FILED - OW 1 COUWf OF APPEALS1-11.01.! STATE OF WASH;n
.2111B 16 V:111 t GO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DWA INVESTMENTS, LLC, No. 77154-0-I/Linked w/ No. 77153-1-1 Respondent, DIVISION ONE V.
MARCEL MADDOX BEY, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant. FILED: January 16, 2018
SPEARMAN, J. — The buyer at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale may bring an unlawful detainer action if the previous owner does not vacate. The only issue in an
unlawful detainer action is the right to possession. DWA Investments, LLC(DWA)
bought Marcel Maddox Bey's' home at a trustee's sale and brought an unlawful
detainer action when Maddox Bey did not vacate the premises. The trial court ruled
that DWA was entitled to possession and issued a writ of restitution. Maddox Bey
appeals, asserting, among other arguments, that the trustee's sale was void, DWA did
not prove it purchased the property, and DWA was not a bona fide purchaser. Finding
no error, we affirm.
1 Marcel Maddox is the named defendant in this action. He refers to himself as Marcel Maddox Bey. We follow his usage. No. 77154-0-I/Linked w/77153-1-I/2
FACTS
Maddox Bey defaulted on a home loan and the lender foreclosed. A
trustee's sale was set for July 22, 2016. On July 20, Maddox Bey named the
lender in an action to quiet title.2 Maddox Bey declared that he rescinded his
signature on the deed of trust and was no longer liable for any debt arising from
the deed. He also filed documents proclaiming that, as a Moorish-American, he
was immune from taxation as well as criminal and civil jurisdiction of the United
States. Maddox Bey's complaint did not seek to restrain the trustee's sale.
The trustee's sale took place as scheduled on July 22. DWA bought the
property. Maddox Bey did not vacate and, on August 12, DWA brought an
unlawful detainer action. The trial court found that DWA purchased the property
at the trustee's sale. The trial court also found that Maddox Bey received notice
that his right to occupy the property had terminated and he failed to show any
ground permitting his continued occupation. The court ruled in favor of DWA and
issued a writ of restitution. Maddox Bey appeals.
DISCUSSION
An unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding for determining the
right of possession of real property. Munden v. Hazelriqg, 105 Wn.2d 39, 45, 711
P.2d 295(1985)(citing RCW 59.12.030). Because it is a summary proceeding,
the action is limited to the question of possession. Id. (citing Kessler v. Nielsen, 3
Wn. App. 120, 472 P.2d 616 (1970)). Unlawful detainer is available to the buyer
21n a related appeal, Maddox Bey challenges the trial court's dismissal of his quiet title action. See Maddox Bey v. Guild Mortgage Company, No. 77153-1-1.
2 No. 77154-0-I/Linked w/77153-1-I/3
at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale if the previous owner does not vacate. RCW
61.24.060(1). The buyer must comply with statutory notice requirements. RCW
61.24.060(2).
We review the trial court's findings of fact in an unlawful detainer action for
substantial evidence and its conclusions of law de novo. Pham v. Corbett, 187
Wn. App. 816, 825, 351 P.3d 214(2015)(citing Hegwine v. Longview Fibre Co.,
Inc., 132 Wn. App. 546, 555-56, 132 P.3d 789 (2006)). Unchallenged findings of
fact are verities on appeal. Id. (citing Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley,
118 Wn.2d 801, 808, 828 P.2d 549(1992)).
In this case, the trial court found that DWA purchased the property at the
trustee's sale. The trial court also found that Maddox Bey received notice but
failed to vacate the property. Maddox Bey does not challenge these findings.
They are verities on appeal.
Maddox Bey contends the trial court erred in issuing a writ of restitution for
several reasons. He argues that DWA failed to prove that it purchased the
property at the trustee's sale because, at the hearing, DWA did not call any
witnesses with first-hand knowledge. Maddox Bey also asserts that the trustee's
sale was void and could not result in lawful title. Neither argument has merit.
First, the trial court found that DWA purchased the property and, because
Maddox Bey did not challenge the finding, it is a verity on appeal. Pham, 187 Wn.
App. at 825.
Second, Maddox Bey acknowledges that DWA submitted a trustee's deed
in support of its claim that it legitimately purchased the property. It is well settled
3 No. 77154-0-I/Linked w/77153-1-I/4
that a trustee's deed that recites the facts showing that the sale was conducted in
compliance with the Deed of Trust Act(DTA)is "prima facie evidence of such
compliance and conclusive evidence thereof in favor of bona fide purchasers. . .
RCW 61.24.040(7).
Here, Maddox Bey's assertion that the sale was void rests solely on his
unilateral rescission of his signature on the deed of trust. But he cites no
authority recognizing unilateral rescission of signature as a ground to escape
contractual obligations. Nor does he challenge the deed's adequacy or point to
any evidence that the sale failed to comply with the DTA. The trial court did not
err in rejecting his argument that the trustee's sale was invalid.
Maddox Bey next contends that DWA was not a bona fide purchaser. A
bona fide purchaser is one who buys real property for valuable consideration
without notice of title or sale defects. Albice, 174 Wn.2d at 573. The party
challenging the buyer's status has the burden of proving that the buyer had
actual or constructive notice of such a defect. Glaser v. Ho!doff, 56 Wn.2d 204,
209, 352 P.2d 212(1960). A buyer who has knowledge or information that would
cause a reasonable person to inquire has constructive knowledge of everything
the inquiry would have revealed. Albice, 174 Wn.2d at 573. See also Steward v.
Good, 51 Wn. App. 509, 513, 754 P.2d 150(1988)(where a buyer has reason to
inquire, and inquiry would lead to the discovery of defects in the title, the buyer is
not a bona fide purchaser)(citations omitted).
4 No. 77154-0-I/Linked w/77153-1-I/5
Maddox Bey asserts that he informed Jeremie Dufault, one of DWA's
principals, that he had filed a lawsuit to quiet title to the property.3 But, even if
Dufault had notice of Maddox Bey's lawsuit, any inquiry into the action would
have revealed no title or sale defects. Maddox Bey's quiet title complaint did not
allege that he had satisfied the underlying debt or that the trustee's sale failed to
comply with statutory procedures. The complaint did not seek to enjoin the sale.
If DWA had a duty to inquire, the inquiry would have revealed the validity of the
trustee's sale.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FILED - OW 1 COUWf OF APPEALS1-11.01.! STATE OF WASH;n
.2111B 16 V:111 t GO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DWA INVESTMENTS, LLC, No. 77154-0-I/Linked w/ No. 77153-1-1 Respondent, DIVISION ONE V.
MARCEL MADDOX BEY, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant. FILED: January 16, 2018
SPEARMAN, J. — The buyer at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale may bring an unlawful detainer action if the previous owner does not vacate. The only issue in an
unlawful detainer action is the right to possession. DWA Investments, LLC(DWA)
bought Marcel Maddox Bey's' home at a trustee's sale and brought an unlawful
detainer action when Maddox Bey did not vacate the premises. The trial court ruled
that DWA was entitled to possession and issued a writ of restitution. Maddox Bey
appeals, asserting, among other arguments, that the trustee's sale was void, DWA did
not prove it purchased the property, and DWA was not a bona fide purchaser. Finding
no error, we affirm.
1 Marcel Maddox is the named defendant in this action. He refers to himself as Marcel Maddox Bey. We follow his usage. No. 77154-0-I/Linked w/77153-1-I/2
FACTS
Maddox Bey defaulted on a home loan and the lender foreclosed. A
trustee's sale was set for July 22, 2016. On July 20, Maddox Bey named the
lender in an action to quiet title.2 Maddox Bey declared that he rescinded his
signature on the deed of trust and was no longer liable for any debt arising from
the deed. He also filed documents proclaiming that, as a Moorish-American, he
was immune from taxation as well as criminal and civil jurisdiction of the United
States. Maddox Bey's complaint did not seek to restrain the trustee's sale.
The trustee's sale took place as scheduled on July 22. DWA bought the
property. Maddox Bey did not vacate and, on August 12, DWA brought an
unlawful detainer action. The trial court found that DWA purchased the property
at the trustee's sale. The trial court also found that Maddox Bey received notice
that his right to occupy the property had terminated and he failed to show any
ground permitting his continued occupation. The court ruled in favor of DWA and
issued a writ of restitution. Maddox Bey appeals.
DISCUSSION
An unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding for determining the
right of possession of real property. Munden v. Hazelriqg, 105 Wn.2d 39, 45, 711
P.2d 295(1985)(citing RCW 59.12.030). Because it is a summary proceeding,
the action is limited to the question of possession. Id. (citing Kessler v. Nielsen, 3
Wn. App. 120, 472 P.2d 616 (1970)). Unlawful detainer is available to the buyer
21n a related appeal, Maddox Bey challenges the trial court's dismissal of his quiet title action. See Maddox Bey v. Guild Mortgage Company, No. 77153-1-1.
2 No. 77154-0-I/Linked w/77153-1-I/3
at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale if the previous owner does not vacate. RCW
61.24.060(1). The buyer must comply with statutory notice requirements. RCW
61.24.060(2).
We review the trial court's findings of fact in an unlawful detainer action for
substantial evidence and its conclusions of law de novo. Pham v. Corbett, 187
Wn. App. 816, 825, 351 P.3d 214(2015)(citing Hegwine v. Longview Fibre Co.,
Inc., 132 Wn. App. 546, 555-56, 132 P.3d 789 (2006)). Unchallenged findings of
fact are verities on appeal. Id. (citing Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley,
118 Wn.2d 801, 808, 828 P.2d 549(1992)).
In this case, the trial court found that DWA purchased the property at the
trustee's sale. The trial court also found that Maddox Bey received notice but
failed to vacate the property. Maddox Bey does not challenge these findings.
They are verities on appeal.
Maddox Bey contends the trial court erred in issuing a writ of restitution for
several reasons. He argues that DWA failed to prove that it purchased the
property at the trustee's sale because, at the hearing, DWA did not call any
witnesses with first-hand knowledge. Maddox Bey also asserts that the trustee's
sale was void and could not result in lawful title. Neither argument has merit.
First, the trial court found that DWA purchased the property and, because
Maddox Bey did not challenge the finding, it is a verity on appeal. Pham, 187 Wn.
App. at 825.
Second, Maddox Bey acknowledges that DWA submitted a trustee's deed
in support of its claim that it legitimately purchased the property. It is well settled
3 No. 77154-0-I/Linked w/77153-1-I/4
that a trustee's deed that recites the facts showing that the sale was conducted in
compliance with the Deed of Trust Act(DTA)is "prima facie evidence of such
compliance and conclusive evidence thereof in favor of bona fide purchasers. . .
RCW 61.24.040(7).
Here, Maddox Bey's assertion that the sale was void rests solely on his
unilateral rescission of his signature on the deed of trust. But he cites no
authority recognizing unilateral rescission of signature as a ground to escape
contractual obligations. Nor does he challenge the deed's adequacy or point to
any evidence that the sale failed to comply with the DTA. The trial court did not
err in rejecting his argument that the trustee's sale was invalid.
Maddox Bey next contends that DWA was not a bona fide purchaser. A
bona fide purchaser is one who buys real property for valuable consideration
without notice of title or sale defects. Albice, 174 Wn.2d at 573. The party
challenging the buyer's status has the burden of proving that the buyer had
actual or constructive notice of such a defect. Glaser v. Ho!doff, 56 Wn.2d 204,
209, 352 P.2d 212(1960). A buyer who has knowledge or information that would
cause a reasonable person to inquire has constructive knowledge of everything
the inquiry would have revealed. Albice, 174 Wn.2d at 573. See also Steward v.
Good, 51 Wn. App. 509, 513, 754 P.2d 150(1988)(where a buyer has reason to
inquire, and inquiry would lead to the discovery of defects in the title, the buyer is
not a bona fide purchaser)(citations omitted).
4 No. 77154-0-I/Linked w/77153-1-I/5
Maddox Bey asserts that he informed Jeremie Dufault, one of DWA's
principals, that he had filed a lawsuit to quiet title to the property.3 But, even if
Dufault had notice of Maddox Bey's lawsuit, any inquiry into the action would
have revealed no title or sale defects. Maddox Bey's quiet title complaint did not
allege that he had satisfied the underlying debt or that the trustee's sale failed to
comply with statutory procedures. The complaint did not seek to enjoin the sale.
If DWA had a duty to inquire, the inquiry would have revealed the validity of the
trustee's sale. Maddox Bey fails to show that DWA was not a bona fide
Purchaser.
It is difficult to follow Maddox Bey's further arguments. He challenges the
trial court's ruling for DWA on the grounds that he is not subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States or the State of Washington and the unlawful detainer action
violates his treaty and constitutional rights as a Moorish-American. He appears to
argue that DWA failed to honor a tender of credit posted while this appeal was
pending and this failure constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Maddox Bey
asserts that he is entitled to money damages for wrongful eviction and violation
of his liberty. We do not consider these arguments because Maddox-Bey fails to
explain how they are pertinent to the unlawful detainer action or support them
with relevant authority.4
3 Maddox Bey relies on evidence of his conversation with Dufault. DWA contends this evidence was not in the record below and should not be considered on this appeal. Because the evidence is not relevant to our resolution of the issue, we do not address its admissibility. 4 The authority Maddox Bey cites, including the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Washington State Constitution, provides no support for his assertions.
5 No. 77154-0-1/Linked w/77153-1-1/6
Affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
6 LU CCAJRI OF APT- EALS L1W STATE. OF WASI -0;.1 00 VIII M.1 15 AV: 11 t
DWA INVESTMENTS, LLC, No. 77154-0-I/Linked w/ No. 77153-1-1 Respondent, DIVISION ONE V.
SPEARMAN, J. — The buyer at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale may bring an unlawful detainer action if the previous owner does not vacate. The only issue in an
unlawful detainer action is the right to possession. DWA Investments, LLC(DWA)
bought Marcel Maddox Bey's1 home at a trustee's sale and brought an unlawful
detainer action when Maddox Bey did not vacate the premises. The trial court ruled
that DWA was entitled to possession and issued a writ of restitution. Maddox Bey
appeals, asserting, among other arguments, that the trustee's sale was void, DWA did
not prove it purchased the property, and DWA was not a bona fide purchaser. Finding
1 Marcel Maddox is the named defendant in this action. He refers to himself as Marcel Maddox Bey. We follow his usage. No. 77154-0-I/Linked w/77153-1-I/2
Maddox Bey defaulted on a home loan and the lender foreclosed. A
trustee's sale was set for July 22, 2016. On July 20, Maddox Bey named the
lender in an action to quiet title.2 Maddox Bey declared that he rescinded his
signature on the deed of trust and was no longer liable for any debt arising from
the deed. He also filed documents proclaiming that, as a Moorish-American, he
was immune from taxation as well as criminal and civil jurisdiction of the United
States. Maddox Bey's complaint did not seek to restrain the trustee's sale.
The trustee's sale took place as scheduled on July 22. DWA bought the
property. Maddox Bey did not vacate and, on August 12, DWA brought an
unlawful detainer action. The trial court found that DWA purchased the property
at the trustee's sale. The trial court also found that Maddox Bey received notice
that his right to occupy the property had terminated and he failed to show any
ground permitting his continued occupation. The court ruled in favor of DWA and
An unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding for determining the
right of possession of real property. Munden v. Hazelriqg, 105 Wn.2d 39, 45, 711
P.2d 295(1985)(citing RCW 59.12.030). Because it is a summary proceeding,
the action is limited to the question of possession. Id. (citing Kessler v. Nielsen, 3
Wn. App. 120,472 P.2d 616 (1970)). Unlawful detainer is available to the buyer
2In a related appeal, Maddox Bey challenges the trial court's dismissal of his quiet title action. See Maddox Bey v. Guild Mortgage Company, No. 77153-1-1.
at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale if the previous owner does not vacate. RCW
61.24.060(1). The buyer must comply with statutory notice requirements. RCW
We review the trial court's findings of fact in an unlawful detainer action for
substantial evidence and its conclusions of law de novo. Pham v. Corbett, 187
Wn. App. 816, 825, 351 P.3d 214(2015)(citing Hegwine v. Longview Fibre Co.,
Inc., 132 Wn. App. 546, 555-56, 132 P.3d 789(2006)). Unchallenged findings of
fact are verities on appeal. Id. (citing Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley,
In this case, the trial court found that DWA purchased the property at the
trustee's sale. The trial court also found that Maddox Bey received notice but
failed to vacate the property. Maddox Bey does not challenge these findings.
Maddox Bey contends the trial court erred in issuing a writ of restitution for
several reasons. He argues that DWA failed to prove that it purchased the
property at the trustee's sale because, at the hearing, DWA did not call any
witnesses with first-hand knowledge. Maddox Bey also asserts that the trustee's
sale was void and could not result in lawful title. Neither argument has merit.
First, the trial court found that DWA purchased the property and, because
Maddox Bey did not challenge the finding, it is a verity on appeal. Pham, 187 Wn.
Second, Maddox Bey acknowledges that DWA submitted a trustee's deed
in support of its claim that it legitimately purchased the property. It is well settled
that a trustee's deed that recites the facts showing that the sale was conducted in
compliance with the Deed of Trust Act(DTA)is "prima facie evidence of such
compliance and conclusive evidence thereof in favor of bona fide purchasers... ."
Here, Maddox Bey's assertion that the sale was void rests solely on his
unilateral rescission of his signature on the deed of trust. But he cites no
authority recognizing unilateral rescission of signature as a ground to escape
contractual obligations. Nor does he challenge the deed's adequacy or point to
any evidence that the sale failed to comply with the DTA. The trial court did not
err in rejecting his argument that the trustee's sale was invalid.
Maddox Bey next contends that DWA was not a bona fide purchaser. A
bona fide purchaser is one who buys real property for valuable consideration
without notice of title or sale defects. Albice, 174 Wn.2d at 573. The party
challenging the buyer's status has the burden of proving that the buyer had
actual or constructive notice of such a defect. Glaser v. Holdorf, 56 Wn.2d 204,
209, 352 P.2d 212(1960). A buyer who has knowledge or information that would
cause a reasonable person to inquire has constructive knowledge of everything
the inquiry would have revealed. Albice, 174 Wn.2d at 573. See also Steward v.
Good, 51 Wn. App. 509, 513, 754 P.2d 150(1988)(where a buyer has reason to
inquire, and inquiry would lead to the discovery of defects in the title, the buyer is
Maddox Bey asserts that he informed Jeremie Dufault, one of DWA's
principals, that he had filed a lawsuit to quiet title to the property.3 But, even if
Dufault had notice of Maddox Bey's lawsuit, any inquiry into the action would
have revealed no title or sale defects. Maddox Bey's quiet title complaint did not
allege that he had satisfied the underlying debt or that the trustee's sale failed to
comply with statutory procedures. The complaint did not seek to enjoin the sale.
If DWA had a duty to inquire,•the inquiry would have revealed the validity of the
trustee's sale. Maddox Bey fails to show that DWA was not a bona fide
It is difficult to follow Maddox Bey's further arguments. He challenges the
trial court's ruling for DWA on the grounds that he is not subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States or the State of Washington and the unlawful detainer action •
violates his treaty and constitutional rights as a Moorish-American. He appears to
argue that DWA failed to honor a tender of credit posted while this appeal was
pending and this failure constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Maddox Bey
asserts that he is entitled to money damages for wrongful eviction and violation
of his liberty. We do not consider these arguments because Maddox-Bey fails to
explain how they are pertinent to the unlawful detainer action or support them
3 Maddox Bey relies on evidence of his conversation with Dufault. DWA contends this evidence was not in the record below and should not be considered on this appeal. Because the evidence is not relevant to our resolution of the issue, we do not address its admissibility. 4 The authority Maddox Bey cites, including the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Washington State Constitution, provides no support for his assertions.
5 No. 77154-0-I/Linked w/77153-1-I/6