N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LEE W . M ORRIS an d

DOR OTHY J. M ORR IS, individuals, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. NOR THW EST TR

USTEE SER

VIC ES, INC ., a W a shington sta

te profit c orporation; JPM OR GAN C HASE B ANK, N.A., a

nationa l l y

c h arte re d ba nk and by purc ha se aka

WASHINGTON M UTUAL B ANK, FA, a fe d e ra l sa

vings ba nk, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-35962 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-01183-SI
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M ic h a e l Sim on, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 8, 2017 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : B YB EE a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd R AKOFF, ** Se nior Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED MAY15 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Je d S. R akoff, Se n ior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.Pla intiffs-Appe l la nts Le e and Dorothy M orris a ppe a l from

the distric t
c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of De fe nda

nts-Appe lle e s Northwe s t Truste e Se rvic e s, Inc . a

nd JPM o rgan

C ha se B ank, N.A. In light of re c e nt de c isions by this C ourt a nd the Ore g on C ourt of Appe a ls be aring on theque stion of sta tutory
c onstruc tion tha

t this a ppe a l ra i se s, we va c ate the de c i sion a nd re m and the c a se to the d istric t c o urt. In 2008, Appe lla

nts de fa ulte d on a loa n use d to purc ha se the ir hom e , whic h
wa s se c ure d by

a de e d of trust. They

we re se rve d with a notic e of fore c losure , a n d the i r hom e wa s sold a

t a non-judic ia l fore c losure sa le on Ja nua ry 11, 2012. The re a fte r, Appe lla

nts brought this a

c tion c ha lle n ging theva l idity of the sa le unde r the O re gon Trust De e d Ac t (“ OTDA” ), whic h gove rns the non-judic ia l fore c losure
and sa l e of prope rty

by a truste e . The distric t c ourt c onc lude d tha t, be c a use a ppe lla nts ha d notic e of the sa le and ra ise d the ir c ha lle nge only a fte r the sa le wa s c om ple t e d, the ir c ha lle nge wa s ba rre d by the OTDA. Se e Or. R e v. Stat . § 86.797(1) (providing tha

t “ [i] f, unde r [the provisions of the OTDA] , a

truste e se lls prope rty
c ove re d by

a trust de e d, the truste e ’ s sa l e fore c lose s a n d te rm inate s the inte re st in the p rope rty

tha t be longs to a

pe rson to whic h notic e of the sa le wa s give n” ). 1

1 B e fore the re num

be ring of se ve ra l provisions of the OTDA in 2013, this se c t ion wa s num

be re d Or. R e v . Stat. § 86.770. W e re fe r to it by its c urre nt c ita

tion. 2Sinc e the distric t c ourt re nde re d its de c i sion, we have de c ide d tha t apostsa le c ha lle nge is not ba

rre d by Or. R e v. Stat. § 86.797(1) if, a nd only if, it is “ ba se d on la c k of notic e or som e othe r funda m e nta l fla w in thefore c losure proc e e d ings,
suc h a s the sa le b e ing c om

ple te d without the

borrowe r a c tua lly

be ing in de fa

ult.” W oods v
. U.S. Bank

N .A. , 831 F.3d 1159, 1166 (9th C ir. 2016) (c ita tion omi tte d). In a ddition, the

Ore gon C ourt of Appe a ls re c e ntly he ld tha t “ the pa rtic ipat ion of a

‘ t ruste e ’ is so funda

m e nta l to a

‘ truste e ’ s sa le ’ ” tha

t Or. R e v. Stat. § 86.797(1) doe s not ba r a post-sa le c ha l le nge a lle ging tha t the sa l e of prope rty

wa s not c onduc te d by a truste e . W

olf v . GMAC

Mortg., LLC

, 370 P.3d 1254, 1256 (Or. Ct. App. 2016); s e e also Bank

of Am. v . Pay n e , 379 P.3d 816, 819 (Or. C t. App. 2016) (a dopting W

olf ’ s holding); D iGre

gorio v . Bay v ie w

Loan Se r v ic ing, LLC, 381 P.3d 961, 965-67 (Or. C t. App. 2016) (holding tha t Or. R e v. Stat. § 86.797 “ doe s not
m andate stric t c om

p lia nc e with e ve ry provision of the OTDA for a

truste e ’ s sa le to be va lid,” but re -a ffirm ing W o lf ’ s holding). W e the re fore va c ate the de c ision be l ow a nd re m and the c a se to the distric t
c ourt, whic h should re -e v a luate , in light of the de c isions in W

oods , W olf , Pay ne , and DiGre

gorio , whe the r Or. R e v. Stat. § 86.797 ba rs Appe lla

nts’ c h a lle nge to the
va lidity of the sa le of the ir hom e . V ACAT E D AND RE M ANDE D.
3