U.S. Bank National Association v. Georgia Plumb, 34615-3

In August 2004 the Plumbs borrowed $360,000, executing a promissory note and deed of trust; the deed was recorded August 31, 2004 and the beneficial interest was later assigned to U.S. Bank.
The Plumbs stopped payments after missing the March 1, 2009 payment, claiming fraud as the reason for nonpayment; U.S. Bank served a default notice June 13, 2009.
U.S. Bank filed a foreclosure complaint December 26, 2013; it moved for summary judgment in May 2015 and the superior court granted summary judgment and decree of foreclosure.
The Plumbs challenged U.S. Bank’s standing at the time suit was filed, submitting a hearsay “Note Location Determined” record they said showed U.S. Bank lacked the original note when suit began.
The Plumbs also asserted theories of fraud (inflated appraisal, coercion, forgery), laches based on delay in filing, and constitutional claims (due process/equal protection); they sought sanctions and fees.
The court rejected the Plumbs’ evidence as inadmissible hearsay, found no admissible proof of fraud or forgery, held laches inapplicable because suit was within the statute of limitations, and affirmed summary judgment for U.S. Bank.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing/possession of the note at time of suit	Plumbs: a servicing "Note Location" record shows U.S. Bank did not possess the original note when suit was filed	U.S. Bank: possessed the note by summary judgment and the Plumbs’ record is hearsay and inadmissible	Court: note-location document hearsay; Plumbs failed to raise admissible material fact—U.S. Bank had requisite possession/standing
Fraud in origination/forgery of instruments	Plumbs: appraisal was inflated, they were threatened to sign, and loan documents (note/deed) were forged	U.S. Bank: no admissible evidence of false statements, knowledge, reliance, or forgery; mortgage follows the note	Court: fraud elements not met; alleged forgeries do not undermine the note; claims fail
Laches (delay in filing)	Plumbs: U.S. Bank waited >4 years after default, prejudicing defense	U.S. Bank: suit filed within six-year statute; delay not prejudicial—Plumbs benefited by remaining in home	Court: laches inapplicable—action timely under statute of limitations and no prejudice to Plumbs
Due process / equal protection; sanctions/fees	Plumbs: court prevented testimony, treated them differently; requests sanctions against U.S. Bank	U.S. Bank: Plumbs had opportunity to defend; claims unsupported; sanctions not warranted	Court: no denial of due process; equal protection claim conclusory; no sanctions or fees awarded

Coppernoll v. Reed, 155 Wn.2d 290 (Wash. 2005) (summary-judgment inquiry and evidence standards)
Lynn v. Labor Ready, Inc., 136 Wn. App. 295 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006) (opponent to summary judgment must proffer admissible facts)
Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Grp., Inc., 175 Wn.2d 83 (Wash. 2012) (mortgage is incident to the note)
Adams v. King County, 164 Wn.2d 640 (Wash. 2008) (elements of fraud)
Pedersen v. Bibioff, 64 Wn. App. 710 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992) (fraud must be proved by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence)
Puget Sound Nat'l Bank v. McMahon, 53 Wn.2d 51 (Wash. 1958) (absence of any fraud element is fatal)
Lodis v. Corbis Holdings, Inc., 172 Wn. App. 835 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (business-record exception requirements)
Assocs. Hous. Fin. LLC v. Stredwick, 120 Wn. App. 52 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (elements and purpose of laches)
In re Marriage of Hunter, 52 Wn. App. 265 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988) (laches generally not applied when action is within statute of limitations)