.' CMi_.. 2015 JAN 12 AM S-3j

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DOUGLAS S. BRYSON and NETTI M. BRYSON,Appellants,

v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY CO., a wholly owned subsidiary of Stewart Information Services Corp., Respondents, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; and NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC., Defendants. No. 71003-6-1 DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: January 12, 2015

Becker, J. — Douglas and Netti Bryson sued Stewart Title Guaranty Company (Stewart Title) for an accounting. The trial court dismissed the claim under CR 12(b)(6). Because the Brysons cannot demonstrate any set offacts, consistent with their complaint, that would impose an obligation on the former trustee of a deed oftrust to provide the debtor with an accounting, we affirm.
FACTS The Brysons have not provided this court with a record ofthe circumstances leading up to their action. Although we are mindful that they are acting pro se, we will hold pro se litigants to the same standard as an attorney. In re Marriage of Olson. 69 Wn. App. 621, 626, 850 P.2d 527 (1993).No. 71003-6-1/2 The Brysons filed this action against Stewart Title, JPMorgan Chase Bank (Chase), and Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. (NWTS) on July 15, 2013. The complaint sought to enjoin NWTS, the successor trustee of the deed of trust, and Chase from pursuing a nonjudical foreclosure of the Brysons' property scheduled for July 19, 2013. The complaint also requested "a verified accounting."1 The foreclosure sale was eventually cancelled. On September 25, 2013, the trial court granted Stewart Title's motion to 

### dismiss the Brysons' claim under CR 12(b)(6). The trial court later dismissed the claims against Chase and NWTS. 

### The Brysons sought timely review of the orderdismissing StewartTitle. 

### Buttheydid notfile a notice ofappealfrom the subsequent ordersdismissing their claims against Chase and NWTS. When the Brysons soughtto include the 

### claims against Chaseand NWTS within the scopeofreview, both Chaseand NWTS moved to dismiss. A commissioner of this court granted the motions to 

### dismiss, and a panel denied the Brysons' motion to modify. Accordingly, 

### although theBrysons' briefs include arguments directed at Chaseand NWTS, only the claim against StewartTitle is before us on appeal. ANALYSIS 

### An appellant's briefmust contain "argumentin support of the issues 

### presentedfor review, together with citations to legal authority and references to

1 Clerk's Papers at 158.No. 71003-6-1/3 relevant parts ofthe record." RAP 10.3(a)(6). Many ofthe Brysons' arguments 

### on appeal consist solely of sweeping allegations of misconduct, unsupported by 

### any reference to the record, citation to relevantauthority, or coherent legal 

### argument. Wetherefore decline to considerthem. See Saunders v. Lloyd's of London, 113 Wn.2d 330, 345, 779 P.2d 249 (1989) (appellate court will decline to 

### review an issue that is unsupported by cogent argument and briefing). Nor will 

### we consider issues and arguments raised for the first timein the Brysons' reply brief. Cowiche Canvon Conservancy v. Boslev, 118 Wn.2d 801, 809, 828 P.2d 549 (1992). 

### The Brysons' reliance onlengthy quotations from court decisions and 

### materials involving other parties orjurisdictions is equally misplaced. Most ofthe decisions involve claims arising outofalleged misconduct during thecourse of 

### foreclosure proceedings. None ofthesematerials provide any supportforthe Brysons' claims against Stewart Title. 

### We review CR 12(b)(6) dismissals de novo. FutureSelect Portfolio Mqmt., Inc. v. TremontGro. Holdings. Inc., 180Wn.2d 954, 962, 331 P.3d 29 (2014). 

### Dismissal under CR 12(b)(6) is appropriate only ifit "'appears beyond doubt'" that 

### the plaintiffcannot prove any setoffacts thatwouldjustify recovery. Burton v. Lehman, 153Wn.2d 416, 422, 103 P.3d 1230(2005), quoting Tenorev. AT&T Wireless Servs.. 136 Wn.2d 322, 330, 962 P.2d 104 (1998). We accept all facts 

### alleged in the complaint as true, and we "'may consider hypothetical facts not includedin the record.'" Burton v. Lehman, 153 Wn.2d at 422, quoting Tenore,No. 71003-6-1/4 136 Wn.2d at 330. But "if a plaintiff's claim remains legally insufficient even under his or her proffered hypothetical facts, dismissal pursuant to CR 12(b)(6) is appropriate." Gorman v. Garlock, Inc., 155 Wn.2d 198, 215, 118 P.3d 311 (2005). Contrary to Bryson's assertion, CR 12(b)(6) imposes no obligation on the trial court to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The precise basis for the Brysons' claim against Stewart Title is unclear. The complaint alleges a claim for an accounting in conjunction with Stewart Title's role as a trustee under the deed of trust. In their opening brief, the 

### Brysons assert that the "trigger event. . . that a verified accounting must be 

### produced, was an attempted invasion andtheft ofland, undercolor ofperceived authority, via a non-judicial fraudclosure action outside of judicial review."2 They further allege that StewartTitle, Chase, and NWTS conspired to commit extortion during the course of a "sham Trustee Sale."3 

### But the complaint repeatedly acknowledges that StewartTitle is no longer
a trustee and that NWTS was the successor trustee pursuing the nonjudicial 

### foreclosure. The Brysons fail to allege any facts suggesting that StewartTitle, as a former trustee, had a fiduciary duty or an interest in the propertyduring the 

### course ofthe nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding thatwould give rise to an 

### obligation to provide sometype ofaccounting to the debtor. Cf, RCW 61.24.010(3) ("The trustee orsuccessortrustee shall have nofiduciary duty or

2 Br. ofAppellant at 2. 3 Br. of Appellant at 24.

-4-No. 71003-6-1/5 fiduciary obligation to the grantor or other persons having an interest in the property subject to the deed of trust"). The Brysons also appear to allege that their claim for an accounting is based on Stewart Title's actions as a trustee at some point prior to the nonjudicial 

### foreclosure proceeding. Butthey have not identified any facts or legal theory to 

### support such a claim. Nor have they made any showing that StewartTitle, as a trustee of the deed of trust, had an obligation to provide an accounting under 

### Washington's general probate and trustlaws. See former RCW 11.97.010(3) (2011); RCW 11.106.040. 

### In summary, the Brysons have failed todemonstrate anyfacts establishing StewartTitle's obligation toprovide an accounting. Thetrial court properly dismissed their claim under CR 12(b)(6). Affirmed. 

# feksfi

WE CONCUR: 

# lr'\o^(>v jd .VSr^/ut,