Vawter v. Recontrust Co. NA, 032814 FED9, 12-16346
|Party Name:||JULIE M. VAWTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RECONTRUST COMPANY NA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: FARRIS, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||March 28, 2014|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Argued and Submitted March 13, 2014 San Francisco, California
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona G. Murray Snow No. 2:11-cv-01916-GMS, District Judge, Presiding
Plaintiff Julie Vawter appeals from the district court's dismissal of her complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and denial of her motions for leave to amend, preliminary injunctive relief, and reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review the dismissal of Vawter's complaint de novo and the denial of her motions for abuse of discretion. See Zadrozny v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 720 F.3d 1163, 1167 (9th Cir. 2013) (motion to dismiss); Sylvia Landfield Trust v. City of L.A., 729 F.3d 1189, 1191 (9th Cir. 2013) (leave to amend); Evans v. Shoshone-Bannock Land Use Policy Comm'n, 736 F.3d 1298, 1301-02 (9th Cir. 2013) (preliminary injunction); Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir. 2013) (reconsideration). We affirm.
Vawter contends that the beneficial rights in the deed of trust to her property were not validly assigned from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., to The Bank of New York Mellon Corp., and that ReconTrust Co., N.A., was not validly substituted as trustee in place of Fidelity National Title Insurance Co. However, this argument is refuted by the documents attached to the motion to dismiss. The Deed of Trust provided that the beneficiary would be MERS and its "successors and assigns." In the Corporation Assignment of Deed of Trust, MERS assigned its beneficial rights to BNYM. In the Substitution of Trustee, BNYM appointed ReconTrust as successor trustee. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-804(B). Each of these documents was properly considered by the district court as a public record, see Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031, 1038 (9th Cir. 2010), and as a document necessarily relied on by the complaint, see Daniels-Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). Pursuant to these documents and Arizona law, ReconTrust had the authority to sell the property upon default. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-807(A); see also...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP