Jp Morgan Chase Bank Na v. David Arthur Morton
49846-4
| Wash. Ct. App. | Mar 27, 2018Background
- In 2000 Morton borrowed $206,950 from Franklin Financial, signing a promissory note payable to Franklin and securing it with a deed of trust on Tacoma property.
- Morton defaulted in 2009; in 2014 Chase sued for foreclosure, alleging Franklin assigned the deed of trust to Bank One and Chase succeeded to Bank One’s interest.
- Chase alleged the original note was lost but asserted it had possessed the note when it was lost and that Franklin had indorsed the note in blank.
- For summary judgment Chase submitted affidavits: Theener provided payoff figures and business-record copies; Laird submitted an “Affidavit of Lost Note” stating Chase’s records showed Chase had possessed the note when it was lost but did not attach or identify the underlying business records.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Chase; Morton appealed, arguing the Laird statement was inadmissible hearsay and Chase produced no other evidence that it possessed the note when it was lost.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chase could rely on Laird’s affidavit statement that Chase’s business records showed possession of the note when it was lost | Laird’s affidavit is sufficient to show Chase once possessed the note and to satisfy RCW 62A.3-309 | Laird’s statement is inadmissible hearsay because the records he relied on were not attached or identified | The statement was inadmissible hearsay and should not have been considered because the underlying business records were not in the record |
| Whether summary judgment was proper without admissible evidence that Chase possessed the note when it was lost | The complaint allegations and attached instruments (note indorsed in blank) suffice; Chase claims successor status to Bank One supports possession | Morton: no admissible evidence of transfer or merger and no admissible proof of prior possession | Summary judgment was improper: with Laird’s statement excluded, Chase offered no admissible evidence it possessed the note when it was lost |
Key Cases Cited
- Podbielancik v. LPP Mortg. Ltd., 191 Wn. App. 662 (business-records-based affidavit must place the relied-on records in the record)
- Melville v. State, 115 Wn.2d 34 (affidavit asserting facts learned from documents outside the record is inadmissible hearsay)
- Barkley v. GreenPoint Mortg. Funding, Inc., 190 Wn. App. 58 (CR 56(e) personal-knowledge requirement may be satisfied by review of business records meeting RCW 5.45.020)
- Bavand v. OneWest Bank, FSB, 196 Wn. App. 813 (discusses admissibility of business records in mortgage contexts)