Security Federal Savings & Loan Association of Nashville v. Riviera, Ltd.
Tennessee Court of Appeals
856 S.W.2d 709 (1992)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
Tom Robinson (plaintiff) was a businessman. Mickey Ridings (defendant), a lawyer and financial advisor, advised Robinson in business and personal financial matters. Ridings was a partner of Riviera, Ltd. (Riviera) (defendant), which was selling an apartment building. Ridings told Robinson that the building was worth over $2.5 million and that a buyer could take certain tax benefits associated with the building. There was no evidence to substantiate Ridings’s claims about the building’s value, but Robinson bought the building anyway. Robinson then discovered that Ridings’s claims were false. Ridings claimed that he did not profit from the sale, but the sale discharged a debt that Ridings owed to Riviera and increased the value of Ridings’s interest in Riviera. Robinson argued that Ridings’s fraudulent misrepresentations induced Robinson to buy the building. Ridings argued that because he was not acting as Robinson’s attorney during the transaction, the transaction did not take place within a fiduciary relationship, and therefore there was no reasonable reliance and no fraudulent misrepresentation. The trial court found that there was no fiduciary relationship.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cantrell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.