Espeland v. OneWest Bank, FSB
323 P.3d 2
Alaska2014Background
- Espelands refinanced 2005 loan with E-Loan; loan securitized with IndyMac/Deutsche Bank; MERS listed as nominal holder; loan later defaulted and non-judicial foreclosure completed by OneWest/Alaska Trustee; RESPA requests were made but full disclosures were denied; FDIC/indemnities involved as IndyMac entered receivership and sale to OneWest; superior court granted summary judgment for defendants and denied relief from judgment; on appeal Espelands pro se challenge both decisions; court upheld summary judgment and denial of Rule 60(b)(3) relief after reviewing alleged chain-of-title defects and alleged fraud; record showed servicing rights transferred and foreclose conducted within authority of master servicer and trustee; no genuine issues of material fact established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Garfield declaration was properly considered | Espelands contend declaration should be admitted | Court properly deemed untimely/incomplete | No abuse of discretion; declaration not properly admitted |
| Whether there were genuine issues of material fact on chain of title and foreclosure authority | Chain-of-title defects preclude foreclosure | Transfers/authority valid; foreclose proper | No genuine issues; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether RESPA claim required exhaustion of administrative remedies | RESPA claim valid despite exhaustion | FDIC receiver status barred jurisdiction; exhaustion required | RESPA claim properly denied for lack of exhaustion |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(3) relief was properly denied | Fraud evidenced by log notes | No clear and convincing fraud showing; arguments duplicative | No abuse of discretion; Rule 60(b)(3) relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Erkins v. Alaska Trustee, 265 P.3d 292 (Alaska 2011) (standards for appellate review of summary judgment and evidence-based rulings)
- Kelly v. Mun. of Anchorage, 270 P.3d 801 (Alaska 2012) (adequacy of evidentiary showing; summary judgment considerations)
- Boyko v. Anchorage Sch. Dist., 268 P.3d 1097 (Alaska 2012) (summary judgment standard and admissibility of evidence)
- McCarthy v. F.D.I.C., 348 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2003) (administrative exhaustion and RESPA-related issues in fedeial context)
- Hymes v. DeRamus, 222 P.3d 874 (Alaska 2010) (fraud standard and Rule 60(b) considerations)