Estate of Joyce R. Petersen v. Bitters, No. 18-3596 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's entry of a $356,619.30 judgment in favor of the Estate of Joyce Rosamond Peterson against Defendants Bitters and Henry. Bitters, a financial advisor, advised Petersen to withdraw $150,000 from her annuities and to loan it to another client of his, Henry.
The court rejected Bitters' assertion that the Estate's fraud and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims were time-barred, and that the district court erred by instead instructing the jury to apply the four-year limitations period for claims of negligence and fraud. The court held that any potential error did not affect Bitters' substantial rights. The court also held that the district court had a duty to make the damages award conform to the law, and did not abuse its discretion by preventing the Estate from recovering twice for a single, indivisible injury; the evidence was insufficient to provide the jury with a reasonably certain basis for calculating pain-and-suffering damages; because it was clear at the Rule 50 hearing that the claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty under Nebraska law were identical, the district court did not err by dismissing the Estate's negligence claim; and summary judgment to Defendant Boland was not erroneous because there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Bitters and Boland had entered into a partnership.
Court Description: [Kelly, Author, with Gruender and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Fraud. The court properly instructed the jury on plaintiff's fraud claim against defendant Bitter and the conduct on which the jury verdict was based occurred within the relevant statute of limitations periods;; claim that the estate was not the proper party in interest was not raised on a timely basis and was properly rejected; no error in denying Bitters' motion for a new trial based on claims of evidentiary error and conduct of opposing counsel; the district court did not err in making defendants' liability joint and several as only one recovery could be had for a single injury; the evidence was insufficient to support a claim for pain-and-suffering, and the court did not err in refusing to submit the issue to the jury; the elements of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty are the same under Nebraska law, and the court did not err, here, in determining that submission of both negligence and breach of fiduciary duty would have been duplicative; there was no evidence that Bitters and defendant Boland were partners and the court did not err in granting summary judgment to Boland.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.