Deborah Brodie v. Northwest Trustee Services

Ninth Circuit

Deborah Brodie v. Northwest Trustee Services

579 F. App'x 592

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 18, 2014

Docket13-35023

StatusUnpublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 579 F. App'x 592 (Deborah Brodie v. Northwest Trustee Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Deborah Brodie v. Northwest Trustee Services, 579 F. App'x 592 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

1.The district court properly dismissed Deborah Brodie’s wrongful foreclosure claim because she failed to allege a plausible claim for relief. Brodie concedes that she defaulted on her loan and cannot dispute that the noteholder would be entitled to foreclose. See Trujillo v. Nw. Tr. Servs., Inc., 326 P.3d 768, 773-76, 2014 WL 2453092, at *5-8 (Wash.Ct.App. June 2, 2014). As evidenced by the documents Brodie herself submitted to the district court, U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S.Bank”) holds the note as trustee for the WaMu trust. The fact that U.S. Bank chose to act through its authorized agent, JPMorgan Chase Bank, does not alter its right to foreclose and to appoint a successor trustee under the Washington Deed of Trust Act. See Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Grp., Inc., 175 Wash.2d 83, 285 P.3d 34, 45 (2012) (en banc). Brodie has not alleged any facts that would have prevented Northwest Trustee Services from relying on U.S. Bank’s beneficiary declaration. Under these circumstances, the declaration made under penalty of perjury satisfied Revised Code of Washington § 61.24.030(7)(a). See Trujillo, 326 P.3d at 780-781, 2014 WL 2453092, at *12-13.

2. The district court also correctly concluded that Brodie lacks standing to challenge the transfer and assignment of the note and deed of trust. She is neither a party to nor a beneficiary of the assignment and transfer. Even assuming Brodie has alleged defects in the transfer of the note and deed of trust, she has not alleged facts showing why any of the purported defects would render the assignment void or otherwise affect the noteholder’s right to foreclose. See, e.g., Bavand v. OneWest Bank, F.S.B., 176 Wash.App. 475, 309 P.3d 636, 642-44 (2013).

3. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend. Brodie had at least two opportunities to substantively amend her complaint. Any further amendment would be futile because U.S. Bank could legally foreclose on her defaulted loan, and Brodie lacks standing to challenge the assignment and transfer of the note and deed of trust. See Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373-74 (9th Cir.1990).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

1.The district court properly dismissed Deborah Brodie’s wrongful foreclosure claim because she failed to allege a plausible claim for relief. Brodie concedes that she defaulted on her loan and cannot dispute that the noteholder would be entitled to foreclose. See Trujillo v. Nw. Tr. Servs., Inc., 326 P.3d 768, 773-76, 2014 WL 2453092, at *5-8 (Wash.Ct.App. June 2, 2014). As evidenced by the documents Brodie herself submitted to the district court, U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S.Bank”) holds the note as trustee for the WaMu trust. The fact that U.S. Bank chose to act through its authorized agent, JPMorgan Chase Bank, does not alter its right to foreclose and to appoint a successor trustee under the Washington Deed of Trust Act. See Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Grp., Inc., 175 Wash.2d 83, 285 P.3d 34, 45 (2012) (en banc). Brodie has not alleged any facts that would have prevented Northwest Trustee Services from relying on U.S. Bank’s beneficiary declaration. Under these circumstances, the declaration made under penalty of perjury satisfied Revised Code of Washington § 61.24.030(7)(a). See Trujillo, 326 P.3d at 780-781, 2014 WL 2453092, at *12-13.

2. The district court also correctly concluded that Brodie lacks standing to challenge the transfer and assignment of the note and deed of trust. She is neither a party to nor a beneficiary of the assignment and transfer. Even assuming Brodie has alleged defects in the transfer of the note and deed of trust, she has not alleged facts showing why any of the purported defects would render the assignment void or otherwise affect the noteholder’s right to foreclose. See, e.g., Bavand v. OneWest Bank, F.S.B., 176 Wash.App. 475, 309 P.3d 636, 642-44 (2013).

3. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend. Brodie had at least two opportunities to substantively amend her complaint. Any further amendment would be futile because U.S. Bank could legally foreclose on her defaulted loan, and Brodie lacks standing to challenge the assignment and transfer of the note and deed of trust. See Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373-74 (9th Cir.1990).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

579 F. App'x 592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deborah-brodie-v-northwest-trustee-services-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack