Sorrels v. Northwest Trustee Services Inc et al

Filing 23

ORDER ON JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, granting 13 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association terminated. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 6 7 R. SORRELS, as Trustee of the RCJS Trust, No. 3:15-cv-05146-RJB 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. 10 11 12 NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC., et al., __________________ ORDER ON JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Defendants._________ 13 14 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s (“Chase”) 15 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 13). Plaintiff, R. Sorrels (“Mr. Sorrels”), did not file 16 any opposition to the motion. The Court has considered the motion and the remainder of the file 17 18 therein. I. BACKGROUND 19 20 21 Before Mr. Sorrels commenced the present action to restrain the foreclosures of the two Deeds of Trust encumbering the subject property, located at 460 E. Sherwood Creek Rd, Allyn, 22 Washington, 98524 (the “Property”), and for other relief. 23 Timothy Tworzydlo and Constance Tworzydlo (the “Tworzydlos”) formerly owned the 24 Property. In 1998 and 1999, the Tworzydlos signed two promissory notes and secured their 25 payment of the notes by executing two respective Deeds of Trust against the Property. 26 27 ORDER — 1 1 Defendant, Chase, is implicated in only one of the deeds of trust (the “Deed of Trust”), executed 2 in 1998. See Dkt. 1-2. 3 4 5 a. The Deed of Trust On August 31, 1998, the Tworzydlos executed a promissory note (the “Promissory Note”) to Advanta National Bank USA (“Advanta”) for a home equity credit limit of $39,000.00, 6 secured by the Deed of Trust, which was recorded on September 4, 1998. Dkt. 13, at 22-38. The 7 8 Promissory Note was indorsed to Bankers Trust Company of California, N.A., as custodian or 9 trustee, and later to Chase, in an Allonge to Mortgage Note. Id., at 39, 40. 10 On February 2, 2009, Advanta executed an Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded in 11 Mason County, Washington on February 12, 2009, assigning the Deed of Trust to Deutsche 12 Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”). Id., at 42-43. 13 On June 20, 2013, Chase executed an Affidavit of Missing or Incomplete Assignment 14 recorded in Mason County, Washington, under Auditor’s File Number 2027734, on July 24, 15 16 2014, stating that “it appears there is a gap in the chain of assignment of the Security of 17 [Deutsche Bank] as custodian or trustee and [Chase]” and that “such assignment(s) either were 18 never completed or, if completed, were never recorded…such assignment(s) cannot now be 19 obtained.” Id., at 45-50. Although Chase is now in possession of the Promissory Note and the 20 21 collateral file for the loan, no recording appears to exist assigning the Deed of Trust from Deutsche Bank to Chase. Id., at 39, 45-50. 22 23 24 On January 6, 2014, Chase executed an Appointment of Successor Trustee, appointing Northwest Trustee under the Deed of Trust. Id., at 52. Northwest Trustee executed a Notice of 25 Trustee’s Sale of the Property on February 23, 2015, setting a Trustee’s Sale date of June 26, 26 2015, to foreclose on the Deed of Trust. Id., at 61-66. 27 ORDER — 2 1 The Tworzydlos transferred their interest in the Property to Mr. Sorrels on October 22, 2 2014, by executing a quit claim deed, which was recorded on November 5, 2014. Dkt. 13, at 543 59. A second quit claim deed for the Property was executed and recorded on December 2, 2014. 4 Id. Prior to the Tworzydlos’ quit claim deed assigning their interest in the Property to Mr. 5 Sorrels, the Tworzydlos named their debt to Chase in bankruptcy actions. W.D.Wa. Case Nos. 6 05-46457; 13-42853, Dkt. 7. 7 8 9 b. State court proceedings On November 25, 2014, Mr. Sorrels filed a complaint in Mason Superior Court against 10 Northwest Trustee to restrain sale of the Property. Dkt. 7-1. That court issued an Order 11 Restraining Northwest Trustee’s Sale of the Property, which pertained only to the other deed of 12 trust (thus not implicating Chase). Northwest Trustee’s foreclosure action under the Deed of 13 Trust at issue in this Order was not addressed in state court proceedings because the Northwest 14 Trustee’s action had not yet been initiated at that time. See Dkt.13, at 61-66, 72, 73. 