voluntarily assumed an obligation to act for Motorcity’s benefit. The claim that Southeast breached a fiduciary duty to notify Motorcity about the out-of-trust sales necessarily depends upon the existence of a fiduciary relationship. See Barnett Bank of West Florida v. Hooper, 498 So.2d 923, 925 (Fla.1986) (“The usual relationship between a bank and its depositor is one of debtor to creditor ... not ordinarily imposing a duty of disclosure ... [but where the bank] has established a relationship of trust and confidence ... the bank may be found to have assumed a duty to disclose facts.”). Under Florida law, it is clear that a lender does not ordinarily owe fiduciary duties to its borrower. See, e.g., Keyes Jeep Eagle, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 897 F.Supp. 1437, 1443 (S.D.Fla.1995) (<HOLDING>); Metcalf v. Leedy, Wheeler & Co., 140 Fla.
holding that under florida law a floor plan financing agreement does not create fiduciary duties holding a fiduciary is under a duty to communicate material facts to a plan beneficiary holding that professionals who advised the plan were not fiduciaries because they had no decision making authority over the plan or plan assets also noting that the power to act for the plan is essential to status as a fiduciary recognizing that plan participants should be able to access information about the plan administrators fiduciary duties from the plan administrators counsel holding new york could lawfully modify a florida custody decree because florida court had right under florida law to change the decree