1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge R. Brooke Jackson

Civil Action No. 11-CV-02683-RBJ-KMT

ELLEN WESSLER and

MONTY WESSLER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COLONIAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE, a division of COLONIAL SAVINGS, F.A., 

WELLS FARGO BANK,

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRY SYSTEMS, INC., 

CASTLE STAWIARSKI, LLC,

JOHN or JANE DOES 1-1000, Unknown Investors,

JOHN ROES 1-20, Undisclosed mortgage aggregators, mortgage originators, loan sellers, 

trustees of pooled assets, and/or trustees for holders of certificates of collateralized mortgage 

obligations, and all unknown persons who claim any interest in the subject matter of this action,

Defendants.

ORDER

The case is before the Court on (1) motions to dismiss filed Wells Fargo Bank and 

Mortgage Electronic Registry Systems, Inc. [docket #38], Colonial National Mortgage, a 

Division of Colonial Savings, F.A. [#60], and Castle Stawiarski, LLC [#79]; (2) the 

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya that all three motions 

be granted [#94]; and (3) plaintiffs’ Objection to portions of the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation [#101]. 

Standard of Review

The standards for considering Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss are well 

known and are fully reiterated in Judge Tafoya’s recommendation. This Court must determine 

de novo the part of the magistrate judge’s recommendation to which plaintiffs objected, 

Case 1:11-cv-02683-RBJ-KMT Document 104 Filed 11/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5
2

essentially the part addressing Mrs. Wessler's claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). As for parts of 

the recommendation to which no specific objections were made, essentially the part addressing 

Mr. Wessler’s claims, “[i]n the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate 

[judge’s] report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th 

Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)(“[i]t does not appear that Congress intended

to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other 

standard, when neither party objects to those findings”). 

Conclusions

I have read the original Complaint [#2]; the Amended Complaint [#35]; the three motions 

to dismiss; plaintiffs’ responses to the motions [##45, 62 and 84]; defendants’ respective replies 

to those responses [##47, 66 and 93]; the magistrate judge’s recommendation; plaintiffs’ 

objection; and the responses to the objection [## 102 and 103]. In the course of doing so I have 

studied each of the documents attached as exhibits to the Complaint [##2-1 and 2-2] and to the 

Amended Complaint [##35-1 through 35-10]. Finally, I have read the relevant Colorado statutes 

and rules and key cases cited by the parties and the magistrate judge. 

Based on that review, which I have conducted de novo even as to those parts to which no 

specific objection was noted, I conclude that the magistrate judge’s findings are well reasoned 

and are supported by the documents attached to the two iterations of the complaint and by 

plaintiffs’ non-conclusory allegations of fact, construed in plaintiffs’ favor, except for those 

allegations that are contradicted by plaintiffs’ own exhibits to their complaints. I further 

conclude that the magistrate judge’s interpretation and application of Colorado law, including 

Rules 105 and 120 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure and reported judicial interpretations

of those rules, was correct. In short, this Court finds that the 38-page recommendation was 

thorough and thoughtful. I cannot improve upon it. 

Case 1:11-cv-02683-RBJ-KMT Document 104 Filed 11/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5
3

In their objection plaintiffs take issue with the magistrate judge’s inclusion of paragraphs 

119, 120, 121 and 123 of the Amended Complaint in her list of allegations that “must be 

disregarded in whole or in part as containing unsupported assertions, conclusory statements or 

legal conclusions.” Recommendation [#94] at 21. I do not agree with plaintiffs’ criticism. The 

magistrate judge specifically found that allegations contained within paragraphs 119 and 120 

were contradicted by documents attached either to plaintiffs’ Complaint or Amended Complaint. 

Recommendation at 19 and at 20 n.11. I agree. Whereas plaintiffs alleged that “CNM” 

(Colonial National Mortgage, a division of Colonial Savings, F.A.) filed the motion for an order 

authorizing sale, the document shows that Colonial Savings, F.A. filed the motion. Verified 

Motion [#35-8] at 1. Although CNM is a division of Colonial Savings, F.A., the distinction is

not technical; rather, it goes to which entity had the right as a “qualified holder” to file the 

motion, and in this instance it was Colonial Savings, F.A. Paragraph 121 states legal 

conclusions. Paragraph 123 repeats a conclusory allegation of the plaintiffs from an earlier 

document. 

I note that in their Objection plaintiffs also rely on new information, namely, the 

Affidavit of William McCaffrey, said to be an expert in securitization of mortgage loans, and 

excerpts from Mrs. Wessler’s 2011 1099A form. These materials were not available to the 

magistrate judge. Moreover, they go beyond the allegations of the Amended Complaint and the 

documents submitted by the plaintiffs as exhibits to the Complaint and Amended Complaint, 

which is what the magistrate judge appropriately considered in ruling on defendants’ Rule 

12(b)(6) motions. Nevertheless, I conclude that the new materials, even if they were considered, 

would not change my view of the Recommendation. 

Case 1:11-cv-02683-RBJ-KMT Document 104 Filed 11/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 5
4

The other arguments in the Objection were addressed in the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation, and as indicated above, I agree with her analysis and conclusions. At bottom, 

as the documents reflect and the magistrate judge found, Mrs. Wessler executed a promissory 

note [#2-1] through which she financed the purchase of her home. It was secured by a deed of 

trust, as to which MERS was the beneficiary solely as nominee for the lender and its successors 

and assigns. At some point the lender transferred the note to Wells Fargo. See Allonge to 

Promissory Note [#2-1] at 4. Mrs. Wessler fell behind in her loan payments. At some point 

Wells Fargo endorsed the Allonge in blank. Id. The note came into the possession of Colonial 

Savings, F.A., which an attorney, consistent with Colorado law, confirmed to be a “qualified 

holder.” [#35-2]. The security followed the note, resulting in Colonial Savings’ pursuit of a Rule 

120 foreclosure action in state court. The state court held a hearing and granted the qualified 

holder’s motion for an order authorizing a foreclosure sale. Mrs. Wessler’s interest in the 

property was extinguished when the property was purchased by Colonial Savings at a public 

trustee’s foreclosure sale on September 1, 2011. The magistrate judge correctly followed and 

interpreted this chain of events, the result of which was her recommendation that the three 

motions to dismiss be granted. Plaintiffs’ numerous arguments as set forth in their lengthy 

Amended Complaint (which goes well beyond factual allegations) and their several briefs are 

either contradicted by or are irrelevant to these core facts.

I cannot deny that paperwork authored by various individuals at the Colonial entities and 

Wells Fargo was confusing and sometimes seemingly ambivalent to the interests and inquiries of 

the plaintiffs. However, try as they might, the plaintiffs cannot elevate certain defendants’ 

careless documentation of the chronology of the loan or efforts further to benefit themselves by 

securitizing the loan into an escape from the basic fact that plaintiffs (unfortunately like many 

Case 1:11-cv-02683-RBJ-KMT Document 104 Filed 11/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 5
5

other homeowners in recent years) did not keep up with their loan payments and therefore lost 

their home. The magistrate judge plainly invested a great deal of time and effort in this case and, 

in the process, skillfully separated the wheat from the chaff. 

Order

1. Motion #38 is GRANTED.

2. Motion #60 is GRANTED.

3. Motion #79 is GRANTED.

4. Recommendation #94 is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED. 

5. The Court enters this order as its final written judgment dismissing this civil action 

with prejudice. 

6. Defendants as the prevailing parties are awarded their reasonable costs pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and the procedure indicated in D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.

DATED this 28

th day of November, 2012.

BY THE COURT: 

___________________________________

R. Brooke Jackson

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02683-RBJ-KMT Document 104 Filed 11/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 5