Daigle V. Trinity United Mortgage, Llc

Daigle v. Trinity United Mortgage, LLC,

 890 So. 2d 583 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2004)

Sam and Theresa Daigle decided to build a home in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. To obtain financing, they contacted Trinity United Mortgage Co. At a meeting with Joe Diez on Trinity’s behalf, on July 18, 2001, the Daigles signed a temporary loan agreement with Union Planters Bank. Diez assured them that they did not need to make payments on this loan until their house was built and that permanent financing had been secured. Because the Daigles did not make payments on the Union loan, Trinity declined to make the permanent loan. Meanwhile, Diez left Trinity’s employ.

On November 1, the Daigles moved into their new house. They tried to contact Diez at Trinity but were told that he was unavailable and would get back to them. Three weeks later, Diez came to the Daigles’ home and had them sign documents that they believed were to secure a permanent loan but that were actually an application with Diez’s new employer.

Union filed a suit in Louisiana state court against the Daigle for failing to pay on its loan. The Daigles paid Union, obtained permanent financing through another source, and filed a suit against Trinity to recover the cost. [NOTE: In this case, you have been assigned the role of Plaintiff (Daigle), Defendant (Trinity United) or Judge.]

Who should have told the Daigles that Diez was no longer Trinity’s agent?

When Diez left Trinity United Mortgage Company, it is Trinity’s principal duty to notify any third-parties who were in an agreement that the relationship has been terminated. In this case before us, Trinity Mortgage is the principal, and they are obligated to notify my client; the Daigles, of their agent’s termination. Since Trinity failed this notification, Joe Diez still maintained apparent authority to act on Trinity’s behalf. Because of this, Trinity as the principal is directly responsible for Diez’s misconduct and false representation.

Most importantly,...