1 of 11
Slide Notes
NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL SERVICES INC v. DENNEGAR
Elisabeth Pear
Cambridge College Global
Course number: MBA530
Prof. Sherri Whitcher
Submitted August 2, 2024
New Century Financial Services Inc owns a debt that was opened by Mark Knutson on behalf of Lee B Dennegar and is suing Dennegar for the balance.
Elisabeth Pear
Cambridge College Global
Course number: MBA530
Prof. Sherri Whitcher
Submitted August 2, 2024
New Century Financial Services Inc owns a debt that was opened by Mark Knutson on behalf of Lee B Dennegar and is suing Dennegar for the balance.
Elisabeth
Published on Aug 02, 2024
No Description
MORE DECKS TO EXPLORE
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL SERVICES INC v. DENNEGAR
Elisabeth Pear, Cambridge College Global,
Course Number: MBA530,
Prof. Sherri Whitcher, August 2, 2024
NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL SERVICES INC v. DENNEGAR
Elisabeth Pear
Cambridge College Global
Course number: MBA530
Prof. Sherri Whitcher
Submitted August 2, 2024
New Century Financial Services Inc owns a debt that was opened by Mark Knutson on behalf of Lee B Dennegar and is suing Dennegar for the balance.
Elisabeth Pear
Cambridge College Global
Course number: MBA530
Prof. Sherri Whitcher
Submitted August 2, 2024
New Century Financial Services Inc owns a debt that was opened by Mark Knutson on behalf of Lee B Dennegar and is suing Dennegar for the balance.
Case Summary
- A credit card was opened in the name of the Defendant in 2001 by his live-in partner Mark Knutson. Dennegar claims he is not liable for the debt as he never signed the agreement.
In summary: A credit card was opened in the name of the Defendant in 2001 by his live-in partner Mark Knutson. Dennegar claims he is not liable for the debt as he never signed the agreement (FISHER, J.A.D., n.d.).
Lets will take a brief look at their history and living situation.
Lets will take a brief look at their history and living situation.
Overview and history
- Dennegar and Knutson Started living together in 1999.
- Denneger worked and earned an income.
- Knutson managed their household and finacial affairs.
- Knutson died in 2003.
Dennegar and Knutson lived together from 1999 to 2003, Dennegar brought income into the house and Knutson did not (FISHER, J.A.D., n.d.). By mutual agreement, Dennegar paid for the mortgage and other household expenses and Knutson managed their household including financial affairs. Dennegar was aware and allowed Knutson to sign checks on his behalf to accomplish this (FISHER, J.A.D., n.d.).
As part of managing the household's financial affairs, Knutson opened a credit card in Dennegar’s name which at the time of his death held a balance of $14,752.93 (FISHER, J.A.D., n.d.). Upon Knutson’s death in 2003, Dennegar claimed that he never applied for or used the card and knew nothing about it, claiming that he was not liable (FISHER, J.A.D., n.d.).
My argument is that upon moving in together Dennegar and Knutson created an Implied agency, where Dennegar, the principal, knowingly allowed Knutson to act as his agent in financial matters (Mayer et al, 2018). Therefore, Dennegar is liable for the debt.
As part of managing the household's financial affairs, Knutson opened a credit card in Dennegar’s name which at the time of his death held a balance of $14,752.93 (FISHER, J.A.D., n.d.). Upon Knutson’s death in 2003, Dennegar claimed that he never applied for or used the card and knew nothing about it, claiming that he was not liable (FISHER, J.A.D., n.d.).
My argument is that upon moving in together Dennegar and Knutson created an Implied agency, where Dennegar, the principal, knowingly allowed Knutson to act as his agent in financial matters (Mayer et al, 2018). Therefore, Dennegar is liable for the debt.
Implied Agency
- Dennegar and Knutson entered into an implied agency.
- Knutson was a General Agent.
- Dennegar was the principal.
An Implied Agency arises when one person behaves as an agent would and the “principal” knowing that the agent is behaving so, acquiesces, allowing the person to hold himself out as an agent (Mayer et al, 2018).
There are many kinds of agents but in this case, Knutson acted as a general agent. Dennegar, the principal, granted Knutson the authority to carry out transactions in his name and on his behalf (Mayer et al, 2018).
As the general agent Knutson had implied authority to enter into agreements and make payments on the principal's behalf (Mayer et al, 2018).
There are many kinds of agents but in this case, Knutson acted as a general agent. Dennegar, the principal, granted Knutson the authority to carry out transactions in his name and on his behalf (Mayer et al, 2018).
As the general agent Knutson had implied authority to enter into agreements and make payments on the principal's behalf (Mayer et al, 2018).
General Agent
- Managed the household.
- Managed Financial Matters.
- Handled the mail.
- Wrote checks and signed them on Dennagar's behalf.
As the general agent Knutson managed the household and financial matters, part of doing this included handling the mail, doing with it as he chose, and writing checks for Dennegar to sign or signing them on his behalf, with his knowledge of the act (FISHER, J.A.D., n.d.).
The Agent, Knutson, had the Implied Authority to enter into agreements and make payments on the principal's behalf (Mayer et al, 2018). Without this authority, he would have been unable to maintain the household and manage financial matters.
The Agent, Knutson, had the Implied Authority to enter into agreements and make payments on the principal's behalf (Mayer et al, 2018). Without this authority, he would have been unable to maintain the household and manage financial matters.
Principal
- Authoriuzed Knutson to enter into agreements on his behalf.
- Is liable for the actions/agreements of his agent.
As the Principal, Dennegar authorized Knutson to enter into agreements on his behalf and is liable for the actions/agreements of his agent, Knutson, made on his behalf (Agency – the Basic Law | Stimmel Law, n.d.).
Principal Liability
- The Agent is Authorized.
- The agent is apparently authorized.
- The agent has power arising from the agency and is not dependent on the other two.
There are three ways that a principal holds liability for a transaction conducted by an agent the agent is authorized via formal agreement, the agent is apparently authorized they do not have official authority but appears to have authority based on presentation and assumption, or the agent has power arising from the agency and is not dependent on the other two meaning in order to accomplish their tasks as an agent they require the authority (Agency – the Basic Law | Stimmel Law, n.d.).
Dennegar's liability falls into the third option as Knutson had the power that arose from the limited agency created with Dennegar to maintain the household and manage financial matters.
When Knutson entered into the agreement for the credit card he did not disclose that he was acting as an agent for Dennegar (FISHER, J.A.D., n.d.).
Undisclosed Agency
- When an agent doesn't disclose they are acting on behalf of a principal.
Does the undisclosed agency change things? An undisclosed agency is when a third party does not know that an agent is acting on behalf of a principal (US Legal, Inc., n.d.). With an undisclosed agency only one entity can be held liable, either the agent or the principal, in this case, the third party is holding the principal liable (US Legal, Inc., n.d.).
The undisclosed agency does not change the liability as Denneger had allowed and expected Knutson to enter into agreements on his behalf without formally giving authority to third parties. This is shown in Denneger's willingness to have Knutson sign checks on his behalf (FISHER, J.A.D., n.d.).
The undisclosed agency does not change the liability as Denneger had allowed and expected Knutson to enter into agreements on his behalf without formally giving authority to third parties. This is shown in Denneger's willingness to have Knutson sign checks on his behalf (FISHER, J.A.D., n.d.).
Conclusion
To summarize and conclude my argument Dennegar is liable for the debt accrued on the credit card obtained in his name by Knutson. When they moved in together they created an Implied Agency in which Dennegar, the Principal, earned an income, and Knutson, the Agent, managed the home and finances. Knutson as the agent opened a credit card in Dennegar’s name without disclosing his status as an agent to the credit card company. Knutson had the implied authority to enter into agreements on Dennegar’s behalf and to sign his name. Therefore Dennegar remains liable for the debt.
To summarize and conclude my argument Dennegar is liable for the debt accrued on the credit card obtained in his name by Knutson. When they moved in together they created an Implied Agency in which Dennegar, the Principal, earned an income, and Knutson, the Agent, managed the home and finances. Knutson as the agent opened a credit card in Dennegar’s name without disclosing his status as an agent to the credit card company. Knutson had the implied authority to enter into agreements on Dennegar’s behalf and to sign his name. Therefore Dennegar remains liable for the debt.
Refrences
- Agency – the Basic Law | Stimmel Law. (n.d.). https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/agency-basic-law
- FISHER, J.A.D. (n.d.). NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL SERVICES INC v. DENNEGAR (2007). Find Law. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1263...
Refrences continued
- Mayer, D., M Warner, D., J Siedel, G., & K Lieberman, J. (2018). Business Law and the Legal Environment (2.0). Boston Academic Publishing, inc d.b.a. FlatWorld.
- US Legal, Inc. (n.d.). Undisclosed agency – agency. https://agency.uslegal.com/undisclosed-agency/
