Opinion
37687-7-III
09-02-2021
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR STRUCTURED ASSET INVESTMENT LOAN TRUSTMORTGAGE PASS-THROUGHCERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-1, Respondents, v. GEORGIA A. PLUMB; JOSHUA C.PLUMB; KAMERON F. PLUMB; and THE WORD CHURCH, Appellants, ESTATE OF CARL PLUMB, DECEASED; UNKNOWN HEIRSAND DEVISEES OF CARL PLUMB, DECEASED;; CITIBANK, N.A.;ALSO ALL PERSONS OR PARTIESUNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY RIGHT, TITLE, LIEN, OR INTEREST IN THEPROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THECOMPLAINT HEREIN, Defendants.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
PENNELL, C.J.
Georgia A. Plumb, Joshua C. Plumb, Kameron F. Plumb, and The World Church (aka Rev. Georgia Plumb) (collectively the Plumbs) appeal a superior court order denying their motion to vacate a foreclosure order. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 2017, this court addressed an appeal between the parties regarding an order of foreclosure issued after summary judgment. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Plumb, No. 34615-3-III (Wash.Ct.App. Dec. 14, 2017) (unpublished), https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions /pdf/346153_unp.pdf. In the superior court litigation, the Plumbs argued U.S. Bank lacked standing to initiate foreclosure proceedings because the bank did not possess the applicable promissory note on the date it filed suit. We disagreed, explaining the Plumbs lacked sufficient evidence that U.S. Bank did not hold the note. The Plumbs unsuccessfully sought review of our decision in both the Washington Supreme Court, 190 Wn.2d 1010 (2018), and United States Supreme Court, 139 S.Ct. 227, reh'g denied, 139 S.Ct. 587 (2018). A mandate was issued from this court on April 19, 2018.
U.S. Bank proceeded with foreclosure proceedings in superior court. Five months after the superior court issued an order confirming sale of the subject property, the Plumbs moved to vacate under CR 60(b)(5). The Plumbs again asserted U.S. Bank lacked standing to proceed with foreclosure. According to the Plumbs, the lack of standing divested the superior court of subject matter jurisdiction, thereby rendering the court's order void. The trial court denied the motion to vacate. The Plumbs appeal.
ANALYSIS
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate.
"This court generally reviews a trial court's decision to deny a motion to vacate judgment for abuse of discretion." Castellon v. Rodriguez, 4 Wn.App. 2d 8, 14, 418 P.3d 804 (2018). "However, there is a nondiscretionary duty on the trial court to vacate a void judgment." Id. This court reviews "de novo whether a judgment is void." Id.
Alleged defects in standing do not deprive superior courts of jurisdiction over forfeiture proceedings. In re Estate of Reugh, 10 Wn.App. 2d 20, 57, 447 P.3d 544 (2019), review denied, 194 Wn.2d 1018, 455 P.3d 128 (2020) ("[I]n Washington, a plaintiff's lack of standing is not a matter of subject matter jurisdiction."); Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Slotke, 192 Wn.App. 166, 171, 367 P.3d 600 (2016) (superior courts have jurisdiction over foreclosure actions). The Plumbs therefore lacked a basis to void the superior court's order.
CONCLUSION
The order on appeal is affirmed. The Plumbs' request for fees and costs is denied.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
WE CONCUR: Siddoway, J., Fearing, J.