When a trustee uses trust property for personal benefit—buying assets at below-market prices, steering contracts to family members, or commingling funds—Florida law treats it as a breach of the most fundamental fiduciary duty. Trustee self-dealing in Florida is not merely poor judgment; it is a per se violation that can result in removal, disgorgement of profit, and personal surcharge, even if the transaction appeared facially “fair.”
What Trustee Self-Dealing Is and When It Arises
Self-dealing occurs when a trustee engages in a transaction in which the trustee has a personal interest adverse to the interests of the beneficiaries. The Florida Trust Code, Fla. Stat. § 736.0802(2), flatly prohibits a trustee from entering into a transaction “for the trustee’s own personal account or which is otherwise affected by a conflict between the trustee’s fiduciary and personal interests.” The prohibition is categorical. Courts do not ask whether the deal was “fair” or whether the beneficiaries were harmed; the conflict itself violates the duty of loyalty.
Typical scenarios include: a trustee purchasing trust real estate through a straw buyer; a trustee-beneficiary distributing disproportionate assets to himself while controlling the timing and valuation; a trustee hiring his own business to manage trust investments and collecting fees on both sides; a trustee borrowing from the trust at below-market rates; or a trustee selling trust property to a family member without competitive bidding or independent appraisal. Each of these constitutes self-dealing regardless of subjective good faith.
The duty of loyalty is the cornerstone of trust law. Florida courts recognize that a trustee occupies a position of the highest confidence and must subordinate personal interests entirely to those of the beneficiaries. When that duty is breached through self-dealing, the transaction is voidable at the election of the beneficiaries, and the trustee bears the burden of proving that the transaction was fair, authorized by the trust instrument, or consented to by all qualified beneficiaries after full disclosure.
Legal Grounds and Elements a Challenger Must Prove
To establish a claim for trustee self-dealing in Florida, a petitioner—typically a beneficiary or co-trustee—must prove three core elements:
- Existence of a fiduciary relationship. The claimant must show that the defendant acted as trustee of an express trust governed by Florida law. This is ordinarily established through the trust instrument, recorded deed of trust, or court order appointing the trustee. The fiduciary relationship is not in dispute in most cases; the trust document itself is dispositive.
- A transaction in which the trustee had a personal interest. The petitioner must identify a specific transaction—sale, purchase, loan, lease, contract—in which the trustee stood on both sides of the deal or derived a personal benefit. “Personal interest” includes direct ownership, indirect ownership through a related entity, family relationships, or any arrangement in which the trustee’s economic interest diverges from that of the trust. For example, if a trustee is also the sole member of an LLC that purchases trust real estate, the trustee has a disqualifying personal interest.
- Lack of proper authorization or informed consent. The transaction must have occurred without one of the narrow safe harbors: (a) explicit authorization in the trust instrument; (b) prior approval by the court under Fla. Stat. § 736.0201; or (c) informed written consent of all qualified beneficiaries after full and fair disclosure of the conflict, the material terms, and the trustee’s adverse interest. Consent must be voluntary, informed, and free from undue influence; mere silence or passive acquiescence does not suffice.
Once these three elements are shown, the burden shifts. The transaction is presumed voidable, and the trustee must affirmatively prove that it was fair and reasonable, or that one of the statutory exceptions applies. The petitioner does not bear the burden of proving actual harm or bad motive—self-dealing is a breach per se.
Florida courts also recognize that fiduciary duties are not limited to trustees alone. In Perret v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., 889 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (S.D. Fla. 2012), the court observed that “Plaintiffs allege that these agreements explicitly impose upon Defendants various fiduciary duties and obligations. Plaintiffs also allege that Florida law imposes fiduciary duties on Defendants, specifically, Florida Statute §§ 721.56(4) and 721.13(2)(a).” While Perret addressed timeshare management, the principle applies broadly: fiduciary obligations may arise by contract, by statute, or by the nature of the relationship, and self-dealing claims can be asserted wherever those duties exist.
In trust litigation, the duty of loyalty under Fla. Stat. § 736.0802 is non-waivable except by the narrow statutory mechanisms. Courts strictly construe exculpatory clauses and will not permit a trustee to escape liability for self-dealing merely because the trust instrument contains broad investment powers or exculpatory language. The duty of loyalty stands apart.
