Walker v. Washington Mutual Bank, F.A., 022814 FED9, 12-15264

Docket Nº:12-15264
Party Name:GEORGE M. WALKER; DIANE W. WALKER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: ALARCÓN, O'SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:February 28, 2014
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

GEORGE M. WALKER; DIANE W. WALKER, Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-15264

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

February 28, 2014

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted February 18, 2014 [*]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona No. 2:11-cv-00584-SRB, Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

Before: ALARCÓN, O'SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [**]

George M. Walker and Diane W. Walker appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Zadrozny v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 720 F.3d 1163, 1167 (9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the wrongful foreclosure claims because plaintiffs do not dispute that they defaulted on their loan and they failed to allege facts to dispute the trustee's statutory right to foreclose. See Hogan v. Wash. Mut. Bank, N.A., 277 P.3d 781, 784 (Ariz. 2012) (en banc) (dispositive question is whether trustee had statutory right to foreclose on deed of trust); see also Zadrozny, 720 F.3d at 1171 ("Arizona law recognizes a successor trustee's authority to initiate and conduct a foreclosure sale after the borrowers' default, without any requirement that the beneficiary demonstrate possession of the note underlying the deed of trust."). In addition, the trustee on the deed of trust was not required to record changes to the beneficiary under the deed of trust. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-404(G).

The district court properly dismissed the claim based on insufficient notice because plaintiffs did not allege that defendants had not mailed the required notices. See Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-809(C).

The district court properly dismissed the quiet title claim because plaintiffs did not allege facts showing that the loan has been repaid. See Farrell v. West, 114 P.2d 910, 911 (Ariz. 1941) (where "it appears there is an unsatisfied balance due to a defendant-mortgagee, or his assignee, the court will not quiet the title until and unless [plaintiff] pays off such mortgage lien").

Because plaintiffs failed to allege that they filed a timely administrative claim under the Financial Institutions Reform...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP