William Leahy, Et Ux v. Quality Loan Service Corp, Et Ano.
359 P.3d 805
Wash. Ct. App.2015Background
- William and Shalawn Leahy obtained a residential mortgage in 2006 and defaulted in March 2009.
- Quality Loan Service Corp. transmitted a notice of default on April 9, 2010, and recorded three notices of trustee's sale (one in 2010, two in 2012–2013).
- The trustee's sale ultimately occurred January 18, 2013; the Leahys filed suit two days earlier but did not obtain a restraining order.
- Leahys challenged the sale, asserting (1) the trustee should have reissued a notice of default before each new notice of sale and (2) the April 2010 notice of default omitted statutorily required information.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Quality Loan; the Leahys appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Leahy's Argument | Quality Loan's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a new notice of default must be sent before each rescheduled trustee's sale | A new notice of default is required when a sale is rescheduled (relying on Albice language about reissuing "notices") | Statute requires only that a notice of default be transmitted at least 30 days before the notice of sale is recorded; trustee may continue a sale up to 120 days without reissuing notice of default | No. The statute does not require reissuing the notice of default for each rescheduled sale; original notice satisfied RCW 61.24.030(8) and sale complied with 120‑day rule |
| Whether the April 9, 2010 notice of default was fatally deficient for omitting/erroneously listing beneficiary/servicer/amount/contact information | The notice omitted/erred on multiple items listed in RCW 61.24.030(8)(a)-(l), invalidating the sale | Leahys received notice, had knowledge of parties and sale, failed to seek injunction in required five‑day window; alleged defects caused no prejudice | Waived and insufficient. Plaintiffs failed to timely seek statutory injunction; no prejudice shown, so defects do not invalidate the sale |
| Whether Watts/Wash. Foreclosure Fairness Act requires new notice of default on rescheduling | (Implied) Watson compels new preforeclosure notices when law changes or new requirements apply | Watson applied because the property was not owner‑occupied, so Foreclosure Fairness Act did not apply; Quality Loan showed evidence the property was not owner‑occupied | Watson inapplicable — the Act's additional notice requirements attach only to owner‑occupied properties; court found no genuine issue that property was non‑owner‑occupied |
| Whether Schroeder prevents waiver of notice‑defect claims | Leahys argue Schroeder bars waiver of defects that limit trustee authority | Schroeder is distinguishable: it concerned nonapplication of the deed‑of‑trust statute to agricultural land, not routine notice omissions | Distinguishable — Schroeder does not make all notice defects unwaivable; waiver applies where statute governs and party had remedy but failed to seek injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Owen v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe R.R. Co., 153 Wn.2d 780 (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Albice v. Premier Mortg. Servs. of Wash., Inc., 174 Wn.2d 560 (trustee lacks authority to sell after 120 days without reissuing required sale notices)
- Plein v. Lackey, 149 Wn.2d 214 (party who had notice and failed to enjoin sale may waive post‑sale challenge)
- Schroeder v. Excelsior Mgmt. Group, LLC, 177 Wn.2d 94 (certain statutory limits — here, on agricultural land — cannot be waived)
- Frizzell v. Murray, 179 Wn.2d 301 (related authority on foreclosure statutory compliance)
- Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Grp., Inc., 175 Wn.2d 83 (trustee cannot exceed statutory authority)
- Udall v. T.D. Escrow Servs., Inc., 159 Wn.2d 903 (strict statutory compliance required in nonjudicial foreclosure)
- Koegel v. Prudential Mut. Sav. Bank, 51 Wn. App. 108 (purpose of notice of default is to notify debtor of amount owed and default)
- Watson v. Northwest Trustee Servs., Inc., 180 Wn. App. 8 (Foreclosure Fairness Act can require additional preforeclosure notices; applied where property was owner‑occupied)
Affirmed: summary judgment for Quality Loan.