Opinion ID: 901970
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ACT's Authority to Accept the Loan Payoff on Behalf of NattyMac

Text: [¶ 17.] An agent's authority to receive payment on behalf of its principal includes the authority to satisfy the mortgage. Restatement (Second) of Agency § 72(b) (1958) provides: Unless otherwise agreed, authority to receive payment includes authority ... to surrender to the payer any security for or evidence of the debt to which he is entitled and to give him such receipt as it is usual to give. A comment to this section states: The agent is also authorized to make any release of record which is required, as where a statute requires a mortgagee upon payment of the mortgage to enter a release in the office of the recorder. Id. § 72(b) cmt. g. But NattyMac argues ACT did not have authorityactual or ostensibleto accept the loan payoff for NattyMac. The existence of an agency relationship is usually a question of fact. Zee v. Assam, 336 N.W.2d 162, 164 (S.D.1983). Like all factual matters, the issue is appropriate for summary judgment if the entire record reveals that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fisher v. Kahler, 2002 SD 30, ¶ 5, 641 N.W.2d 122, 124-25. [¶ 18.] Whether an agency relationship has been created depends on the relationship of the parties as they exist under their agreements or acts. Dahl v. Sittner, 429 N.W.2d 458, 462 (S.D.1988). In this case, there is no dispute of material fact regarding the two agreements defining existence and scope of the contractual relationships among NattyMac, ACT, and MERS. Those agreements reflect that although ACT was designated as an independent contractor for certain purposes, ACT was NattyMac's agent for purposes of collecting loan payments and executing satisfactions on behalf of MERS. [5] [¶ 19.] And, at the summary judgment hearing, the court specifically asked NattyMac's counsel: Did ACT have the authority to satisfy the mortgages on behalf of NattyMac, to receive payment and release the lien? NattyMac conceded, I do believe that ACT had the authority to receive money on behalf of NattyMac[.] Later in the hearing, NattyMac again conceded: I do concede that ACT was a proper party to receive the payoff. Therefore, NattyMac may not now argue on appeal that ACT was not NattyMac's contractual agent for purposes of collecting loan payments. See generally Alvine Family Ltd. P'shp v. Hagemann, 2010 SD 28, ¶ 21, 780 N.W.2d 507, 514 (We have consistently held that this Court may not review theories argued for the first time on appeal.). Because ACT had authority to accept the loan payoff, we affirm the circuit court's summary judgment on the mortgage satisfaction issue.