15 16 On January 26, 2015, Northwest Trustee filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to 17 require Mr. Sorrels to join U.S. Bank, Green Tree, and the Tworzydlos as co-defendants. Dkt. 718 2, at 2-37. On February 18, 2015, prior to the hearing on Northwest Trustee’s motion, Mr. 19 Sorrels filed an Amended Complaint, also naming Chase. Id., at 55-61. The Amended Complaint 20 21 names Chase in Count III (“Quiet Title”), alleging that Chase does not have a valid interest in the Deed of Trust because Chase “does not hold a proper assignment.” Dkt. 1-2, at 5. In his 22 23 24 Amended Complaint, Mr. Sorrels requests the Court to declare that Chase does not hold a legal interest in the Property and to enjoin its foreclosure. Id. On March 10, 2015, Chase removed this 25 case to federal court. Dkt. 1. 26 27 ORDER — 3 1 2 II. STANDARD OF RELIEF Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) motions to dismiss may be based on either the lack of a cognizable 3 legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri 4 v. Pacifica Police Department, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Material allegations are taken 5 as admitted and the complaint is construed in the plaintiff's favor. Keniston v. Roberts, 717 F.2d 6 1295 (9th Cir. 1983). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not 7 8 need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement 9 to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of 10 a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) 11 (internal citations omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above 12 the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if 13 doubtful in fact).” Id. at 1965. Plaintiffs must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 14 plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974. 15 16 General speaking, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), when matters outside the 17 pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for 18 summary judgment under Rule 56. However, a court may consider “material which is properly 19 submitted as part of the complaint” on a motion to dismiss without converting the motion to 20 21 dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Lee, 250 F.3d at 688; Cooper v. Bell, 628 F.2d 1208, 1210 n. 2 (9th Cir.1980); U.S. v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003). A court may 22 23 24 also take judicial notice of matters of public record. Lee, 250 F.3d 688–89. A matter may be judicially noticed if it is either “generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial 25 court” or “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot 26 reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Accordingly, the Court has confined itself to 27 ORDER — 4 1 plaintiff’s verified amended complaint; exhibits attached thereto; and matters of public record, 2 which the parties in this case have submitted, including Deeds of Trust, Assignments of Deed of 3 Trust, Notices of Trustee’s Sales, and promissory notes. The Court has considered no other 4 matters and, therefore, need not treat Chase’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as one for 5 summary judgment. 6 III. DISCUSSION 7 8 Chase makes multiple arguments in its motion for judgment on the pleadings: Mr. Sorrels 9 lacks standing under the Deed of Trust Act to complain about the foreclosure because he is 10 neither a borrower nor a grantor; Mr. Sorrels does not challenge Chase’s possession of the 11 Promissory Note, and as the holder of the note, Chase is entitled to foreclose on the Deed of 12 Trust; Mr. Sorrels should be judicially stopped from challenging Chase’s authority to enforce the 13 debt because of the Tworzydlos’ bankruptcy admissions; Mr. Sorrels is a third party to the 14 assignment of the deed of trust and thus lacks standing to challenge it; Mr. Sorrels cannot seek to 15 16 quiet title because there is an outstanding lien on the Property, namely, Chase’s Promissory 17 Note; Mr. Sorrels has not pled sufficient facts to support his claim that the legal description 18 attached to the Deed of Trust is incorrect; and Mr. Sorrels has no basis to enjoin foreclosure of 19 the Property on the basis that it was principally used for agricultural purposes, because the Deed 20 21 of Trust specifically rules out agricultural use. Dkt. 13, at 11-18. Mr. Sorrels makes no argument in response. 22 23 24 Because Chase challenges the pleadings, the Court will address the allegations as pled by Mr. Sorrels, who seeks: (1) a declaratory judgment as to Chase’s legal interest in the Property 25 and (2) an injunction preventing foreclosure on the Property. Dkt. 1-2. 