In Summit Financial Holdings, Ltd. v. Continental Lawyers Title Co. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 705, the California Supreme Court outlined the scope of an escrow holder's fiduciary duties: "An escrow holder is an agent and fiduciary of the parties to the escrow. The agency created by the escrow is limited--limited to the obligation of the escrow holder to carry out the instructions of each of the parties to the escrow. If the escrow holder fails to carry out the instruction it has contracted to perform, the injured party has a cause of action for breach of contract." "In delimiting the scope of an escrow holder's fiduciary duties, then, we start from the principle that 'an escrow holder must comply strictly with the instructions of the parties.' On the other hand, an escrow holder 'has no general duty to police the affairs of its depositors'; rather, an escrow holder's obligations are 'limited to faithful compliance with the depositors' instructions.' Absent clear evidence of fraud, an escrow holder's obligations are limited to compliance with the parties' instructions." (Summit, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 711) In Summit, pursuant to the escrow instructions in a refinance transaction, the escrow holder paid off a note to the original lender, Talbert, rather than to Summit, the company to whom the note had been assigned by Talbert. Summit sued the escrow company for negligence, contending that in the refinance transaction, the escrow company should have paid it rather than Talbert, because the escrow company knew Talbert had assigned its rights in the note and deed of trust to Summit. "Neither the assignor, Talbert, nor the assignee, Summit, was party to the escrow." (Summit, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 708.) The Supreme Court held that despite its knowledge of the assignment, the escrow holder did not owe a "duty of care to a nonparty to the escrow based on an assignment to that nonparty by another nonparty." (Id. at pp. 707-708.) The court rejected Summit's attempt to fashion a general duty owed by the escrow agent to honor contracts made by creditors of the principal absent an agency relationship with the creditor. (Id. at p. 714.) The court acknowledged that the escrow agent's receipt of notice of an assignment could be deemed the equivalent of a new instruction regarding the party to be paid where the assignment was made by a party to the escrow entitled to give instructions to the escrow holder. (Id. at p. 714 & fn. 5.) The Supreme Court firmly rejected the holding of Kirby v. Palos Verdes Escrow Co. (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 57, that transactions by strangers to an escrow can supersede and amend the instructions given by the parties to the escrow. (Summit, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 714.)