holding as matter of law that tax preparer which provided, as one of three refund options, tax refund anticipation loan through independent bank, was not acting as appellees’ agent and not subject to heightened fiduciary duty
How later courts described this case
- holding as matter of law that tax preparer which provided, as one of three refund options, tax refund anticipation loan through independent bank, was not acting as appellees’ agent and not subject to heightened fiduciary duty
- holding that in reviewing the grant of summary judgment, the record is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all doubts as to whether a genuine issue exists are resolved against the moving party
- concluding that “the UTPCPL requires a showing of detrimental rebanee in private actions based on all provisions of the statute”
- providing that “[w]hen the facts are so clear that reasonable minds cannot differ, a trial court may properly enter summary judgment”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SAYLOR, Justice,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority that, to the extent that refund anticipated loans (“RALs”) are viewed as discrete transac *377 tions, no agency relationship between Block and its customers would be discernible. Like the majority, I would not be inclined to conclude, extrinsic of an existing, underlying agency relationship, that a separate agency role is necessarily undertaken by one who merely facilitates a lending transaction. Nevertheless, I join that portion of Mr. Justice Nigro’s analysis which concludes, as did the Superior Court, that an agency relationship existed between Block and Appellees for the purposes of preparing Appellees’ tax returns, filing them with the IRS, and obtaining refunds. Indeed, I note that H & R Block conceded as much, at least for purposes of Maryland law, in Green v. H & R Block, Inc., 355 Md. 488 , 735 A.2d 1039, 1049 (1999). I also believe that the fiduciary duties associated with such relationship may be viewed as sufficiently broad to compel disclosure of aspects of self-interest in a related loan transaction. Thus, I would affirm the order of the Superior Court remanding “for disposition of questions of fact concerning the extent to which Block’s failure to disclose the nature of the Rapid Refund program and its participation in the profits generated by the RALs constituted a violation of Block’s duty as an agent.” Basile v. H & R Block, Inc., 729 A.2d 574, 582 (Pa.Super.1999).