Brockbank et al v. Staples et al

Filing 23

ORDER granting 13 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 20 Plaintiffs' Motion for Order. This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 6/13/2013 (DN). (cc to pltf Brockbank)

Download PDF
1 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 8 9 DONNAMAY BROCKBANK, and DENNIS MOSES, 10 11 12 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C13-5168 RBL ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. KEVIN STAPLES, BARBARA STAPLES and DOES 1-5., 13 Defendant. 14 15 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims: 16 violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. (“TILA”), and the Federal 17 Reserve Board Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.1, et seq., breach of the covenant of good faith and 18 fair dealing, intentional or negligent misrepresentation, quiet title, lack of formation of contract, and declaratory and injunctive relief. [Dkt. # 13]. 19 Plaintiffs filed this action on March 7, 2013, seeking to set aside the trustee’s sale of their 20 real property located at 4700 NE St. Johns Rd., in Vancouver, WA. [Dkt. #1]. This is Plaintiffs’ 21 eighth attempt to stop, stall, and now reverse the trustee’s sale. [Dkt. #14]. In total, Plaintiffs 22 have filed four bankruptcy cases, two superior court cases before the sale, and one case 23 following it. Id. The bankruptcy court granted Defendants relief from the automatic stays; the 24 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1 1 superior courts refused to enjoin the trustees’ sale or quiet title after the sale. The Clark County 2 superior court dismissed the quiet title action with prejudice. Id. 3 4 This is not a court of appeals. Every claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. “The doctrine of res judicata bars litigation where a prior judgment concerns the same “(1) subject matter; (2) cause of action; (3) persons and parties; and (4) the quality of the persons for or 5 against whom the claim is made.” Seattle-First Nat’l Bank v. Kawachi, 91 Wn.2d 223, 225–26 6 (1978). “Res judicata applies to matters actually litigated as well as those that ‘could have been 7 raised, and in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been raised, in the prior 8 proceeding.’” Kelly-Hansen v. Kelly-Hansen, 87 Wn. App. 320, 328–29 (1997). All claims now alleged against Defendants—misrepresentation, breach of covenant of good faith and fair 9 dealing, and other claims relating to the amendment of their promissory note—have been raised 10 by Plaintiffs in prior proceedings. In all of those proceedings, courts have denied relief. Because 11 the TILA claims now asserted could and should have been raised in one of the prior proceedings, 12 those claims are also barred. 13 Furthermore, even if the TILA claims were not barred by the doctrine of res judicata, any claim for rescission fails. First, the 2005 and 2010 Amendments to the 1988 note are just 14 extensions of the maturity date and do not constitute new loan agreements subject to TILA 15 disclosure requirements. 16 Second, if Plaintiffs did not receive proper TILA disclosures at the time of the original 17 1988 note, they had three years to rescind after the date of the consummation of the transaction. 18 See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f)); See Gossen v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 819 F.Supp.2d 1162, 1168 (W.D. Wash. October 18, 2011) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f)). That time has clearly passed. 19 Finally, with respect to the claims falling under the Washington Deed of Trust Act, 20 following foreclosure, a party may seek only monetary damages and may not obtain a judgment 21 affecting “the validity or finality of the foreclosure.” Wash. Rev. Code § 61.24.127(2)(b)–(c). As 22 a result the Plaintiffs claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, quiet title, lack of formation of contract, are statutorily barred. 23 24 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2 1 For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’ motion for summary 2 judgment. [Dkt. #13]. For the same reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time to respond 3 to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as moot. [Dkt. #17]. 4 5 Dated this 13th day of June, 2013. 6 A 7 RONALD B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?