NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; QUALITY LOAN SERVICE …

[Pages:31]No. 43294 -3 -II

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, DIVISION II

OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

KEITH PELZEL,

Appellant,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON; HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL

NETWORK, INC.; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION

SYSTEMS, INC., ? Respondents,

BRIEF OF APPELLANT

Keith Pelzel, Pro -Se 1121 Harrison Ave #500 Centralia, WA 98531 253) 208 9078

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Authorities

A.

INTRODUCTION

B.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

1)

Assignments of Error

2) Issues Pertaining to Assignments of Error

C.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

D.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

E.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

E.

CONCLUSION

Appendix

2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Table of Cases Washington Cases

Page

Bain v. Metropolitan Mortgage, Supreme Court

Cause No. 86206 -I Bordeaux v. Ingersoll Rand Co., 71 Wn.2d 392,

429 P. 2d 207 ( 1967)

Bradburn v. ReconTrust, et al. 1 No. 11 -2- 08345-2 ............................

Burton v. Lehman, 153Wn.2d 416, 103P; 3d 1230 ( 2005)

Christensen v. Grant County Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 152 Wn.2d 299,

96 P. 3d 957 ( 2004) Cox v. Helenius, 103 Wn.2d 383, 693 P. 2d 683 ( 1985)

Gaspar v. Peshastin Hi -Up Growers, 131 Wn. App. 630, 128 P. 3d 627 ( 2006), review denied, 158 Wn.2d 1029 ( 2007).....

Glidden v. Municipal Auth. ofTacoma, 111 Wn.2d 341, 758 P. 2d 487 ( 1988)

Griffith v. Centex Real Estate Corp., 93 Wn. App. 202,

969 P. 2d 486 ( 1998), 137 Wn.2d 1034 ( 1999)

Haberman v. Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys., 109 Wn.2d 107,

744 P. 2d 1032 ( 1987) Halvorson v. Dahl, 89 Wn.2d 673, 574 P. 2d 1190 ( 1978)

Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safe co Title Ins. Co.,

105 Wn.2d 778, 719 P. 2d 531 ( 1986)

Hoffer v. State, 110 Wn.2d 415, 755 P. 2d 781 ( 1988)

In reMarriage ofKaseburg, 126 Wn. App. 546,

108 P. 2d 1278 ( 2005)

Indoor Billboard/Washington, Inc. v. Integra Telecom of

Washington, Inc., 162 Wn.2d 59, 170 P. 3d 10 ( 2007)

Kezner v. Landover Corp., 87 Wn. App. 458,

942 P. 2d 1003 ( 1990), review denied, 134 Wn.2d 1020 ( 1998)

Klem v. Washington Mutual Bank and Quality Loan Service, 2013 WL

791816 ( 2013)

Lawson v. State, 107 Wn.2d 444, 730 P. 2d 1308 ( 1986)

McNeil v. Powers, 123 Wn. App. 577, 97 P. 3d 760 ( 2004)

Nordstrom, Inc. v. Tampourlo,s, 107 Wn 2d 735, 733 P. 2d 208 ( 1987)

3

Peoples Nat'! Bank of Wash. v. Ostrander, 6 Wn. App. 28,

491 P. 2d 1058 ( 1971)

Plein v. Lackey, 149 Wn.2d 214, 67 P. 3d 1061 ( 2003)

Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd, 142 Wn.2d 68, 11 P. 3d 726 ( 2000)

Short v. Demopolis, 103 Wn.2d 52, 691 P. 2d 163 ( 1984) Standlee v. Smith, 83 Wn.2d405, 518 P. 2d 721 ( 1974) State v. Vasquez, 148 Wn.2d 303, 59 P. 3d 648 ( 2002)

Suleimanv. Lasher, 48 Wn. App. 373, 739 P. 2d 712,

review denied, 109 Wn.2d 1005 ( 1987) Tenore v. AT & T Wireless Servs., 136 Wn.2d 322,

962 P. 2d 104 ( 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1171 ( 1999)

Webb v. Ray, 38 Wn. App. 675, 688 P. 2d 534,

review denied, 103 Wn.2d 1010 ( 1984)

Walker v Quality Loan Service Corp. of Washington et all.,No. 65975 -8 -1

2013) Williams v Leone & Keeble, Inc., 171 Wn. 2d 726,

254 P. 3d 818 ( 2011)

Federal Cases

Bain v. OneWestBank, F.S.B., 2011 WL 917385 ( W.D. Wash., 2011)

Dean v. Aurora Bank F.S.B., Slip Copy,

2011 WL 3812653 ( W.D. Wash., 2011) Grella v. Salem Five Cent Savings Bank, 42 F. 3d 26 ( 9th Cir. 1994) Hinduja v. Arco Prods. Co., 102 F.3d 987 ( 9th Cir. 1996) In re Bialac, 694 F.2d 625 ( 9th Cir. 1982)

In re Cedar Bayou, Ltd, 456 F. Supp. 278 ( W.D. Pa., 1978) In re Essex Properties, Ltd, 430 F. Supp. 1112 ( N.D. Cal., 1977)

In re Hubbel, 427 B. R. 789 ( N.D. Cal., 2010) In re Johnson, 756 F. 2d 738 ( 9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied,