Who Has Standing to Bring a Self-Dealing Claim
Standing to challenge trustee self-dealing in Florida is governed by Fla. Stat. § 736.0201 and § 736.0207. A “qualified beneficiary”—defined in § 736.0103(19) as a living beneficiary who, on the date in question, is a permissible distributee of income or principal or would be a distributee if the trust terminated—has automatic standing to petition the court for instructions, to compel an accounting, or to seek removal and surcharge of the trustee.
Co-trustees also have standing. Under Fla. Stat. § 736.0703, each co-trustee owes a duty to the beneficiaries and must participate in the administration of the trust. A co-trustee who learns of self-dealing by another trustee has both the right and the duty to object, seek judicial intervention, and prevent further breaches. Failure to act may itself constitute a breach.
Remainder beneficiaries whose interests are contingent or remote may also have standing if the self-dealing threatens the corpus of the trust. Florida courts permit derivative standing where the trustee’s conduct jeopardizes the trust estate and the current income beneficiary is unable or unwilling to act. Additionally, a trust protector or investment trust advisor designated in the trust instrument may have authority to bring claims on behalf of the trust itself.
Creditors of beneficiaries generally lack standing to challenge trustee conduct unless they have obtained a charging order or become assignees of the beneficial interest. The statutory framework reserves standing to those with a direct, legally cognizable interest in the proper administration of the trust.
Burden of Proof and the Evidence Required
The initial burden rests with the petitioner to establish the existence of the trust, the trustee’s fiduciary status, and the occurrence of a self-interested transaction. This burden is typically satisfied through:
- The trust instrument (authenticated copy or court-filed version), establishing the trustee’s appointment and scope of authority.
- Transactional documents: deeds, contracts of sale, loan agreements, LLC operating agreements, corporate resolutions, checks, wire confirmations, or invoices showing the trustee’s involvement on both sides of the transaction or the flow of funds to the trustee’s personal account or related entity.
- Ownership records: corporate and LLC records from the Florida Division of Corporations (Sunbiz.org), property appraiser records, and recorded instruments showing that the counterparty to the transaction is controlled by or related to the trustee.
- Accounting records: trust accountings (or the absence thereof), bank statements, check images, and ledgers showing payments to the trustee or trustee-related entities without beneficiary approval.
- Disclosure failures: correspondence and email showing that the trustee did not inform beneficiaries of the conflict, did not seek consent, and did not obtain an independent appraisal or fairness opinion.
Once the petitioner makes a prima facie showing of self-dealing, the burden shifts entirely to the trustee under Fla. Stat. § 736.1001(2), which provides that a violation of the duty of loyalty is presumed to constitute a breach of trust. The trustee must then prove by clear and convincing evidence that: (a) the transaction was expressly authorized by the terms of the trust; (b) the transaction was approved by the court after notice and hearing; (c) all qualified beneficiaries gave informed written consent after full disclosure; or (d) the transaction was entirely fair and reasonable to the beneficiaries, involved no concealment, and resulted in no detriment to the trust.
The “fair and reasonable” defense is difficult to establish. The trustee must produce evidence of:
- Independent third-party appraisals or valuations conducted before the transaction.
- Competitive bidding or marketing to establish fair market value.
- Written disclosure to all beneficiaries describing the conflict and the terms.
- Evidence that the trust received full consideration and was not disadvantaged.
- Proof that the transaction was necessary or advantageous to the trust and could not have been accomplished at arm’s length.
Absent such evidence, the transaction is voidable, and the trustee is subject to surcharge for any profit derived or loss caused. In cases involving fraudulent misrepresentation or active concealment, the trustee may also face non-dischargeable liability. West v. Chrisman, 518 B.R. 655 (M.D. Fla. 2014), held that “West had made fraudulent representations in violation of his fiduciary duties, and that any fees West owed to Aleta would not be dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4).” While West arose in a bankruptcy proceeding, the principle applies in Florida trust litigation: a trustee who engages in fraud or willful misconduct cannot discharge the resulting debt and may be personally liable beyond the trust estate.
Procedure, Venue, and Deadlines: Statute of Limitations
A self-dealing claim is brought by verified petition in the circuit court of the county where the trust is administered or where the trustee resides, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 736.0202 and § 736.0203. Venue lies in the county where the settlor resided at death (for testamentary trusts) or where the principal place of administration is located (for inter vivos trusts). If no administration has been commenced, venue may lie where any trustee resides or where trust property is located.
