2d 803) (2019) (“Where, as here, the breach of fiduciary duty claim arises from the same source as the legal malpractice and misrepresentation claim (the attorney-client relationship), was allegedly breached by the same conduct (the failure to disclose the additi

2024And Smiley and Oehlerich belong to a line of Court of Appeals cases holding that Georgia law prohibits a plaintiff from maintaining separate causes of action where each cause of action is based on the same conduct, the same damages, and a breach of a 22 duty arising from the same source.10 To the extent that the Court of Appeals concluded that Plaintiffs were not permitted to maintain separate claims for legal 10 See Smiley, 352 Ga. App. at 776 (2) (“Where, as here, the breach of fiduciary duty claim arises from the same source as the legal malpractice and misrepresentation claim (the attorney

2024And Smiley and Oehlerich belong to a line of Court of Appeals cases holding that Georgia law prohibits a plaintiff from 22 maintaining separate causes of action where each cause of action is based on the same conduct, the same damages, and a breach of a duty arising from the same source.10 10 See Smiley, 352 Ga. App. at 776 (2) (835 SE2d 803) (2019) (“Where, as here, the breach of fiduciary duty claim arises from the same source as the legal malpractice and misrepresentation claim (the attorney-client relationship), was allegedly breached by the same conduct (the failure to disclose the additi

2024And Smiley and Oehlerich belong to a line of Court of Appeals cases holding that Georgia law prohibits a plaintiff from 22 maintaining separate causes of action where each cause of action is based on the same conduct, the same damages, and a breach of a duty arising from the same source.10 10 See Smiley, 352 Ga. App. at 776 (2) (835 SE2d 803) (2019) (“Where, as here, the breach of fiduciary duty claim arises from the same source as the legal malpractice and misrepresentation claim (the attorney-client relationship), was allegedly breached by the same conduct (the failure to disclose the additi

2023However, because the Eleventh Circuit was unable to find a Georgia case that addressed “whether a breach of the duty to disclose can support a breach of fiduciary duty claim,” King, 46 F4th at 1265, the Eleventh Circuit certified three questions to this Court.

2023However, because the Eleventh Circuit was unable to find a Georgia case that addressed “whether a breach of the duty to disclose can support a breach of fiduciary duty claim,” King, 46 F4th at 1265 , the Eleventh Circuit certified three questions to this Court.

2023Kahn, 330 Ga. App. at 392-393 (8).

2020See Pfeiffer v. Georgia Dept. of Transp., 275 Ga. 827, 829 (2) ( 573 SE2d 389 ) (2002); Crippen v. Outback Steakhouse Intl., L.P., 321 Ga. App. 167, 170 (1) ( 741 SE2d 280 ) (2013) (“Issues presented for the first time on appeal furnish nothing for us to review, for this is a court for correction of errors of law committed by the trial court where proper 3 The economic loss doctrine “generally provides that a contracting party who suffers purely economic losses must seek his remedy in contract and not in tort.” (Citations omitted.) D.J.

2020See Pfeiffer v. Georgia Dept. of Transp., 275 Ga. 827, 829 (2) ( 573 SE2d 389 ) (2002); Crippen v. Outback Steakhouse Intl., L.P., 321 Ga. App. 167, 170 (1) ( 741 SE2d 280 ) (2013) (“Issues presented for the first time on appeal furnish nothing for us to review, for this is a court for correction of errors of law committed by the trial court where proper 3 The economic loss doctrine “generally provides that a contracting party who suffers purely economic losses must seek his remedy in contract and not in tort.” (Citations omitted.) D.J.

2020Schinazi, 338 Ga. App. at 798 (3) (a). (b) Wimpy next contends that the breach of fiduciary duty claim is precluded as a matter of law by the economic loss doctrine.3 However, Wimpy never raised this argument before the trial court, and it is thus waived.

