you know represent the plaintiff appellate as portia yawners the district court's decision should be reversed for several reasons i'd like to discuss here today first the district court erred when it failed to appreciate the summary judgment standard and how it relates to mississippi agency law specifically the judge failed to credit what we would deem substantial amounts of evidence indicating agency relationship in violation of summary judgment standard well also failing to acknowledge mississippi jurisprudence that and agency relationship is generally a question of fact for the jury and  also sister opinions which have helped that what candidly i would deem as slight evidence constitutes an issue material fact for the for the jury to decide second the district court erred in the term and there were no breach of the contract it seemed to take an approach of a analyzing as a negligence case when it looked at these breach of contract claims it discussed things like reasonable reliance control that's it the right to control so that's what we're looking for determining this agency relationship now and mississippi the store the courts have been fairly steadfast in holding that this whole idea of agency case there was a contract saying that the principal would provide insurance for the alleged agent that was the only evidence in favor an agency relationship and the mississippi that case court of appeals case said that's enough that's a fact question for the jury also see the font case there the only indication of an agency relationship was that the alleged principal in contract said that we own the records of this proposed agent that's it the same thing was here fannie mae own the record to g m a see it on the records and greentree cornices mississippi supreme court that's enough and here we have more see also the miller case the only evidence there was the fact that the principal controlled some of the ways fees were charged and collected from its alleged agent a convenience store owner mississippi supreme court said well if they're getting their revenues from the public not necessarily that agent and they can control how the agent price is the thing these things that's enough evidence to create a jury issue on the question of agency here again fannie mae has substantial control over pricing and again the revenues come from the public not from braintree your g m a c the money is coming from the public just like in the miller case and we speak about substantial control we're talking about guides and other evidence as well and so mississippi case law is that almost  uniform that you really just need one piece of evidence to show that agency relationship could exist and the question goes to the jury to decide in this case we have several your hon first and what i believe to be the absolute most important or the three form one seventy six is that g m a c and greentree the service or is the alleged agents submitted to fannie mae the whole genesis of this lawsuit is the failure to apply insurance proceeds to alone after a far happened in two thousand and ten well well g m a c sic the form one seventy six fannie mae said hey fannie mae give us the thumbs up or the thumbs down on whether or not to apply these funds can close out the loan fannie mae said no three separate times if there's no control no agency relationship here is to request permission permission to apply the insurance  the district court found there was no control but again that's just the form one seventy six is an additional evidence another edition of evidence that i think is important is the prospectus that was mentioned in our briefs they may issues a prospectus to which shareholders it says in there we are responsible for our services actions in fact we are the ultimate service sir and we bear all responsibility that's an open letter required by the they said we didn't create an issue of material fact and fail to even waters in what respect did they say you failed to create we couldn't prove it agency relationship it was very vague they didn't create it he did not create it any of your evidence including the form one seventy six is including the perspective including the notes that fannie mae took and including the service of god dress those issues that you raised he addressed a prospectus and held that it was irrelevant and we c i'm one of the form one seventy six it was actually produced in discovery two other ones were destroyed what is the purpose of this it's for the service or to request permission from fannie ma alone the rest goes to the consumer and alpha called got the loan and now cynthia not the g m they see for whatever reason it's set in a quote unquote unapplied funds bucket whatever that in their deposition fannie mae admitted that there are sponsible for controlling whose heart is foreclosure counsel the underwood law firm in jackson was hired despite the fact that they have this check over here to pay off the loan and it's not the sense of agency deals with control and rights control like to speak about the control that the servicing guides that fannie mae forces it services to follow have and again it's huge amounts of pages we had to summarize that are brief the amount of control the exercise here first the service or could only terminate the contract with the permission of fannie mae now they are competing a piece of evidence on this point the a portion of the contract says well both sides can terminate whenever you want but service you got to call the servicing guy you go looking at servicing god and it's a you know several page link the a den don't to it that says well you actually have to have a written consent before you can terminate this contract sir i sure will know it's also in the brief and i'll point to that in my rebuttal as well they also have to make reports there are forty pages of the service and got it says what reports fannie mae requires that's not indicative of anything a contractor when i think of anything a contractor