The statute of limitations is governed by Fla. Stat. § 736.1008, which establishes multiple limitation periods depending on disclosure and the nature of the breach:
- Six months after adequate disclosure. If the trustee has provided a beneficiary with an adequate trust accounting and a statement advising the beneficiary of the time limits, the beneficiary must commence an action within six months or the claim is barred. “Adequate disclosure” requires a report that reasonably discloses the existence of a potential claim; mere delivery of a summary or incomplete accounting does not start the clock.
- Three years after termination or trustee’s departure. Under § 736.1008(3), a beneficiary must bring an action for breach of trust within three years after the date the beneficiary was sent a report that adequately disclosed the facts constituting the claim or three years after the termination of the trust or the trustee’s removal, resignation, or death, whichever occurs first. This is a statute of repose that provides finality even if the beneficiary was not aware of the breach.
- No limitation for fraud or concealment. Under § 736.1008(2), if the trustee fraudulently conceals facts constituting a breach, or if the trustee fails to provide an accounting, there is no statute of limitations, and the beneficiary may sue at any time. This equitable tolling doctrine prevents a wrongdoer from benefiting from his own concealment.
In practice, self-dealing claims often fall into the “no limitation” category because the trustee rarely discloses the conflict or provides a compliant accounting. Courts are vigilant in protecting beneficiaries from concealment and will reject limitations defenses where the trustee has failed in the duty to inform.
Procedurally, the petition must allege facts showing the fiduciary relationship, the self-interested transaction, the absence of consent or authorization, and the relief sought. Discovery is critical. Petitioners typically serve interrogatories, requests for production (trust accountings, entity records, banking records, emails), and may notice depositions of the trustee and third parties. In complex cases involving multiple entities or offshore accounts, forensic accountants and valuation experts are often necessary.
If the trustee has removed assets or commingled funds, the petitioner may seek emergency relief under Fla. Stat. § 736.0201(2), including appointment of a receiver, temporary restraining order, or preliminary injunction to preserve the trust estate pending final hearing.
Common Defenses and How They Are Met
Trustees accused of self-dealing raise predictable defenses, each of which can be defeated with thorough preparation and evidence:
Defense 1: The Trust Instrument Authorized the Transaction
A trustee may argue that the trust instrument granted express authority to self-deal—for example, by permitting the trustee to purchase trust assets or engage in transactions with affiliates. Florida law permits such authorizations, but they must be clear, specific, and unambiguous. A general grant of “broad investment powers” or language stating the trustee may act “without court approval” does not waive the duty of loyalty. The authorization must explicitly permit self-dealing and must describe the types of transactions allowed. Courts construe exculpatory and self-dealing clauses narrowly and will not infer permission from silence or boilerplate language.
To defeat this defense, petitioners should parse the trust language, cross-reference it with Fla. Stat. § 736.0802, and show that the specific transaction at issue falls outside any express grant. Expert testimony from an elder-law or estate-planning attorney regarding customary trust drafting practices may also be persuasive.
Defense 2: The Beneficiaries Consented
Consent is a complete defense if all qualified beneficiaries gave informed, voluntary, written consent after full disclosure of the conflict, the terms, and the trustee’s interest. The trustee bears the burden of proving each element. Courts scrutinize consent closely, particularly where:
- The consenting beneficiary was elderly, ill, or under the trustee’s influence.
- The disclosure was incomplete or misleading (e.g., omitted the trustee’s ownership interest or failed to disclose comparable sales data).
- The consent was given under economic duress (e.g., trustee withheld distributions until the beneficiary signed).
- Not all qualified beneficiaries consented; consent must be unanimous.
Petitioners defeat this defense by deposing the consenting beneficiary, obtaining medical records or cognitive assessments if capacity is in question, and showing that the disclosure document omitted material facts. Email and text correspondence often reveal that the trustee downplayed the conflict or pressured the beneficiary.
Defense 3: The Transaction Was Fair and Reasonable
Even absent authorization or consent, a trustee may argue that the transaction was entirely fair and benefited the trust. The trustee must produce clear and convincing evidence of fair market value, arm’s-length negotiation, and lack of detriment. Petitioners attack this defense by:
- Obtaining an independent appraisal or retrospective valuation showing the trust received less than fair value.