2019And given the circumstances, we exercise our discretion to vacate the denial of the summary judgment motion as to the breach of fiduciary duty claim and remand this case for the trial court to determine in the first instance whether the Wests pointed to specific evidence of Fowler’s conduct that transcended the lender-borrower relationship customarily found between a member- owned agricultural lender and farm operator and thereby showed a triable issue as to the existence of a fiduciary relationship.7 See City of Gainesville v. Dodd, 275 Ga. 7 See generally Mantooth v. Federal Land Bank of Lou

2019And given the circumstances, we exercise our discretion to vacate the denial of the summary judgment motion as to the breach of fiduciary duty claim and remand this case for the trial court to determine in the first instance whether the Wests pointed to specific evidence of Fowler’s conduct that transcended the lender-borrower relationship customarily found between a member- owned agricultural lender and farm operator and thereby showed a triable issue as to the existence of a fiduciary relationship.7 See City of Gainesville v. Dodd, 275 Ga. 7 See generally Mantooth v. Federal Land Bank of Lou

2019And given the circumstances, we exercise our discretion to vacate the denial of the summary judgment motion as to the breach of fiduciary duty claim and remand this case for the trial court to determine in the first instance whether the Wests pointed to specific evidence of Fowler’s conduct that transcended the lender-borrower relationship customarily found between a member- owned agricultural lender and farm operator and thereby showed a triable issue as to the existence of a fiduciary relationship.7 See City of Gainesville v. Dodd, 275 Ga. 7 See generally Mantooth v. Federal Land Bank of Lou

2019And given the circumstances, we exercise our discretion to vacate the denial of the summary judgment motion as to the breach of fiduciary duty claim and remand this case for the trial court to determine in the first instance whether the Wests pointed to specific evidence of Fowler’s conduct that transcended the lender-borrower relationship customarily found between a member- owned agricultural lender and farm operator and thereby showed a triable issue as to the existence of a fiduciary relationship.7 See City of Gainesville v. Dodd, 275 Ga. 7 See generally Mantooth v. Federal Land Bank of Lou

2019And given the circumstances, we exercise our discretion to vacate the denial of the summary judgment motion as to the breach of fiduciary duty claim and remand this case for the trial court to determine in the first instance whether the Wests pointed to specific evidence of Fowler’s conduct that transcended the lender-borrower relationship customarily found between a member- owned agricultural lender and farm operator and thereby showed a triable issue as to the existence of a fiduciary relationship.7 See City of Gainesville v. Dodd, 275 Ga. 7 See generally Mantooth v. Federal Land Bank of Lou

2019And given the circumstances, we exercise our discretion to vacate the denial of the summary judgment motion as to the breach of fiduciary duty claim and remand this case for the trial court to determine in the first instance whether the Wests pointed to specific evidence of Fowler’s conduct that transcended the lender-borrower relationship customarily found between a member- owned agricultural lender and farm operator and thereby showed a triable issue as to the existence of a fiduciary relationship.7 See City of Gainesville v. Dodd, 275 Ga. 7 See generally Mantooth v. Federal Land Bank of Lou

2019And given the circumstances, we exercise our discretion to vacate the denial of the summary judgment motion as to the breach of fiduciary duty claim and remand this case for the trial court to determine in the first instance whether the Wests pointed to specific evidence of Fowler’s conduct that transcended the lender-borrower relationship customarily found between a member- owned agricultural lender and farm operator and thereby showed a triable issue as to the existence of a fiduciary relationship.7 See City of Gainesville v. Dodd, 275 Ga. 7 See generally Mantooth v. Federal Land Bank of Lou

2019And given the circumstances, we exercise our discretion to vacate the denial of the summary judgment motion as to the breach of fiduciary duty claim and remand this case for the trial court to determine in the first instance whether the Wests pointed to specific evidence of Fowler’s conduct that transcended the lender-borrower relationship customarily found between a member- owned agricultural lender and farm operator and thereby showed a triable issue as to the existence of a fiduciary relationship.7 See City of Gainesville v. Dodd, 275 Ga. 7 See generally Mantooth v. Federal Land Bank of Lou