5. Eleanor Schock discovered that her late father's attorney, Pat Nero, had embezzled from the estate of her father, Miller, including the sum of $23,331.72 in Miller's savings account at Old Stone Bank. At the time Nero withdrew the funds, Old Stone was being run under the conservatorship of the Reso- lution Trust Corporation (RTC), the FDIC's statu- tory predecessor. As holder of her father's estate's claims, Schock sued the FDIC, as receiver for Old Stone, for breach of contract, alleging that the bank permitted an unauthorized signatory (Nero) to withdraw funds on deposit in the Miller sav- ings account. The FDIC receiver argued that the bank had paid Nero, a fiduciary who was author rized to receive the money in the account, in good faith and should not be held liable because Nero misappropriated the money. Schock argued that Nero's apparent authority to withdraw the moneyas Miller's agent ended by operation of law when Miller died. In response, the FDIC receiver argued that apparent agency terminates only when a third party has notice of the termination. Schock offered evidence that the bank had actual notice that Miller had died when it permitted the Nero savings account withdrawal. Schock's evi- dence included a bank employee's statement that the bank had in place a procedure for checking the obituaries in the local paper to see whether bank clients had died, as well as the fact that an obitu- ary for Miller appeared in that paper. Was Schock successful at trial? Did the publication of an obit- uary constitute actual notice? [Shock v. United States, 254 F.3d 1 (2001).] 6. Water, Waste, & Land, Inc., is a land development and engineering company doing business under the name "Westec." Donald Lanham and Larry Clark were managers and also members of Preferred Income Investors (PII), LLC. PII is a limited lia- bility company. Clark contacted Westec about the possibility of hiring Westec to perform engineering work in connection with a development project. In the course of preliminary discussions, Clark gave his business card to representatives of Westec. The business card included Lanham's address, which was also the address listed as PII's principal office and place of business. While PII's name was not on the business card, the letters "PII" appeared above the address on the card. However, there was no indication as to what the acronym meant or that PII was a limited liability company. Although Westec never received a signed contract, it did receive ver- bal authorization from Clark to begin work. Westec completed the engineering work and sent a bill for $9,183.40 to Lanham. No payments were made on the bill. Westec filed a claim against Clark and Lanham individually as well as against PII. At trial, PII admitted liability for the amount claimed by Westec. Accordingly, the court dismissed Clark from the suit, concluding that he could not be held personally liable, and entered judgment in the amount of $9, 183 against Lanham and PII. Lanham appealed. On appeal, was Lanham found liable for the amount due to Westec? Why? [Water, Waste, & Land v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997 (1998).]