HUMMEL v. NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES INC (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Tana Chung Hummel appeals an order granting summary judgment in favor of Select Portfolio Servicing and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) and dismissing with prejudice Hummel’s claims against Bank of America and Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. We affirm.

1. Hummel’s wrongful foreclosure claim fails because no foreclosure sale occurred. Frias v. Asset Foreclosure Servs., Inc., 181 Wash.2d 412, 334 P.3d 529, 533 (2014).

2. Hummel alleges that Appellees did not have standing to initiate foreclosure because of invalid assignments and fraud in the issuance of her loan. The district court properly found no merit to Hummel’s challenges to the validity of the Deed of Trust and subsequent assignments. First, “[t]he mere fact [that] MERs is listed on the deed of trust ․ is not itself an actionable injury.” Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Grp., Inc., 175 Wash.2d 83, 285 P.3d 34, 52 (2012).

Second, as a third party to the loan’s securitization, Hummel lacked standing to challenge those assignments. See Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Slotke, 192 Wash.App. 166, 367 P.3d 600, 606 (2016).

Third, there was no basis for Hummel’s challenge to the initiation of foreclosure by Northwest Trustee Services. Before conducting a nonjudicial foreclosure, a trustee must “have proof that the beneficiary is the holder of any promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust.” Wash. Rev. Code 61.24.030(7)(a). “A declaration by the beneficiary made under the penalty of perjury stating that the beneficiary is the holder of any promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust shall be sufficient proof.” Id. Select Portfolio Servicing, U.S. Bank’s authorized agent, issued such a declaration of ownership, which was recorded; the declaration of ownership stated that U.S. Bank, as trustee for the securitization, “is the actual holder of the Promissory Note.” Likewise, Northwest Trustee Services was authorized, through its appointment as successor trustee, to initiate foreclosure by U.S. Bank, the holder of the Note. This authorization was also recorded.

3. Hummel argues that her wrongful foreclosure allegation should have been construed as a common law fraud claim. Fraud claims are subject to a three-year statute of limitations. Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.080(4). The district court correctly found any implied common law fraud claims time barred. See Green v. Am. Pharm. Co., 136 Wash.2d 87, 960 P.2d 912, 915–16 (1998).

4. The district court appropriately disposed of Hummel’s claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander of title, quiet title, and declaratory relief. In each instance, Hummel failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim or to raise a material issue of fact adequate to survive summary judgment. We reach this conclusion for the same reasons set forth in Judge Jones’s March 2016 order.

AFFIRMED.