IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST 

COMPANY, as Trustee for Long Beach 

Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4,

Respondent,

v. 

JOHN E. ERICKSON AND SHELLEY A. 

ERICKSON, individuals residing in 

Washington,

Appellants,

BOEING EMPLOYEES' CREDIT UNION, a 

Washington corporation; AMERICAN 

GENERAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., a 

Delaware corporation; TBF FINANCIAL, 

LLC, an Illinois limited-liability corporation; 

JUSTIN. PARK & ROMERO PARK & 

WIGGINS, PS, a Washington professional 

services corporation; RANDAL 

EBBERSON, an individual residing in 

Washington; THE LAW FIRM OF KEATING 

BUCKLIN & MCCORMICK, INC, PS, a 

Washington professional services 

corporation; CITY OF AUBURN, 

WASHINGTON, a Washington municipality; 

CHARLES JOINER, an individual residing 

in Washington; PAUL KRAUSS, an 

individual residing in Washington; DAN 

HEID, an individual residing in Washington; 

SHELLEY COLEMAN, an individual 

residing in Washington; BRENDA 

HEINEMAN, an individual residing in 

Washington; and THE WASHINGTON 

CITIES INSURANCE AUTHORITY, a 

municipal organization of Washington 

public entities,

Defendants.

No. 85006-7-I

DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION
No. 85006-7-I/2

2

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., a 

national banking association; LONG 

BEACH MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, 2006-

4; and JOHN DOES 1-99,

Third Party Defendants.

SMITH, C.J. — This is the fourth appeal before this court arising from John 

and Shelley Erickson’s 2009 default on their mortgage. Deutsche Bank National 

Trust Company (Deutsche Bank), via its corporate assignee, executed on the 

foreclosure judgment and purchased the property at a sheriff’s sale. The 

Ericksons appeal the trial court’s orders confirming the sheriff’s sale and denying 

reconsideration. They argue that Deutsche Bank’s corporate assignee is a 

“nonparty” that lacked authority to enforce the judgment or purchase the property 

as a judgment creditor. They also argue that an error in the judgment amount 

upon which the sale was based requires reversal. We conclude that the 

Deutsche Bank was authorized to act via its corporate assignee. But because 

the sheriff’s sale was confirmed based on a substantial miscalculation of the 

judgment amount, we remand to the trial court for a determination as to whether 

this irregularity requires a new sale.

FACTS1

John and Shelley Erickson used their home in Auburn to secure a 

$476,000 loan from Long Beach Mortgage Company. Long Beach was part of 

 

1 We adopt the facts as set out in the opinion from the direct appeal in this 

matter. Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co. for Long Beach Mort. Loan Tr. 2006-4 v. 

Erickson, No. 73833-0-I (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2017) (unpublished), http://

www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/738330.pdf (Erickson II).
No. 85006-7-I/3

3

Washington Mutual, Inc., until it failed. Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co. for Long 

Beach Mort. Loan Tr. 2006-4 v. Erickson, No. 73833-0-I, slip op. at 2 (Wash. Ct. 

App. Feb. 13, 2017) (unpublished), http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/

738330.pdf (Erickson II). JP Morgan Chase purchased Washington Mutual’s 

assets. Erickson II, slip op. at 2. Shortly after executing the loan, Long Beach 

sold it into Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4. Id. at 2-3. Deutsche Bank 

was the trustee of the Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust. Id. at 3. J.P. Morgan 

Chase later assigned its beneficial interest under the deed of trust to Deutsche 

Bank. Id. 

The Ericksons defaulted on their payments in 2009. Id. The Ericksons 

filed suit against Deutsche Bank in 2010, arguing the bank lacked standing to 

enforce the note because it was not the original creditor and could not produce 

the original note. Id. The lawsuit was removed to federal court, which held that 

the defendants provided sufficient evidence to prove their ownership of the note 

and dismissed the lawsuit on summary judgment. Erickson v. Long Beach 

Mortg. Co., No. 10-1423 MJP, 2011 WL 830727 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 2, 2011)

(court order) (Erickson I), aff’d., 473 F. App’x. 746 (9th Cir. 2012). 

