FILED
JULY 18, 2017
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
SHERYL C. MOORE, )
) No. 34618-8-111
Appellant, )
)
V. )
)
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
INC., QUALITY LOAN SERVICE )
CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON, a )
Washington corporation, U.S. BANK )
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, )
in trust for registered holders of First )
Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage )
Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series )
2007-FF2, and MORTGAGE )
ELECTRONIC RESISTRATION )
SYSTEMS, INC., as nominee for First )
Franklin a division of National City Bank, )
as Beneficiary, (or by its successor-in- )
interest, and/or assigns, if any), )
)
Respondents. )
FEARING, C.J. - In 2008, plaintiff Sheryl Moore defaulted on a 2006 loan secured
by a deed of trust on her residence. She brings this suit to declare the promissory note
and deed of trust invalid or to declare an assignment of both unenforceable. We affirm
No. 34618-8-III
Moore v. Select Portfolio Servicing
summary judgment dismissal of Moore's suit primarily because of Moore's lack oflegal
citation to support her various legal theories.
FACTS
On December 5, 2006, Sheryl Moore borrowed $242,100 from First Franklin
Financial Corporation, a division of National City Bank, in order to purchase a home in
Spokane. Janice King of Market Street Mortgage Corporation brokered the loan. Mitch
Templeton of Spokane's Statewide Escrow handled the escrow and the closing of the
loan. The Lender's Closing Instructions included the following sentence:
6. All closing documents should be executed in BLUE INK.
Clerk's Papers (CP) at 109 (emphasis in original).
To procure the loan, Sheryl Moore signed a promissory note for $242,100. The
note allowed First Franklin to accelerate the loan in the event of a default. To provide
security for the loan, Sheryl Moore signed a deed of trust encumbering her home on Ella
Road, in Spokane. The deed of trust named ubiquitous Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc. (MERS), not First Franklin, as the beneficiary.
On an unidentified date, Christanna Steiger endorsed the promissory note in blank.
Steiger signed below the language: "PAY TO THE ORDER OF _ _ _ _ __
WITHOUT RECOURSE." CP at 185. Steiger inserted no name in the blank. The
endorsement identified Steiger as a senior funder for the lender First Franklin, but Steiger
did not expressly represent herself to be an authorized agent for First Franklin.
2
No. 34618-8-III
Moore v. Select Portfolio Servicing
Sheryl Moore last paid First Franklin a monthly mortgage payment on February 1,
2008. Thereafter, Moore protested the terms of the loan and ceased payments. Among
other complaints, Moore claimed some of the loan documents contained signatures in
black ink, when the closing instructions require blue ink. She also contended that no
promissory note remained in existence.
On June 11, 2008, LaSalle Bank National Association, who claimed to then hold
the beneficial interest in the deed of trust, sent Moore a notice of default. LaSalle Bank
National Association identified itself as Trustee for First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust
2007-FF2, Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-FF2. The notice of
default accelerated the entire debt then owed of $242,006.48. On August 19, 2009,
attorney Karen Gibbon issued a Notice of Trustee's Sale for Sheryl Moore's residence.
On November 2, 2009, Sheryl Moore sued Janice King, Market Street Mortgage
Corporation, First Franklin Financial Corporation, Michael Templeton, doing business as
Statewide Escrow, Bank of America National Association, and MERS. LaSalle Bank
National Association had purportedly recently merged with Bank of America National
Association, who then held the securitized deed of trust obligation. In her complaint,
Moore acknowledged that, on December 6, 2006, she borrowed funds for a mortgage
transaction. Moore alleged violations of the truth in lending act, wrongful foreclosure of
the deed of trust, and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, chapter
3
I
1
J
Ii
I•J No. 34618-8-111
Moore v. Select Portfolio Servicing
I
I
!
II
!
19.86 RCW. On July 5, 2011, the trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary
I judgment and dismissed Sheryl Moore's claims.
I On August 19, 2011, Bank of America sent an unsigned letter to Sheryl Moore
I
! advising her that Bank of America serviced the loan for LaSalle Bank National
!
;
Association, the owner of the note. Moore received the letter on September 2, 2011.
! Despite the author of the letter referring, in the body of the letter, to himself or herself as
iI
"I," the letter does not identify the name of its author. CP at 113.
Sheryl Moore sent numerous inquiries to Bank of America regarding the loan and
I resolution of the loan. Bank of America failed to respond. In January 2014, Bank of
Ii
America transferred its servicing rights to Sheryl Moore's loan to Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc.
In April 2014, a new entity, Quality Loan Service Corporation of Washington,
appeared. Quality Loan Service Corporation conducts foreclosure sales on behalf of
lenders and mortgage servicers. Quality Loan Service Corporation identified itself as the
successor trustee under Sheryl Moore's deed of trust.
On April 28, 2014, Quality Loan Service Corporation of Washington initiated a
nonjudicial foreclosure by issuance of a Notice of Default. A Declaration of Ownership
then provided to Sheryl Moore was signed solely by the authority of Select Portfolio
Servicing. Apparently Quality Loan Service Corporation aborted the foreclosure.
