concluded that Fair “did not possess the background experience and foundational qualifications required to serve in the fiduciary role of a liquidating trustee,” but that there was “no evidence of misappropriation of funds” (D.E. 1044). This is not a situation where a trustee has misappropriated or embezzled funds for his own pecuniary gain. Simply stated, any of Fair’s actions that are complained of by NOB were mistakes in judgment due to his inexperience and/or instances where he relied upon advice of counsel. E. Damages It is a basic legal precept that to recover damages in law, a plaintiff must demonstrate that damages have been sustained. Bell v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 02-6789, 2003 WL 21246394, *2 (Fla.Cir.Ct Mar.4, 2008); Heard v. Mathis, 344 So.2d 651, 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (<HOLDING>). Count I of NOB’s Complaint seeks damages
holding that the right to nominal damages was waived in a breach of duty action when plaintiff failed to raise the issue of nominal damages until after the verdict holding that to establish tort liability in a negligence action there must be a legal duty on the part of the defendant to plaintiff holding that the essential elements of any cause of action are the existence of a legal right in plaintiff with a corresponding duty in defendant coupled with a violation of that duty which results in injury or damages to the plaintiff holding there was no evidence to support the existence of any alleged fiduciary duty holding that a federal cause of action accrues when the plaintiff is aware or should be aware of the existence of and source of the injury not when the potential claimant knows or should know that the injury constitutes a legal wrong