Opinion ID: 901970
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: NattyMac's Negligence Claim against Getty

Text: [¶ 20.] NattyMac also argues that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment to Getty on NattyMac's claims of negligence. NattyMac asserts two claims: that Getty was negligent in sending the payoff to ACT and that Getty was negligent because it accepted a satisfaction not containing the mortgagee's identification and signature. [¶ 21.] NattyMac argued its first claim at the beginning of the summary judgment hearing. Later in the hearing, however, NattyMac waived the claim that Getty was negligent in sending the payment to ACT. Counsel conceded: [C]an I stand up here, Your Honor, and say that Getty sent the money to the wrong party? I can't say that, Your Honor, because [ACT] was listed in the [MERS] system[.] Because of its concession, NattyMac has no claim for negligence in sending the payoff to ACT. [¶ 22.] NattyMac also has no claim for negligence with respect to Getty's acceptance of the satisfaction. The causally related harm element of this claim is the satisfaction of NattyMac's mortgage by Getty's acceptance and recording of ACT's satisfaction. But we have concluded that Getty's payment automatically extinguished NattyMac's mortgage irrespective of any errors in ACT's satisfaction. Because the mortgage was satisfied by payment, Getty's subsequent acceptance of the satisfaction cannot be the basis for a negligence cause of action against Getty. We affirm the circuit court's summary judgment on NattyMac's negligence claims against Getty. [¶ 23.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and KONENKAMP, MEIERHENRY, and SEVERSON, Justices, concur.