Appeals court reviews conflicting record in business dispute over alleged fiduciary duty
Summary
Appellant argued the trial judge clearly erred in findings that Musos lacked an ownership or officer role and that those errors masked breaches of fiduciary duty; respondent said the written record and credibility findings support the judgment. The court questioned provenance of bank wires and documents and took argument under advisement.
The appeals panel heard argument in a multi‑count civil appeal involving alleged fraud and fiduciary breach in a vending‑machine business transaction between Richard Kirby and John Musos (Pond View entities).
David Bykovsky, representing Kirby, said the trial court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous because documentary evidence and testimony showed Musos exercised officer‑level control: signed agreements, bank activity, and board resolutions supported the finding that Musos owed fiduciary duties that he later breached. Bykovsky urged the panel to vacate findings of no fiduciary duty and either remand for further findings or order a new trial.
Cassidy Allman, counsel for Musos and Pond View Vending, countered that the judge reasonably weighed credibility and documentary provenance and that some documents the appellant relies on were crafted by Kirby himself or are otherwise unreliable. She conceded a $60,000 payment to Gracie appears in the record but said the record does not show other transfers appellant claims.
Justices pressed both sides on the bank‑statement evidence, timing of wires, whether key agreements were signed before corporate formation, and whether the record permits a legal finding of breach of fiduciary duty. The court indicated many determinations turned on credibility and record completeness; argument concluded with the panel taking the case under advisement.