i think of my county i mean i pay him he does my taxes it's done i don't i don't have the right to go and audit his books when i want to for all the business like they made it here i don't have the right to force him to tell me about his financials whenever i want i don't have i don't have the right to make him use the software that i choose like they made made them i'm not allowed to go inspect his premises at any time fannie mae was able to inspect the premises with  seventy six as a request from the service or to apply insurance proceeds or other proceeds and shortly pay a loan if there's not sufficient money to pay out why there's the service or sense of form one seventy six with backup information sanding by then makes a recommendation back to the service or as to what th they ignored the recommendation and did their pod the proceeds oh no no they didn't your honor hit and here's what happened the first poem one seventy six was in november of two thousand and eleven g m a say had been a form one seventy six that was sent by e mail from g m a city in november of two thousand and eleven what it said was ms issues alone right now is severely delinquent we're holding ninety eight thousand dollars to the deficiency to begin at that point in time and so what fame i said on that one was send us more information we'd like to see the value of the property  provided no more information about where they could insure the church proceeds coming from it's all they got was we got ninety eight thousand dollars they now a hundred point thousand dollars recommendation so that can't be much control if and there was no before during side why they didn't follow the recommendation with an absence of control or was just an absence of follow up or what was it they clearly know i think the merrill doctrine that applied in that circumstance if you know if a jury were to earth the court were to go back and look at the agency issue and say that that's a question of  in this case i came to answer your honor because the record is totally silent only other than mr underwood did not know the that fannie mae was either involved so i guess if i'm looking at it at the time the letter went out because of the coding by g m a city that there was absolutely no mention of fame the struggle would testified in his deposition that first time he knew this was a  first examining the relationship under the kids are factors which i think is still a political career ends up showing that it's an independent contractor status for several reasons one of them playing make gods are strickly that they are guy oh they say it creates an infant relationship and i certainly can say that the court has the right to go behind that and to say whether that simply contractual in accordance with their own rules and regulations testimony in the record the only testimony about this and it comes from both grain trade and from fannie mae we set it up and what happens if you looks like a step in country and they are sober all and each service or is expected to adopt rules and regulations and protocol that the policies and procedures this strikes me as have a quite analogous to the national flood insurance program where the government pays you know said premiums and has somebody federal regulations that control how representative is that based on the information that you may see get them it was a lousy business decision so that's why they recommended not moving so i mean i can agree with the fact they responded to  mississippi cases that mr anderson quoted frankly i think we all live up in the sign place and that is if there is a material issue of fact then it's a question of first made sufficient points to shift the burden to musician is a she didn't respond with facts in the record there were no material issues of fact there for the determination of the relationship is a question of law and summary judgment was proper and we think he got it right it's good that you'd like your thing you have your pens ready i like the first response here the quest for the record for the form one seventy six is it's mentioned in our brief principal brief on pages twenty seven twenty eight reply brief eight through ten in the record seven to nine one three seven two nine four also seven two nine seven three seven two nine eight also seven three zero four two seven three zero seven also record at serps tab six also four nine seven three four nine six zero three four zero four now so he wants he says to foreclosure wasn't it because you were exercising control over the service and the right answer we did exercise control you're correct when they submitted the ones in the sixty's the fannie mae they did review them question but the service or was required to abide by fannie mae's decisions in those occasions was an answer that's correct legally speaking of course practically speaking we care legally speaking we can't care what the decision  the letters that mr underwood sent and just some clear just a case that was misconstrued earlier says on behalf of g m ac the owner and holder or agent or agent were here at agency five one five one through five one five five nine eight two three not eight to seven i did have a chance to find it in my principle brief but it's on page fourteen of the reply brief and that's where the dep that's where and he wants to respond with different citations for the record that contradict that he may do that but we don't want any argument yes ron and briefing in closing i heard the phrase  prove agency you gotta get down in the weeds controlling it a look to the mississippi castell how is it down in the weeds like in the walker case where the only evidence of agent agency was that the principal said that we're going to provide insurance we own your records actually keep that's not getting down and dirty and that they did a affairs that's not part of the test the test is control and the ability control which we think has been proven extensively far beyond what mississippi case