- Demonstrating that the trustee did not market the property, did not obtain competitive bids, and did not seek independent counsel for the trust.
- Showing that the trustee profited personally (e.g., resold the asset at a higher price shortly after the self-dealing transaction).
- Highlighting the inherent conflict and the trustee’s failure to disclose or recuse.
Florida courts recognize that even a “fair” transaction is voidable if the conflict was not disclosed. The law does not reward secrecy, and the trustee’s subjective belief in fairness is irrelevant.
Defense 4: Statute of Limitations or Laches
Trustees often assert that the claim is time-barred under Fla. Stat. § 736.1008. As discussed, the statute runs only if there was adequate disclosure. Petitioners overcome this defense by showing:
- No accounting was provided, or the accounting omitted the self-dealing transaction.
- The trustee affirmatively concealed the conflict (e.g., used a nominee or shell entity).
- The disclosure was inadequate (did not inform the beneficiary of the conflict or the right to object).
- The beneficiary did not discover the breach until recently, and the discovery rule tolls the statute.
Laches—the equitable doctrine that a plaintiff’s unreasonable delay prejudices the defendant—is rarely successful in self-dealing cases because the trustee’s own misconduct caused the delay. Courts are reluctant to reward a fiduciary who concealed wrongdoing and then complains that the victim waited too long to sue.
Defense 5: Beneficiary Ratification or Acquiescence
A trustee may claim that the beneficiary, by accepting distributions or failing to object, ratified the self-dealing. Ratification requires knowledge of all material facts and an unequivocal act manifesting approval. Silence, passive receipt of routine distributions, or lack of timely objection does not constitute ratification. Petitioners defeat this defense by showing that the beneficiary lacked full information, reasonably relied on the trustee’s representations, or was unaware of the right to challenge the transaction.
Remedies and Outcomes Available to Injured Beneficiaries
Florida law provides multiple remedies for proven self-dealing, each tailored to restore the trust and deter future breaches:
Voidance of the Transaction
Under Fla. Stat. § 736.1001(1), a beneficiary may void a self-dealing transaction and compel the trustee to restore the status quo ante. If the trustee sold trust real estate to himself, the court may set aside the deed, re-vest title in the trust, and require the trustee to return the property or its current value. If the property has been resold to a bona fide purchaser, the trustee is surcharged for the difference between what the trust received and the fair market value.
Surcharge and Disgorgement of Profit
The court may surcharge the trustee personally for any loss to the trust or any profit the trustee derived from the breach, whichever is greater. Fla. Stat. § 736.1001(2). Surcharge is a money judgment against the trustee individually, enforceable against the trustee’s personal assets. The trustee cannot offset any fees or expenses against the surcharge unless they were unrelated to the breach. If the trustee profited $100,000 from a self-dealing sale and caused a $50,000 loss to the trust, the surcharge is $100,000 plus pre-judgment interest.
Removal of Trustee
Self-dealing is a ground for removal under Fla. Stat. § 736.0706(2)(d), which permits removal if “the trustee has committed a serious breach of trust.” Self-dealing is per se serious. The court may remove the trustee and appoint a successor trustee (nominated by the beneficiaries or selected by the court) to administer the trust going forward. Removal is often coupled with an order freezing the trustee’s access to trust accounts and requiring turnover of all trust property and records. For more on this process, see our detailed discussion of Florida law removal of a trustee.
Denial or Reduction of Trustee Fees
A trustee who breaches the duty of loyalty forfeits the right to compensation under Fla. Stat. § 736.0708. The court may deny fees entirely or reduce them to reflect the harm caused and the egregiousness of the breach. In some cases, the court orders the trustee to return fees already paid, particularly if the fees were excessive or the trustee concealed the self-dealing while collecting fees for “managing” the trust.
Imposition of a Constructive Trust
If the trustee transferred trust property to a third party (family member, LLC, or straw buyer), the court may impose a constructive trust on the property in the hands of the transferee, provided the transferee is not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. A constructive trust is an equitable remedy that treats the transferee as holding legal title for the benefit of the trust. This remedy is particularly powerful when tracing commingled or converted assets.
Award of Attorney Fees and Costs
Under Fla. Stat. § 736.1004(1), the court may award costs and attorney fees to a prevailing party in trust litigation as justice requires. A beneficiary who successfully prosecutes a self-dealing claim is ordinarily entitled to fees payable from the trust estate (because the litigation benefited the trust), but the court may also order the breaching trustee to pay fees personally if the breach was in bad faith or involved fraud. Fee awards in complex trust litigation can exceed six figures, and the trustee’s personal liability for fees creates additional leverage in settlement negotiations.
Criminal Referral and Punitive Damages
In egregious cases involving theft, forgery, or fraud, the court or the beneficiaries may refer the matter to the State Attorney for criminal prosecution under Fla. Stat. § 812.014 (theft) or § 832.05 (fraud). While civil remedies are typically sufficient, criminal prosecution is available where the trustee’s conduct crosses the line into larceny. Punitive damages are not ordinarily available in breach-of-trust actions absent an independent tort (fraud, conversion, intentional interference), but courts have discretion to impose additional sanctions for willful and wanton breaches.
Why Experienced Litigation Counsel Is Decisive
Self-dealing cases are won or lost on the quality of the evidence and the advocate’s command of fiduciary law. An experienced Florida trust litigator brings several critical advantages:
- Immediate case assessment and strategy. Counsel can quickly identify whether the transaction constitutes per se self-dealing, evaluate the strength of available defenses, and advise on the likelihood of voidance, surcharge, and removal.
- Aggressive and targeted discovery. Skilled counsel knows what documents to demand (entity formation records, bank statements, emails, appraisals), how to depose the trustee to lock in admissions, and when to retain forensic accountants or valuation experts.
- Mastery of the burden-shifting framework. Because the burden shifts to the trustee once self-dealing is shown, effective counsel frames the case to force the trustee to produce evidence the trustee often cannot produce—proof of disclosure, consent, or fairness.
- Effective use of emergency remedies. Counsel can obtain temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and receiverships to prevent further dissipation of assets while the case is pending.
- Fee recovery strategy. Experienced litigators structure the case to maximize the likelihood of a fee award under Fla. Stat. § 736.1004, ensuring that the beneficiary is not out-of-pocket for vindicating trust rights.
- Settlement leverage and trial readiness. Many self-dealing cases settle once the trustee’s misconduct is fully exposed and the trustee faces personal surcharge and fee liability. Counsel who are trial-ready, with expert reports and exhibits prepared, obtain better settlements. If settlement fails, counsel must be prepared to present a coherent, persuasive case to the judge, using demonstrative exhibits, expert testimony, and precise cross-examination to dismantle the trustee’s defenses.
Trust litigation is not a do-it-yourself endeavor. The stakes—often six or seven figures—and the complexity of fiduciary law demand specialized expertise. The Florida Trust Code provides powerful remedies, but only if the beneficiary acts decisively and retains counsel with a track record in trust disputes. Understanding what obligations does a trustee have under Florida law is foundational to any successful challenge.
Common Questions About Trustee Self-Dealing in Florida
Can a Trustee Ever Purchase Trust Property?
Yes, but only in narrow circumstances. The trust instrument must explicitly authorize the trustee to purchase trust assets, or all qualified beneficiaries must give informed written consent after full disclosure, or the court must approve the transaction after notice and hearing. In practice, such purchases are rare and heavily scrutinized. If a trustee wishes to buy trust real estate, best practice is to resign as trustee, have a successor appointed, and then negotiate at arm’s length. Attempting a self-purchase while serving as trustee is fraught with peril and will almost always be challenged.
What If the Trustee Is Also a Beneficiary?
A trustee-beneficiary is not prohibited from receiving distributions to which the trustee is entitled under the trust terms. However, the trustee must exercise discretion impartially and may not favor himself over other beneficiaries. Self-dealing occurs when the trustee-beneficiary makes disproportionate distributions, undervalues assets distributed to other beneficiaries, or manipulates the trust administration to maximize personal benefit. The trustee-beneficiary must document all distribution decisions, obtain independent appraisals for in-kind distributions, and ensure that all beneficiaries are treated fairly. Any hint of favoritism invites litigation and surcharge.
How Long Do I Have to Challenge a Self-Dealing Transaction?
If the trustee provided an adequate accounting and written notice of the limitations period, you have six months from receipt to file suit. If no adequate accounting was provided, you have three years from the date you discover the breach or should have discovered it with reasonable diligence, or three years from the trust’s termination or the trustee’s departure, whichever is earlier. If the trustee fraudulently concealed the self-dealing, there is no statute of limitations. Because these rules are complex and fact-specific, consult counsel immediately upon learning of a conflict or suspicious transaction. Delay can forfeit your rights.
Can I Sue the Trustee Personally or Only the Trust?
You sue the trustee in the trustee’s fiduciary capacity, but any judgment for surcharge or damages is enforceable against the trustee personally. The trust is not a separate legal entity (except in the case of a Delaware statutory trust or similar); the trustee is the legal owner of the trust property and is personally liable for breaches. If the trust estate is insufficient to satisfy the judgment, you may execute against the trustee’s personal assets. In cases involving fraud or willful misconduct, such as those analyzed in West v. Chrisman, 518 B.R. 655, the liability may be non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, ensuring long-term collectability.
What If the Self-Dealing Occurred Years Ago and the Property Has Been Sold?
You may still recover. If the trustee sold trust property to himself and later resold it at a profit, the trustee must disgorge the profit. If the trustee sold it to a third party who was not a bona fide purchaser (e.g., a family member or entity with notice of the breach), you may be able to impose a constructive trust or obtain a judgment against that party. If the property was sold to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, you cannot recover the property itself, but you can surcharge the trustee for the difference between what the trust received and the fair market value at the time of the self-dealing transaction, plus interest. Expert testimony on valuation is essential in such cases.
Do I Need to Prove That the Trust Was Harmed?
No. Self-dealing is a breach per se. You need only prove the fiduciary relationship, the self-interested transaction, and the lack of authorization or consent. Harm is presumed because the conflict itself violates the duty of loyalty. Even if the transaction appeared beneficial (for example, the trustee bought property at or above market value), it is voidable if the conflict was not disclosed and approved. The law recognizes that undisclosed conflicts create an inherent risk of harm and undermine the trust relationship, and therefore Florida law does not require proof of actual damages to void the transaction or surcharge the trustee.
Bottom Line
Trustee self-dealing in Florida is a serious breach of fiduciary duty that triggers strict liability, voidability of the transaction, and personal surcharge. The law presumes that a self-interested transaction harms the trust and places the burden squarely on the trustee to justify the conduct. Beneficiaries have powerful remedies—voidance, surcharge, removal, fee denial, and fee recovery—but those remedies depend on timely action, thorough investigation, and skilled advocacy. Self-dealing cases are won with hard evidence: corporate records, appraisals, emails, and expert testimony. Whether you are a beneficiary challenging a trustee’s conflict, a co-trustee seeking to prevent further breaches, or a fiduciary accused of self-dealing, the quality of your legal representation will determine the outcome. If you suspect or have discovered trustee self-dealing in Florida, contact Zoecklein Law, P.A. at (877) 206-0022 for a consultation. We represent beneficiaries and fiduciaries in trust litigation throughout Florida and bring decades of courtroom experience to every case.
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Stat. § 736.0103(19) – Definition of qualified beneficiary
- Fla. Stat. § 736.0201 – Role of the court in trust proceedings; jurisdiction
- Fla. Stat. § 736.0202 – Venue
- Fla. Stat. § 736.0203 – Subjects over which court has jurisdiction
- Fla. Stat. § 736.0207 – Trust contests
- Fla. Stat. § 736.0703 – Cotrustees
- Fla. Stat. § 736.0706 – Removal of trustee
- Fla. Stat. § 736.0708 – Compensation of trustee
- Fla. Stat. § 736.0802 – Duty of loyalty
- Fla. Stat. § 736.1001 – Remedies for breach of trust
- Fla. Stat. § 736.1004 – Attorney’s fees and costs
- Fla. Stat. § 736.1008 – Limitation of action against trustee
- Fla. Stat. § 812.014 – Theft
- Fla. Stat. § 832.05 – Fraudulently obtaining goods or services
- 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) – Exceptions to discharge (fraud)
- 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) – Exceptions to discharge (fiduciary fraud)
- West v. Chrisman, 518 B.R. 655 (M.D. Fla. 2014)
- Perret v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., 889 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (S.D. Fla. 2012)