those debts those are those are descriptions tell me how she was damaged there is extensive damage to her credit they declared her to be in default when she had consistently made her payments over many years to the tune of three hundred eleven thousand dollars every month on time so you can show your contending in this case that she's not in default on the she yes there was i don't know where when there's no unclear is different i'm i'm i'm look i don't find that any place in your allegations in this case in other words if this is simply a case where you're saying i'm current on the loan that's a different case than you but i read your complaint is saying i don't have to pay on the loan because it's void because it's been transferred are you saying that your client is current on the loan she she made her payments every month until it's not clear what she started challenging  because all of a sudden she would started getting letters from you know i usually as you understand it the interest in your argument that she doesn't have to pay on the loan i'm asking a very different question is are you contending that this record suggests that your client is current on the loan and therefore the notice of default simply should have been issued at all she stopped making payments at some point because and the case was very clear on that and i don't just enter my question she stopped  payments and and you are you say i have an excuse for stop yes ok yes so let's let's be clear here can he excuse was well her contention is that when she started receiving correspondence and notices threatening foreclosure threatening a short sale on her property that she didn't have never heard of who these people were about nor had she stopped paying on the loan not at that point so your contention that your contention is she was current on the loan when she first got notices foreclosure yes yes the notice of default was issued by city by northwest trustee services who was not lawfully appointed under washington state well you say that here's here's my problem under washington state law the trustee is entitled to proceed if somebody gives them a certificate that they're the holder of the note and u s bank did that here did they not ok you say you were injured because a notice of foreclosure was issued and it was issued by the trustee was it not yes and the trustee under washington law in this record contains it is absolved from any responsibility in issuing a notice of foreclosure if in fact somebody has given them a certificate that they're the holder of the note and therefore duly authorized to appoint them as the beneficiary and u s bank in this allegation of fraud and i think you don't have any evidence to support fraud what you may have evidence to support is that the chain of title if you will isn't fully compliant with washington law but do you have any evidence to then then the one to comply with the statute in california as to what you have to demonstration washington washington washington law in terms of what you have to demonstrate as to who the that's that's our that's our problem with this case so that we don't know who murders claims that she to be able to make the assignment they weren't able to make the assignment because mers doesn't hold the note or the first does first didn't assign the note mer me ask a different question here because i tried to ask you the beginning you want to pay off this mortgage yes she wanted to pay off you want to pay it off now yes we put you in mediation i bet you don't take your money well now it's gone too far i mean no no no i mean  this i'm asking you the question you had tried to pay this law i understand all that yes you want to pay off the mortgage she wants to make be able to make monthly payments to the proper party who those payments well too my guess is if you want to pay it off we can send you outside and you can settle this and five minutes we will and you can go to the district court and get an order that absolved that says the person you're paying to is credited against the note do you really want to pay it off of course but is it ok for them to violate the statute i'm not sure they have that's not the question i'm asking so one of the things you think you're complaining about is i don't know who to give the money to that's one of them yes i bet you we can solve that for you i bet you i bet you the district court can solve it for you i bet you these two people can solve it i'm sure they would be able to come up with some ok so so let's zoom back into discovery in the district court i'm not talking about discovery or anything else i'm just look there's two possibilities nice cases one is i don't want to pay but i want to keep the house the other possibility is i want to pay do you want to pay yes and she wants to keep the house so we put this in mediation i bet you guys can fix this we're not here this isn't mediation we're here to litigate i'm nice when i'm not what i i know you're here to litigate you may have a bunch of claims you here to litigate that you're going to lose on is my concern if you really want to buy pay off the loan you may be better off in mediation than in litigation but if you don't really want to pay off a loan and then go ahead with your litigation or get well i mean part of the problem is that she had attempted over and over to contact them and they you know part of the law is that they have to respond to borrowers inquiries when there's a notice of default or or it any kind of correspondence like they've they've removed the foreclosure notice right but surely she attempted to correspond with them and communicate with them so that she could start getting back on track yes the deed of trust act is very detailed and specific have you had stat course of action we this was a pro se complaint that was raised and you came in you could have thousands of men complain if we if we is the problem here that you that seems to can frys to concerns is they're not responding as a statute requires them to respond but that's not the complaint well she tried her best to allege it as she could we were given an extremely short window of time to respond to summary district court somewhere along the way your honor we'd like to you know i know we're in summary judge you are not an emotion of dismiss any more but we have a bunch of other claims we might we might bring we we were forced to just yes this wasn't a motion to dismiss right so that was your correct but we we didn't have enough time to even make any other arguments because as you say that to the district judge i don't recall what  the statutes don't require that people show you the notice is the beneficiary declaration issue yes the trustee has to have the beneficiary declaration and they don't necessarily have to show you the note but if the trustee doesn't even investigate good morning and may please the court crystal chase on behalf of the police select portfolio servicing or s p s and merce with me at counsel table as counsel for appealing bank of america casey curtis and he and i will split our time for  service or for the loan it started service seen as of december one two thousand and twelve that's an e r thirty three is a letter to borrower saying servicing is transferring from bank of america to s the whole holds the note to be valid the we have to know that and assuming that s b s is and reading it is the beneficiary it does it's a beneficiary as nominee for somebody but it's still the beneficiary that is what they did ok and then murders transfers it's beneficial interest in the deed of trust it interest as beneficiary to us bank as trustee via an assignment of trust right and that's that's recorded that's recorded ok so my question is and i think it's the issue your your opponent raises is it the or any requirement that anybody established that mers was an actual beneficiary at the time that it signed it's beneficial interest no your honor because we there's no requirement that that assignment even exist or be and yeah may be we now have plenty of evidence that us bank is the holder of the note but i i want i want to see proof that mers was the holder of the note that i think that's her argument it may not a argument but assuming it was there's washington law require that no washington law does not require that that's a little bit what pain is about and that's really the show me the note argument is and it is and in this case to your honor i it's evident from  declaration that she went to counsel's office and viewed the note so i'm not sure that this is even a show me that well she kind of you know we all everybody agrees the note exists in this case at least there's no fight about the note exists and i don't think there's a fight that it was indorse in blank so it's belongs to whatever physically possesses it at the time it's a bare bone her argument is i don't i think this figuring to put a different user words i think the original data trust was fraudulent because argument possible i can for this which may not work she's saying what you've got to show us bank you may have shown me you've got the note to support but that's not enough because you've got to show that you got it appropriately and i need evidence that murders actually transferred to you i know you know is that required under washington law no washington law doesn't require that and in fact it's clear that to the extent that there is  assignment in the record but that's just a sign of the beneficial of the interest as beneficiary but and i think my point is even if that assignment wasn't in the record washington law would still say the beneficiary is the holder of the note that what are c w six one point two four point zero five some two thought and so the trusted follows the know so even if we didn't have that assignment or even if this court had concerns about the validity of mars its ability to execute that assignment this foreclosure would still be valid and where there wasn't a for course for this the parties who were sued still would not be liable for attempted wrongful foreclosure there's a washington case that says if a wrongful notice of foreclosure is issued the washington lost suggests that you may be entitled to recover expenses that were incurred because of that wrongful notice of foreclosure is that a fair statement of washington law i'm not suggesting there was a wrongful notice in this case but let's assume there was a wrongful notice of foreclosure could under the under the g t a and which i guess is incorporated into  consumer protection act would there be a cause of action so no your honor that's what frias from two thousand and fourteen washington decision for you says there's no action for wrongful foreclosure is a reaction for violation of the deed of trust act well that's what free us was discussing was a wrongful foreclosure claim brought as a violation of the deed of trust right but that was for wrongful foreclosure i'm trying to i thought there was at least some suggestion in the washington cases that even if there wasn't a wrongful foreclosure response at the time the response was filed she was represented by counsel and there's no entry in the record that she requested additional time or submitted at fifty sixty declaration identifying that discover three good morning your honor is that you curtis on behalf of bank of america and actually really don't have very much to add i think my colleague covered for s b s covered most of it the only things that i wanted to focus on is how bank of america was slightly differently situated because your colleague says we didn't know she didn't know to whom to send someone to know who sent payments up until the least the time that s p s energy picture had you constantly been to service or from the beginning we beneficiary not was doing that in context of a case where mers was attempting to fork foreclose and effectively was addressing whether mers who potentially didn't have a note had the ability to initiate foreclosure proceedings on its own right and so in the that context that that would not be appropriate  law would be the deed of trust would continue to follow whoever holds the know even though it just may affect your ability to foreclose and me in fact the title issues if there was an end intervening person it's a come in and right i mean a lot of you remember there there's there's there's kind of two aspects of this that we're looking