474 U.S. 828 ( 1985) In re Matter ojWinslow, 39 B. R. 869 ( B. R. 1984) In reveal, 450 B. R. 897 ( 9th Cir. 2011) ......... Rhone -Poulenc Swfactants and Specialties, L.P. v. C.IR.,

249 F. 3d 175 ( 3d Cir. 2001)

United Cos. Financial Corp. v. Brantley,

6 B.R. 178 ( Bankr.N.D. Fla., 1980) Weingartner v. Chase Home Finance, LLC,

702 F. Supp.2d 1276 ( D. Nev., 2010) Wilcox v. First Interstate Bank -of Oregon,

815 F. 2d 522 ( 9th Cir. 1987)

Statutes

RCW 19. 86 RCW 19. 86. 020 RCW 19. 86. 920 RCW 19. 144. 010( 8) RCW 61. 24 RCW 61. 24. 030 RCW 61. 24. 040 RCW 61. 24. 040( 1)( f)(IX) RCW 61. 24. 090 RCW 61. 24. 130 RCW 61. 24. 310

Codes, Rules and Regulations

11 U. S. C. ? 362( a)( 1) 11 U. S. C. ? 1101 CR 12( b)( 6) CR 12( c)

Other Authorities

Christopher L. Peterson, Foreclosure, Subprime

Mortgage Lending, and the Mortgage Electronic

Registration System, 78 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1359 ( 2010)

Joseph L. Hoffman, Court Actions Contesting the Nonjudicial Foreclosure ofDeeds of Trust In

Washington, 59 Wash. L. Rev. 323 ( 1984)

Kevin M. Hudspeth, Clarifying Murky MFRS: Authority to

Assign the_MortgageNote-in-a-Standard Illinois Foreclosure Action ?, 31 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 1 ( 2010)

Mortgage Registry MERS Sued by Delaware Attorney General,

http: / / businessweek. com/ news /2011 -1 0- 27 /mortgageregistry -mers- sued -by- delaware- attomey- general. htrnl

last used 10/ 29111)

A.

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Keith Pelzel brings this action to the Court of Appeals

Division II because the Superior Court of Pierce County failed to account

for all the facts that are in dispute. The Court ruled for a Motion for

Summary Judgment against Appellant. Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue or issues as to any material fact and

the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Since Appellant presented genuine issues of material fact that should have been

presumed true the trial court made an error in granting Summary

Judgment.

This Court should reverse the trial court' s orders and reinstate Mr.

Pelzel' s complaint where Appellant has proved facts, presumed to be true,

that justify their recovery.

B.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

1)

Assignments of Error

1.

The trial court erred on March 02, 2012 when it granted the

Motion of Summary Judgment from Nationstar Mortgage, LLC Nationstar), Quality Loan Service Corporation of Washington ( QLSCW), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ( " MERS ") by failing to

take into consideration all the facts that are in dispute. ( CP 287 -288)

6

2) Issues Pertaining to Assignments of Error

1.

Did the trial court erroneously grant the alleged beneficiary

standing when clearly deceptive practices were used to create the alleged

standing? ( Assignment of Error Nos. 1)

2.

Did the trial court fail to understand and enforce the

Washington State statutes? ( Assignment of Error Nos. 1 - 2)

3.

Did the trial court understand that the " Deed of Trust Act

RCW 61. 24) must be construed in favor of the borrowers?

C.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant, Keith Pelzel, the owner of real property located at 6405

161st Street East, Puyallup, WA. Keith Pelzel will clearly show the many

abuses of the Deed of Trust Act "RCW 61. 24 et seq" and the violations of

the Consumer Protection Act " RCW 19. 86 et seq"

by the alleged

mortgage servicer Nationstar Mortgage, LLC and their partners ( MERS

and QLSCW). Using smoke and mirrors tactics to create standing to take

what is not rightfully theirs to take. Appellant will show substantive

violations of the statutes of Washington State and the rules of evidence

which have harmed or will harm Appellant. Here is a very simple list of

actions by Respondents.

1. Nationstar initiated foreclosure against Mr. Pelzel by mailing a

Notice of Default to Mr. Pelzel on November 13, 2009. ( CP16- 22)

7

2. QLSCW, as alleged attorney in fact for Nationstar, executes an

Appointment of Successor Trustee" dated November 17, 2009,

which is recorded into the offices of the Pierce County Recorder's

office. ( CP122 -124)

3. Nationstar, with the help of MERS, continued on its path of foreclosure of Mr. Pelzel's property by improperly and or deceitfully recording a document ( "Assignment of Deed of Trust" recorded on 12/ 07/ 2009) in Pierce County recorder' s office that would allegedly give Nationstar authority to act in this particular

case. ( CP 125 -127)

4. QLSCW, as Successor Trustee, moves forward by recording two

different " Notice of Trustee' s Sale" against Mr. Pelzel' s and his property. (CP 128 -134)

D.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Can MERS assign, as Nominee for the Beneficiary, when the

Beneficiary for whom MERS is a Nominee for no longer has an

interest in the promissory note.

2. Can MERS assign what it does not possess?

8

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download