Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, V Albert E. Avalo, 75695-8

Background

In Dec. 2004 Alberto and Victoria Avalo executed a $388,218 promissory note secured by a deed of trust; Saxon Mortgage Inc. endorsed the note to Deutsche Bank and an assignment of the deed of trust was recorded in June 2010.
The Avalos defaulted, entered a loan modification in May 2009, defaulted again in July 2011, received a notice of default, failed to cure, and Deutsche Bank sued to enforce the note and foreclose judicially.
Deutsche Bank moved for summary judgment and produced an affidavit and the original promissory note showing possession; the trial court granted summary judgment on Feb. 13, 2015.
The Avalos opposed with a "chain of title analysis" prepared by a private investigator (MCI), argued Deutsche Bank lacked authority to foreclose, sought more discovery, and raised evidentiary and procedural objections.
The trial court denied further continuance for discovery, found the chain‑of‑title evidence irrelevant to holder status, and entered judgment for Deutsche Bank; the Avalos appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Avalo)	Defendant's Argument (Deutsche Bank)	Held
Authority to enforce note / right to foreclose	Deutsche Bank lacks authority because chain of title and alleged breaks raise questions about legitimate delivery and ownership	Deutsche Bank is the holder of the original note and therefore entitled to enforce the note and foreclose	Court: Deutsche Bank was undisputedly the holder; holder status alone entitles enforcement — summary judgment affirmed
Evidentiary admissibility of Boutin affidavit	Boutin affidavit/business records lacked personal knowledge under CR 56(e)	Affidavit was submitted but after summary judgment and therefore did not influence the ruling	Court: Boutin affidavit was filed after the summary judgment decision and could not have affected it; no error
Request for continuance to conduct additional discovery	Additional discovery was needed to confirm alleged breaks in chain of title and to obtain documents supporting MCI analysis	Chain‑of‑title evidence was irrelevant to holder status; Avalos failed to identify likely discoverable facts that would create an issue	Court: Trial court gave an initial continuance, Avalos failed to show likely discovery would create a genuine issue; denial of further continuance not an abuse of discretion
CR 54(e) procedural delay in submitting proposed order	Trial court should have required refiling or other remedy because Deutsche Bank submitted proposed order late	Remedy for delay is that opposing party could submit an order; judgments are valid absent prejudice	Court: Avalos showed no prejudice (they could timely appeal); late submission did not warrant reversal

Key Cases Cited

Hayden v. Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 141 Wn.2d 55 (standard for summary judgment review)
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Slotke, 192 Wn. App. 166 (holder status and fee award authority under deed of trust)
Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Grp., Inc., 175 Wn.2d 83 (security follows holder of the note; holder-enforcement rule)
Brown v. Dep't of Commerce, 184 Wn.2d 509 (holder status and enforcement principles)
Burton v. Ascol, 105 Wn.2d 344 (procedural error in proposed orders not reversible absent prejudice)