In January 2014, Deutsche Bank filed a foreclosure action in King County 

Superior Court to foreclose on the Ericksons’ property. The trial court granted 

Deutsche Bank’s motion for summary judgment and on August 27, 2015, entered 

a judgment and decree of foreclosure against the Ericksons. This court affirmed, 

concluding that Deutsche Bank held the note and that collateral estoppel 

prevented the Ericksons from relitigating the issue. Erickson II, slip op. at 2.
No. 85006-7-I/4

4

In 2019, the Ericksons filed a CR 60 motion in superior court to vacate the 

2015 judgment on the ground that Deutsche Bank did not hold the note and 

therefore could not foreclose. Erickson v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. for Long 

Beach Mort. Loan Tr. 2006-4, No. 81648-9-I, slip op. at 2-3 (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 

29, 2021), http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/816489.pdf (Erickson III). The 

trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank and this court 

affirmed. Erickson III, slip op. at 1. 

In 2020, the Ericksons filed suit against attorneys who represented 

Deutsche Bank in Erickson II and Erickson III, arguing that they perpetrated fraud 

upon the court because Deutsche Bank did not properly hold the note. Erickson 

v. Power, No. 82755-3-I, slip. op. at 4 (Wash. Ct. App. April 25, 2022), http://

www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/827553.pdf (Erickson IV). The trial court 

granted summary judgment for the defendants and this court affirmed. Erickson

IV, slip op. at 1.

A sheriff’s sale of the property was held on October 14, 2022. Deutsche 

Bank, via its corporate assignee, purchased the property under a credit bid in the 

amount of $1,146,435.80. A sheriff’s return on sale of real property issued on 

October 19, 2022 noted that the sale resulted in a deficiency of $410,423.45. 

Deutsche Bank moved for confirmation of sale. The Ericksons objected. On 

December 12, 2022, the trial court found that there were no substantial 

irregularities in the proceedings and confirmed the sale. The Ericksons

unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration.

The Ericksons now appeal. 
No. 85006-7-I/5

5

ANALYSIS

Standard of Review

Confirmation of a purchase at a judicial sale is governed by RCW 

6.21.110. A sheriff's sale must be confirmed unless “there were substantial 

irregularities in the proceedings concerning the sale, to the probable loss or injury 

of the party objecting.” RCW 6.21.110(3). “ ‘[C]onfirmation of judicial sales rests 

largely within the discretion of the trial court’ and so is reviewed for manifest 

abuse of such discretion.” Sixty-01 Ass'n of Apartment Owners v. Parsons, 181 

Wn.2d 316, 322, 335 P.3d 933 (2014) (quoting Braman v. Kuper, 51 Wn.2d 676, 

681, 321 P.2d 275 (1958)). “A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision 

is based on untenable grounds or is made for untenable reasons.” Shandola v. 

Henry, 198 Wn. App. 889, 896, 396 P.3d 395 (2017). We generally defer to a 

sale “absent substantial irregularities or great inadequacies.” Sixty-01 Ass’n, 181 

Wn.2d at 327. 

Corporate Assignee

The Ericksons do not challenge the validity of the August 27, 2015

judgment and decree of foreclosure entered in favor of Deutsche Bank as the 

judgment creditor. Rather, they argue that the trial court erred in confirming the 

sheriff’s sale because it was based on a credit bid submitted in the name of a

nonparty entity without assignment of the judgment. The Ericksons are incorrect. 

Under RCW 6.17.030, a judgment may be executed upon in the name of 

an assignee. The statute provides in relevant part:
No. 85006-7-I/6

6

When a judgment recovered in any court of this state has 

been assigned, execution may issue in the name of the assignee 

after the assignment has been recorded in the execution docket by 

the clerk of the court in which the judgment was recovered.

RCW 6.17.030.

This process was properly followed. On November 8, 2018, a Corporate 

Assignment of Deed of Trust was recorded in King County. The assignment 

identified the assignor as “Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee 

for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4” and the assignee as “Deutsche 

Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, in Trust for Registered Holders of 

Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 

2006-4.” Based on this recorded assignment, Deutsche Bank’s corporate 

assignee was authorized to execute on the foreclosure judgment and purchase 

the property as a judgment creditor at the sheriff’s sale. Contrary to the 

Ericksons’ claim, there is no doubt as to the identity of the purchaser and no 

need to substitute parties.

2 The trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

confirming the sheriff’s sale or in denying reconsideration as to this issue. 

Redemption Amount 

The Ericksons also assign error to the trial court's confirmation of the 

sheriff’s sale based on “an erroneously calculated value of the underlying 

 

2 Deutsche Bank acknowledges that the sheriff’s return on sale of real 

property appears to have left out the phrase, “In Trust for Registered Holders” in 

identifying its corporate assignee as the credit bidder that purchased the 

property. We agree with Deutsche Bank that this omission does not put the 

identity of the purchaser in question or prejudice the Ericksons in any way. 
No. 85006-7-I/7

7

judgment and which created the wrong amount for redemption.”

3 They contend 

that the error amounts to a substantial irregularity that warrants overturning the 

sale. For the first time on appeal, Deutsche Bank acknowledges that there was 

an apparent error in the amount of prejudgment interest calculated under the 

accepted bid, and that as a result, the Ericksons were notified that the amount 

required to redeem the property was $141,712.13 higher than it should have 

been. On August 30, 2023, in an effort to correct the error, Deutsche Bank filed 

an amended “Notice of Expiration of Redemption Period” in superior court that 

reflects a reduced redemption amount. Deutsche Bank asserts that this 

correction maintained the rights of all parties and that no further action is 

necessary. In reply, the Ericksons argue that the miscalculation amounts to a 

substantial irregularity that created an excessive deficiency and reduced the time 

for them to exercise their redemption rights. They assert that the error requires 

reversal and remand to the superior court with instructions to set aside the order 

confirming sale. 

Chapter 6.23 RCW governs the statutory redemption of real property sold 

at a sheriff's sale. The judgment debtor or their successor may redeem the 

property from the purchaser within one year after the date of the sale. RCW 

6.23.020(1)(b); Performance Constr. v. Glenn, 195 Wn. App. 406, 409, 380 P.3d 

618 (2016). If no redemption is made within the one-year redemption period, the 

 

3 Although not entirely clear, it appears that the Ericksons raised this 

issue for the first time in their motion for reconsideration. 
No. 85006-7-I/8

8

purchaser is entitled to a sheriff's deed. RCW 6.23.060; Performance, 195 Wn. 

App. at 418.

Here, the one-year statutory redemption period commenced when the 

property was sold on October 14, 2022. As Deutsche Bank now acknowledges, 

the Notice of Expiration of Redemption Period affirmatively misinformed the 

Ericksons that the amount required to redeem the property was $141,712.13 

higher than it should have been.4 Deutsche Bank asserts that the amended 

notice cured the error but, as the Ericksons point out, it was filed only six weeks 

before the one-year redemption period expired on October 14, 2023. 

Based on the record before us, it is unclear if the trial court considered 

whether the miscalculation amounted to a “substantial irregularit[y]” that resulted 

in “probable loss or injury” to the Ericksons. See RCW 6.21.110(3). Although

the matter was raised in the motion to reconsider, and the court indicated that 

there was no basis for reconsideration, it failed to specifically address this new 

issue raised. Nor has the trial court had an opportunity to address whether the 

amended Notice of Expiration of Redemption Period cured the error. 

We therefore remand to the trial court to enter findings of fact, conclusions

of law, and an order addressing these matters. Specifically, the court should 

consider (1) the basis and amount of the miscalculation, (2) whether the 

amended notice cured the error, and (3) whether a new sale is required on the 

ground that the miscalculation amounted to a “substantial irregularit[y] in the 

 

4 We also note that neither the original nor the amended Notice of 

Expiration of Redemption Period includes the sheriff’s address, as 

RCW 6.23.030(3) requires. 
No. 85006-7-I/9

9

proceedings concerning the sale, to the probable loss or injury of the party 

objecting.” RCW 6.21.110(3).

Remanded. 

WE CONCUR: