In Kirby v. Palos Verdes Escrow Co. (1986) 183 Cal. App. 3d 57, the Pierces opened an escrow with Palos Verdes Escrow Company, Inc. (Palos Verdes) for the purchase of certain real property. While awaiting permanent financing from the Small Business Administration (SBA), the Pierces took out a short- term loan from Universal Financial (Universal), which loan was secured by a second deed of trust on the property. Universal then assigned the note and the deed of trust to the Kirbys, and the assignment was recorded. After funds from the SBA were deposited into escrow, Universal made a demand on Palos Verdes for payment of the Pierces' note, and the Pierces orally authorized payment. Because one of Palos Verdes' officers had reviewed the title insurance policy on the property before forwarding it to the Pierces, Palos Verdes had constructive notice of Universal's assignment of the note and deed of trust to the Kirbys. Nevertheless, Palos Verdes made the payment to Universal. When the Kirbys demanded payment from Universal and Universal failed to pay them, the Kirbys filed suit against Palos Verdes on the theory it had performed its escrow duties negligently by paying Universal rather than the Kirbys. The Kirbys prevailed in the trial court, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. ( Kirby, supra, 183 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 60-61.) Kirby began its analysis by reviewing the familiar principles recited at the beginning of our Discussion section. ( Kirby, supra, 183 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 64-65.) However, after acknowledging that the agency created by an escrow is limited to the obligation to carry out the instructions of the parties to the escrow, and that an escrow holder is liable to the parties insofar as it fails to carry out the instructions it has contracted to perform, Kirby held that Palos Verdes was liable to the Kirbys, who were not parties to the escrow, precisely because it did carry out the instructions of a party--the Pierces, who orally authorized payment to Universal. The rationale Kirby gave for what the Summit Financial Holdings, Ltd. v. Continental Lawyers Title Company (2002) court called "this anomalous conclusion" ( Summit, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 712) was that "receipt of notice of the assignment was equivalent to the receipt of new escrow instructions regarding the party to be paid. Such 'new' instructions conflicted with the Pierces' verbal instructions to pay Universal. This conflict should have alerted defendant to a potential problem in paying Universal rather than the Kirbys, and vice versa. As the escrow holder faced with conflicting instructions, Palos Verdes had the duty to delay payment of escrow funds until such time as the proper payee was identified. " ( Kirby, supra, 183 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 65-66.)