Court Opinion

ID: 9823272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 09:51:18.231182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:18.140269
License: Public Domain

ORME, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
[19 I concur in the court's opinion as it pertains to all of the defendants except for Larkin and Wilson. I would affirm the entry of summary judgment in their favor.
120 I come at the subject dealt with in note 2 of the lead opinion from a different perspective. In my view, the Hardings have demonstrated on appeal that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the other defendants, for the reasons ably explained in the lead opinion. They have not persuaded me, however, that there was any such error with respect to Larkin and Wilson. They were not employees of Atlas Title and could in no way, given the legal theories still in play, be responsible for its negligent failure to record the Hardings' initial trust deed in accordance with the escrow instrue-tions entrusted to it.
21 Insofar as the Hardings claimed that some connivance among Larkin, Wilson, and Atlas Title induced Atlas Title not to discharge its escrow duties with fidelity, that claim was resolved against them with the entry of summary judgment on their civil conspiracy claims. And as noted in the lead opinion, that aspect of the decision below has not been appealed by the Hardings. Accordingly, with the demise of the Hardings' civil conspiracy claims, there is no viable legal theory for how Larkin and Wilson are legally responsible for Atlas Title's negligence. In my view, then, Larkin and Wilson should be let off the hook at this point and spared the expense and inconvenience of further litigation.