Jarvis et al v. Federal National Mortgage Association et al
Filing
35
ORDER denying 30 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)
1
HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
7
8
9
ROBERT C. JARVIS and RETHA D.
JARVIS, Husband and Wife,
10
Plaintiffs,
11
12
13
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS
v.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION, a federal corporation, et.
al. ,
14
15
CASE NO. 3:16-cv-05194-RBL
Dkt. #30
Defendant.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Federal National Mortgage
Association’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Dkt. # 35]. Plaintiffs Robert and Retha
Jarvis1 are record-holders for a Yelm property encumbered by a deed of trust held by Defendant
Fannie Mae. Jarvis seeks quiet title to the property, contending Fannie Mae can no longer assert
its in rem interest in the property because the six-year limitations period on foreclosure actions
has run. Fannie Mae argues Jarvis’s action is not yet ripe because it may bring an in rem claim
against the property until the deed of trust becomes due: either March 1, 2036 or the day it
affirmatively accelerates Jarvis’s mortgage debt.
23
24
1
For ease, the Court will refer to Robert and Retha Jarvis in the singular.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS - 1
1
2
I.
BACKGROUND
Jarvis seeks quiet title on property held in his name in Yelm, Washington. He conveyed
3 the property’s deed of trust to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. to secure a
4 promissory note for his mortgage. 2 Fannie Mae now holds the deed of trust, which expires on
5 March 1, 2026.
6
On February 23, 2009, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington
7 discharged Jarvis’s debt thought a Chapter 7 petition listing both the deed of trust and the
8 promissory note. The bankruptcy extinguished his personal liability for the mortgage debt,
9 including his monthly payment obligations. Through the deed of trust, Fannie Mae retained an in
10 rem interest in the property. Neither party alleges any additional payments were made on the
11 mortgage or that Fannie Mae asserted its in rem interest in the property after the bankruptcy.
12
Jarvis claims the six-year limitations period for enforcement of the deed of trust began
13 running when his last installment payment, prior to his discharge, was due: sometime in February
14 2009. He contends that because the limitations period has expired, he may move for quiet title.
15 Fannie Mae counters that the claim is not yet ripe for review because the limitations period to
16 foreclose on the property will not expire until six years from the date the deed of trust expires, in
17 2036, or until it affirmatively accelerates the debt. It asks the Court not to adopt Edmundson v.
18 Bank of America, 194 Wn.App 920, 378 P.3d 272 (2016), and Silvers v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n,
19 No. 15-5480 RJB, 2015 WL 5024173 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 25, 2015)—which hold the limitations
20 period on the right to enforce a deed of trust runs from the date the last payment on a note was
21 due—because the Washington State Supreme Court would refuse to share their conclusion. The
22
23
2
Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc was dismissed, as was
24 Defendant Bank of New York Mellon. See Dkt. #34.
DKT. #30 - 2
1 question before the Court is whether Jarvis has plausibly claimed the statute of limitations began
2 to toll in February 2009, when he was discharged of personal liability on his debt.
3
4
II.
A.
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review.
5
The standard applicable to a 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings mirrors that of a
6
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., Inc., 896
7
F.2d 1542, 1550. Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be based on either the lack of a cognizable
8
legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri
9
v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A plaintiff’s complaint must allege
10
facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See Aschcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.
11
1937, 1949 (2009). A claim has “facial plausibility” when the party seeking relief “pleads factual
12
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
13
misconduct alleged.” Id. Although the Court must accept as true the Complaint’s well-pled facts,
14
conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences will not defeat a Rule 12(c) motion.
15
See Vazquez v. L. A. County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Sprewell v. Golden
16
State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the
17
‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
18
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be
19
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
20
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations and footnotes omitted). This requires a plaintiff to plead “more
21
than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me-accusation.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949
22
(citing Twombly).
23
24
DKT. #30 - 3
1 B.
Jarvis Presents a Cognizable Claim for Quiet Title.
2
Bankruptcy discharges personal financial liability on instruments named in petition. It
3 absolves personal liability on a promissory note and on the underlying deed of trust, Walcker v.
4 Benson and McLaughlin, P.S., 79 Wn.App 739, 740-41, 904 P.2d 1176 (1995), though, the deed
5 of trust holder maintains an in rem interest in the property. See Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501
6 U.S. 78, 80, 111 S. Ct. 2150 (1991). The discharge prohibits the “commencement or continuation
7 of an action, the employment of process, or an act, to collect, recover or offset any such debt as a
8 personal liability of the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 524 (a)(2). But, the deed of trust holder may assert
9 his in-rem interest by foreclosing the property, selling the property to the debtor at fair market
10 value, reaffirming the existing debt, or crafting a “ride-though” agreement. See In re Garske, 287
11 B.R. 537, 542 (B.A.P 9th Cir. 2002); see also McClellan Fed. Credit Union v. Parker (In re
12 Parker), 139 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir. 1998).
13
Washington sets a six-year limitations period for foreclosures and other actions arising
14 from real estate contracts. See RCW 4.16.040. A property title holder may move for quiet title
15 against a lien when “an action to foreclose such mortgage or deed of trust would be barred by the
16 statute of limitations.” RCW 7.28.300. The statute of limitations on an installment contract, such
17 as one for mortgage payments, runs when each installment becomes due. See Herzog v Herzog,
18 23 Wn.2d 382, 388 (1945). Payments are no longer due if a borrower’s personal liability is
19 discharged in bankruptcy. See Edmundson v. Bank of America, 194 Wn.App 920, 931, 378 P.3d
20 272 (2016). Therefore, the limitations period to foreclose on a deed of trust securing a
21 promissory note accrues, and the six-year limitations period governing an action to foreclose
22 begins to run, each month when an installment payment is due, until the borrower’s personal
23 liability on the note is discharged in bankruptcy. See id.; see also Silvers v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n,
24
DKT. #30 - 4
1 No. 15-5480 RJB, 2015 WL 5024173, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 25, 2015) (The limitations period
2 “on the right to enforce [a] Deed of Trust [begins] running the last time any payment on [a] Note
3 [is] due. The Plaintiffs remained personally liable on the Note (and successive payments
4 continued to be due) until January 1, 2010, when they missed that payment; they received their
5 Chapter 7 discharge on January 25, 2010. Accordingly, the … limitations [period] to enforce the
6 Deed of Trust lien began to run on January 1, 2010.”).
7
The Jarvis’s mortgage debt originated as an installment contract—where the limitations
8 period on a claim arising from the contract begins to toll as each monthly installment becomes
9 due. His bankruptcy decree discharged his personal liability for this debt on the promissory note
10 and deed of trust. This discharge terminated his monthly payment obligations. Under this
11 rationale, the limitations period began to toll when his last installment payment (prior to
12 discharge) was due.
13
Jarvis claims that because bankruptcy discharged his personal liability on the debt
14 underlying Fannie Mae’s deed of trust and he did not agree to a new payment schedule with
15 Fannie Mae, he owed no further monthly payments from the time of discharge. Therefore,
16 Fannie Mae only had until February 2016 to assert its remaining in-rem interest on the property,
17 and his claim for quiet title is ripe. These facts and allegations are sufficient on their face to state
18 a plausible claim for relief when viewed in the light most favorable to Jarvis. Because Jarvis has
19 //
20 //
21 //
22 //
23
24
DKT. #30 - 5
1 stated a cognizable legal theory, Fannie Mae’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Dkt. #30]
2 is DENIED.
3
Dated this 15th day of December, 2016.
5
A
6
Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DKT. #30 - 6
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?