N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
W . M ARK FR

AZER ; KONILYNN FR AZER , Appe lla

nts, v. DEUTSC HE B ANK NATIONAL TR UST C OM PANY, a s Truste e for M orga n Stanle y AB S C a pita l I Inc Trust 2006-NC 4 its Suc c e ssors in Inte re st, Age nts, Assigne e s a

nd/or Assignors a

n d through its Se rvic ing Age nt W e lls Fa rgo B ank N.A.; NORTHW EST TR USTEE SER VIC ES INC ., Appe lle e s. No. 12-35502 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-05454-R B L M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R o n a ld B . Le ighton, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 14, 2014 * * B e fore : LEAVY, GOULD, a n d B ER Z ON, C irc uit Judge s . 

# F IL ED OCT 21 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).C ha

pte r 7 de btors W . M ark Fra z e r and Konily nn Fra z e r a

ppe a l pro se from the d istric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt a ffirm ing the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt dism issing the Fra z e rs’ a dve rsary proc e e ding a ga inst De utsc he B ank Na tiona l Trust C om

pa ny . W e hav e jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 158(d). W e re vie w inde pe nde ntly

the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s de c ision without de fe re n c e to the distric t c ourt’ s de te rm inations. Le ic hty v . N e ary (In reStrand) , 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th C ir. 2004). W e re vie w de novo theba nkruptc y c o urt’ s c onc lusions of la

w a nd for c le ar e rror its fa c tua l findings. Id. W e a ffirm . The ba nkruptc y c o urt prope rly

grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt to a

ppe l le e De utsc he B ank Na

tiona l Trust be c a

use the Fra z e rs’ loa

n is in de fa

ult, a n d a ppe lle e ha d phy sic a l posse ssion of them ortga g e note indorse d in bla nk a n d the re fore ha d the p owe r to e n forc e the m ortga ge note . S e e W a sh. R e v. C ode § 61.24.030(7) (a de c la ration by the be ne fic i ary

sta ting tha t the be ne fic i ary

is the a c t ua l holde r of the prom issory

note or othe r obliga

tion se c ure d by

the de e d of trust shall be suffic ie nt proof for nonjudic ia l fore c losure ); Trujillo v . N w . Tr. Se rv

s., Inc
. , 326 P.3d 768, 774 (W a sh. C t . App. 2014) (holding tha t “ [a ] bse nt c onflic ting e vide nc e , the de c la ration [of a note holde r unde r W a s h. R e v. C ode § 61.24.030(7)] should be take n a s true ” ). W e re j e c t the Fra z e rs’ c onte ntions c onc e rning a lle ge dly ina de quate
1 2
- 3 5 5 0 2 2disc ove ry , a lle ge d due proc e ss viola tions, a nd c la im s arising from

the pooling a

nd se rvic ing a gre e m e nt to whic h the y we re not pa

rtie s. W e do not c onside r any

doc um e nts a

tta c he d to theFra z e rs’ ope ning brie f that are not pa

rt of the distric t c ourt re c ord. S e e K irshne r v . Unide n C

orp. of Am. , 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th C ir. 1988). The Fra z e rs’ m otion to strike De utsc he B a

nk Na tiona l Trust C om

pa ny ’ s answe ring brie f, se t forth in theFra z e rs’ re ply brie f, is de nie d. The Fra z e rs’ m otion to re m ove or disqua lify De utsc h e B ank Na tiona l Trust C om pa ny ’ s c ounse l, La

ne Powe ll, PC , a

nd M r. Spe llm an, on theba sis of Spe llm an’ s pre vious repre se ntation, se t forth in theFra z e rs’ re ply brie f, is de nie d. Se e W a sh. R . Prof’ l C onduc t 1.9(a ) (no viola tion of a n attorne y ’ s duty

to a form e r c lie nt whe re c urre nt re p re se ntation is not “ substa ntia lly re late d” to pre vious re pre se ntation). AFFIRM E D.

1 2
- 3 5 5 0 2 3