4
No. 34618-8-III
Moore v. Select Portfolio Servicing
On August 5, 2014, Quality Loan Service Corporation initiated a second
nonjudicial foreclosure by issuance of another Notice of Default. Select Portfolio
Servicing as Attorney in Fact for the alleged beneficiary signed the Declaration of
Beneficiary then provided to Sheryl Moore. On September 16, 2014, Quality Loan
Service Corporation scheduled a Trustee's Sale for January 16, 2015. On October 27,
2014, Quality Loan Service Corporation rescheduled the Trustee's Sale for February 27,
2015. The sale never proceeded.
We lack knowledge of any pending deed of trust foreclosure proceeding. We
wonder if Moore has resided in the encumbered residence since March 2008 without
paying any debt.
PROCEDURE
On February 13, 2015, Sheryl Moore filed this suit against Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc., Quality Loan Service Corporation of Washington, MERS, and U.S. Bank
National Association, as Trustee, in trust for registered holders of First Franklin
Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-FF2.
Moore alleges violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act and the deed of
trust act. In her complaint, Moore contends that none of the defendants are note holders
entitled to foreclose the deed of trust on her residence. She alleges that the actual note
holder and owner of the loan is not known and more likely the deed of trust does not
secure the promissory note executed by her. According to Moore, Quality Loan Service
5
No. 34618-8-111
Moore v. Select Portfolio Servicing
Corporation is not a qualified successor trustee and is without authority to conduct a
foreclosure sale of her residence. Moore contends that the deed of trust encumbering her
property is invalid because of irregularities surrounding the ownership of the promissory
note arid the deed of trust. Also, according to Moore, the running of the statute of
limitations bars any foreclosure. Moore seeks damages, declaratory relief, injunctive
relief against any foreclosure proceeding, and quiet title to her home.
For unknown reasons, Sheryl Moore dismissed her claims against Quality Loan
Service Corporation early in this proceeding. On October 23, 2015, in response to a
motion to dismiss by the remaining defendants, the trial court dismissed with prejudice
Sheryl Moore's deed of trust act claims because no defendant had completed a
nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding.
On March 2, 2016, U.S. Bank National Association, Select Portfolio Servicing,
and MERS moved for summary judgment to dismiss Moore's remaining claims. In
opposition to the summary judgment motion, Moore argued that the statute of limitations
bars enforcement of the note and deed of trust, that Select Portfolio lacks possession of
the original promissory note or a valid assignment thereof, that the endorsement of the
original promissory note is invalid, that an entity must gain specific authority to foreclose
on a deed of trust and no entity had gained such authority, that ownership of a beneficial
interest in a deed of trust may not follow ownership of a deed of trust, and that the
mortgage obligation was not securitized. Moore claimed an issue of fact existed that
6
No. 34618-8-III
Moore v. Select Portfolio Servicing
precluded any defendant from foreclosing on the deed of trust. Select Portfolio Servicing
responded that the installment rule extended the statute of limitations, the statute of
limitations was not a bar because Moore acknowledged the debt, Select Portfolio
possessed the original note, Moore's claims related to the validity of the note were barred
by res judicata, and Moore lacked standing to challenge securitization.
During the summary judgment hearing on April 1, 2016, Select Portfolio
Servicing presented, as exhibits, two documents it claimed as the original deed of trust
and promissory note. The trial court noted that various markings on the two documents,
including the signature by Sheryl Moore, used blue ink.
The trial court granted Select Portfolio Servicing's summary judgment motion.
The court ruled that Select Portfolio, as possessor of the original deed of trust and note,
could lawfully conduct a nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding. The court declined to
address Sheryl Moore's statute of limitations argument because the statute of limitations
is an affirmative defense, not an offensive claim. Also, the trial court ruled Moore did
not have standing to challenge the securitization of the loan.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Whether the trial court should have addressed Sheryl Moore's contention
that the statute of limitations bars the defendants' claims?
Answer 1: We decline to address this issue because Sheryl Moore cites no
authority to support her assignment of error.
7
No. 34618-8-111
Moore v. Select Portfolio Servicing
Sheryl Moore assigns error to the trial court's refusal to address the merits of her
statute of limitations claim. In her appeal brief, she argues extensively, with citations to
cases, her position that the statute of limitations bars enforcement of the deed of trust.
Nevertheless, she presents no legal authority to contradict the trial court's ruling that the
statute of limitations, as a defense, should be asserted by Moore to thwart a proceeding
brought by a deed of trust holder, rather than as an offensive weapon in a complaint.
Instead, Moore writes:
Further, the trial court erred in not reaching the statute of limitations
question since this case was brought in part to quiet title. This is not only
an affirmative defense option for a foreclosure, this is the cause of action
from the initial filing of the Summons and Complaint. An affirmative
defense does not quite [sic] title and the trial court erred in saying that this
argument should be presented as an affirmative defense to a foreclosure
because the cause of action in the complaint included quieting title.
Br. of Plaintiff at 9.
RAP 10.3(a)(6) directs each party to supply, in her brief, "argument in support of
the issues presented for review, together with citations to legal authority and references to
relevant parts of the record." We do not consider conclusory arguments that are
unsupported by citation to authority. Joy v. Department ofLabor & Industries, 170 Wn.
App. 614,629,285 P.3d 187 (2012). Passing treatment of an issue or lack of reasoned
argument is insufficient to merit judicial consideration. West v. Thurston County, 168
Wn. App. 162,187,275 P.3d 1200 (2012); Hollandv. City of Tacoma, 90 Wn. App. 533,
538,954 P.2d 290 (1998). Therefore, we decline to address this assignment of error.
8
No. 34618-8-III
Moore v. Select Portfolio Servicing
A thorough analysis and citation to authority is particularly apt in this case. The
statute of limitations, as noted by the trial court, is typically asserted as a defense in a
pending proceeding. We know of no pending proceeding against Sheryl Moore and of no
pending deed of trust foreclosure action. Also, Moore dismissed her claims against
Quality Loan Service Corporation, the party administering the earlier scheduled
foreclosure sale.
Issue 2: Whether the statute of limitations bars any claims to collect the note and
any action to enforce the deed of trust?
Answer 2: We decline to address this issue because we affirm the trial court on
other grounds.
As noted above, we refuse to reverse the trial court's declination of hearing Sheryl
Moore's substantive argument that the statute of limitations bars any later claims by one
or more defendants to collect on the promissory note or enforce the deed of trust. For this
reason, we also decline to address the merits of Moore's statute of limitations argument.
Issue 3: Whether Sheryl Moore presented an issue offact as to Select Portfolio
Servicing or US. Bank National Association being the rightful holder of the promissory
note?
Answer 3: We refuse to address this assignment of error because Moore cites no
authority to support her argument.
9
No. 34618-8-III
Moore v. Select Portfolio Servicing
Sheryl Moore disputes that Select Portfolio Services or U.S. Bank National
Association possess the original promissory note and that First Franklin Financial
Corporation properly endorsed the note. Once again, Moore cites no statute or case law
to support this assignment of error. She provides no analysis based on legal authority.
We do not consider conclusory arguments that are unsupported by citation to authority.
Joy v. Department ofLabor & Industries, 170 Wn. App. at 629 (2012). We also note that
Select Portfolio Servicing submitted the original note to the trial court during the
summary judgment hearing.
Issue 4: Whether Sheryl Moore presented an issue offact as to whether all of the
defendants lack authority to foreclose on the deed of trust?
Answer 4: We decline to address this issue because of the lack of a pending
foreclosure.
Sheryl Moore next argues that none of the defendants hold authority to foreclose
on the deed of trust because none of the defendants are holders of the note secured by the
deed. She further notes that the deed of trust named MERS as the beneficiary and MERS
never possessed the promissory note such that it could foreclose.
We decline to address Sheryl Moore's assignment of error because the facts do not
show any pending foreclosure. If and when a party initiates another foreclosure, that
party may be an entity other than one of this suit's defendants. Sheryl Moore may then
challenge the entity's right to foreclose.
10
No. 34618-8-III
Moore v. Select Portfolio Servicing
A case is moot when it involves only abstract propositions or questions, the
substantial questions in the trial court no longer exist, or a court can no longer provide
effective relief. Spokane Research & Defense Fund v. City of Spokane, 15 5 Wn.2d 89,
99, 117 P.3d 1117 (2005); State v. Slattum, 173 Wn. App. 640, 647, 295 P.3d 788 (2013).
Generally, this court may not consider a case if the issue presented is moot. In re Cross,
99 Wn.2d 373,377,662 P.2d 828 (1983); In re Detention ofR.R., 77 Wn. App. 795, 799,
895 P.2d 1 (1995). Because this court can provide no effective relief, we decline review
of this assignment of error on the basis of mootness.
Issue 5: Whether Sheryl Moore presented an issue offact as to whether the deed of
trust obligation was securitized?
Answer 5: We decline to address this issue because of Moore's lack of citations to
the factual record and to legal authority.
Finally, Sheryl Moore argues that the loan was not properly securitized. In so
contending, Moore cites no support from the trial court record and fails to illuminate the
court with legal authority. We have previously observed that this court will not review an
assignment of error unsupported by legal citations. We also decline review of an
assignment of error not supported by citation to the factual record. RAP 10.3(a)(6)
directs each party to supply, in their brief, "argument in support of the issues presented
for review, together with citations to legal authority and references to relevant parts of the
record."
11
No. 34618-8-III
Moore v. Select Portfolio Servicing
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court's summary judgment dismissal of Sheryl Moore's
complaint.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
WE CONCUR:
Pennell, J.
12