26 27 ORDER — 5 1 2 A. Declaratory Judgment Mr. Sorrels asks for a declaratory judgment that Chase has no legal interest in the 3 Property, on the basis that “[Chase] does not hold a proper assignment [of the Deed of Trust].” 4 Dkt. 1-2, at 5. However, Mr. Sorrels is, himself, a stranger to the Deed of Trust and thus lacks 5 standing to challenge the assignment. 6 Under Washington's Declaratory Judgment Act, courts are authorized to “declare rights, 7 8 status and other legal relations.” Nollette v. Christianson, 115 Wn.2d 594, 598, 800 P.2d 359 9 (1990). Absent major issues of public importance, a justiciable controversy must exist before a 10 court's jurisdiction may be invoked under the act. Kitsap County v. Smith, 143 Wn.App. 893, 11 902–903, 180 P.3d 834 (2008). Under the Deed of Trust Act, borrowers and grantors have 12 standing to seek civil relief, including declaratory relief, because of their financial stake in the 13 loan transaction. RCW 61.24.127(1). In contrast, third parties to deeds of trust lack standing, 14 because “the point of the Deed of Trust Act is to protect borrowers from harsh practices by 15 16 lenders during non-judicial foreclosures.” Robertson v. GMAC Mortgage LLC, 982 F. Supp. 2d 17 1202, 1206-07 (W.D. Wash. 2013), citing to Walker 1207 v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., 176 18 Wn.App. 294 (Div.1, 2013). 19 20 21 In this case, the Tworzydlos are the “borrowers” as legislated by the Deed of Trust Act, because they owe the debt on the Promissory Note, and by executing the Deed of Trust, they are also the “grantors.” See Umpqua Bank v. Santwire, 175 Wn.App. 1068 (Div. 1, 2013), citing to 22 23 24 Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Grp., Inc., 175 Wn.2d 83, 92–93 (2012). Mr. Sorrels is neither. The Complaint does not allege, and the quit claim deeds contain no language to suggest, that Mr. 25 Sorrels either was a signatory to the debt or had been indorsed or assigned any financial 26 obligation relating to the Property. See Mut. Sec. Fin. v. Unite, 68 Wash. App. 636, 641(Div. 1 27 ORDER — 6 1 1993), citing to Nielson v. Crossett, 3 Wash.2d 537, 540–41 (1940). Instead, assuming the 2 legitimacy of either or both of the quit claim deeds, Mr. Sorrels has claim only to the Property’s 3 title. Although ordinarily title to property and debt as to that property go hand in hand, title and 4 debt should not be conflated; each gives rise to different rights and liabilities. Unite, 68 Wn.App. 5 at 639-41. Title to the Property, without any corresponding financial liability as to the debt, does 6 not give Mr. Sorrels standing to challenge the Deed of Trust. See, e.g., Robertson, 982 F. Supp. 7 8 2d at1207. Therefore, Mr. Sorrels’ request for declaratory action should be dismissed for lack of 9 standing. 10 11 B. Injunctive Relief In his Amended Complaint, Mr. Sorrels requests injunctive relief to preclude foreclosure 12 of the Property. Dkt. 1-2. It appears that Mr. Sorrels seeks this injunctive relief because of the 13 allegedly improper assignment of the Deed of Trust. See id. However, as discussed, Mr. Sorrels 14 lacks standing to challenge the Deed of Trust. See infra. Notwithstanding Mr. Sorrels’ lack of 15 16 standing, Chase, as a holder of the Note, was entitled to foreclose on the Deed of Trust as a 17 holder of the Note. Trujillo v. Nw. Tr. Servs., Inc., 181 Wn.App. 484, 500-01 (Div. 1, 2014). 18 Under Washington law, the security (Deed of Trust) follows the debt (the Promissory Note), so 19 regardless of the Deed of Trust’s assignment, Chase could enforce the debt as holder of the 20 21 Promissory Note. Unite, 68 Wn.App. at 636 (“the promissory note was secured by the deed of trust ... and ... assignment of the note ... carried with it the deed of trust”). See also, In re Allen, 22 23 24 472 B.R. 559, 569 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2012). Mr. Sorrels’ request for injunctive relief should be dismissed. 25 26 *** 27 ORDER — 7 1 THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that: 2 1. Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 13) is GRANTED; 3 2. All claims against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. are DISMISSED with prejudice; and 4 3. Each party shall bear its own fees and costs. 5 6 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 7 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 8 Dated this 17th day of June, 2015. 10 A 11 ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDER — 8

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?