Brown v. Dep't of Commerce ( 2015 )

/F·I~L:E
. IN CLERKS OFFICE ~
IUPREME COURT, STAT& OF WASHINGTQN
a. 9·
DATE OCT 2 2 2015
)-110-·id., is the holder of her promissory note (M&T Bank, an exempt entity), or
its owner (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), a nonexempt
entity).
We conclude that the Department correctly recognized the holder of the note
as the beneficiary for the purposes of the mediation exemption statute, id. We further
hold that a party's undisputed declaration submitted under penalty of perjury that the
party is the holder of the note satisfies the DTA's proof of beneficiary provisions,
RCW 61.24.030(7)(a) and RCW 61.24.163(5)(c). The holder of the note satisfies
these provisions and is the beneficiary because the legislature intended the
beneficiary to be the party who has authority to modify and enforce the note.
The Department correctly determined that Brown is not entitled to mediation
because the note holder and beneficiary, M&T Bank, satisfies the conditions of the
-2-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
mediation exemption statute, RCW 61.24.166. We reject Brown's contention that
our interpretation of the DTA renders the statute unconstitutional. We affirm the
superior court's judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
1. Residential Foreclosure under the DTA
Prior to 1965, Washington law recognized mortgages as the only security
interest in real property in the state. Mortgages must be foreclosed through the
judicial process. In 1965, the legislature enacted the DTA to "supplement[] the time-
consuming judicial foreclosure procedure [for mortgages] by providing [an]
alternative private sale which results in substantial savings of time." John A. Gose,
The Trust Deed Act in Washington, 41 WASH. L. REv. 94, 95-96 (1966) (footnotes
omitted). We now recognize the DTA promotes three objectives: "'First, the
nonjudicial foreclosure process should remain efficient and inexpensive. Second,
the process should provide an adequate opportunity for interested parties to prevent
wrongful foreclosure. Third, the process should promote the stability of land titles.'"
Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Grp., Inc., 175 Wash. 2d 83, 94, 285 P.3d 34 (2012) (quoting
Cox v. Helenius, 103 Wash. 2d 383, 387, 693 P.2d 683 (1985)).
A deed of trust creates a security interest in real property. A deed of trust
transaction is "a three-party transaction in which the borrower (grantor) deeds the
property to a trustee who holds the deed as security for the lender (beneficiary)" in
return for the borrower having received a loan from the lender. Gose, supra, 41
WASH. L. REV. at 96. The DTA defines the relevant parties. RCW 61.24.005(2),
-3-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
(3), (7), (16). In the transaction's simplest form, the borrower is the grantor and the
lender is the beneficiary. The trustee acts as a neutral third party and owes a "duty
of good faith to the borrower, beneficiary, and grantor." RCW 61.24.010(4).
Ultimately, if the borrower breaches the obligations owed to the beneficiary, the
trustee may foreclose the home in a trustee's sale. RCW 61.24.020. But before this
remedy may occur, the DTA establishes detailed procedures that must be satisfied.
The beneficiary must first attempt to communicate with the borrower who is
in default through a series of statutorily prescribed methods. RCW 61.24.031. The
beneficiary must send a letter to the borrower containing certain information,
including that the borrower should contact a housing counselor to discuss mediation
under the FFA. !d. at (l)(c). The beneficiary must also engage in a sequence of
phone calls to attempt to communicate with the borrower, a process known in the
statute as "due diligence." !d. at (5). If the borrower responds to these
communications, the notice of default cannot issue for at least 90 days. !d. at (l)(a).
During that period, the parties "shall attempt to reach a resolution," such as a loan
modification. Id. at (4); see also id. at (l)(e). If the borrower never responds,
however, the notice of default may issue after 30 days. Id. at (l)(a). After the
relevant time period elapses and if the parties have not agreed to modify the loan,
the trustee or beneficiary may then issue the notice of default. !d.
After the notice of default has been issued, the FFA's foreclosure mediation
program becomes available to qualified parties. RCW 61.24.163. To gain access, a
government-certified housing counselor or an attorney must refer the borrower to
-4-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
the mediation program. Id. at (1). The referring party sends a form to the borrower
and the Department "stating that mediation is appropriate." Id. at (2). Within 10
days of receiving the form, the Department must send a notice to the parties "stating
that the parties have been referred to mediation" and the Department then selects a
mediator. !d. at (3)(a), (b).
However, not all beneficiaries are subject to the mediation program. As
relevant here, the FFA exempts from mediation
any federally insured depository institution, as defined in 12 U.S.C. Sec.
46l(b)(l)(A), that certifies to the [D]epartment under penalty of perjury that
it was not a beneficiary of deeds of trust in more than two hundred fifty
trustee sales of owner-occupied residential real property that occurred in this
state during the preceding calendar year.
RCW 61.24.166.
If the parties are referred to mediation, the statute directs the borrower and the
beneficiary to exchange certain information with each other and with the mediator.
The borrower provides information concerning, for example, debts, assets, and
expenses. RCW 61.24.163(4). The beneficiary provides 10 items of information,
including the balance of the loan, an estimate of arrearage, a list of outstanding fees
and charges, and a payment history of the prior 12 months. Id. at (5). At issue in
this case, the beneficiary must provide to the borrower and mediator
[p ]roof that the entity claiming to be the beneficiary is the owner of any
promissory note or obligation secured by the deed of trust. Sufficient proof
may be a copy of the declaration described in RCW 61.24.030(7)(a).
Id. at (5)(c). The cross-referenced statute provides:
It shall be requisite to a trustee's sale:
-5-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
... [t]hat, for residential real property, before the notice of trustee's
sale is recorded, transmitted, or served, the trustee shall have proof that the
beneficiary is the owner of any promissory note or other obligation secured
by the deed of trust. A declaration by the beneficiary made under the penalty
of perjury stating that the beneficiary is the actual holder of the promissory
note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust shall be sufficient proof
as required under this subsection.
RCW 61.24.030(7)(a). After the parties exchange this information, the mediator
must send written notice to the parties. RCW 61.24.163(7)(b ). This notice informs
the parties that, among other things, a person with authority to modify the loan must
be present in the mediation. !d. at (7)(b )(ii).
The mediation session follows. The parties "must address the issues of
foreclosure that may enable the borrower and the beneficiary to reach a resolution,"
such as modifying the terms of the loan. !d. at (9). The mediator may require the
parties to consider the borrower's current and future economic circumstances, id. at
(9)(a), and the "net present value of receiving payments pursuant to a modified
mortgage loan as compared to the anticipated net recovery following foreclosure,"
id. at (9)(b ).
After the close of mediation, the mediator renders a decision with binding
legal effects. The mediator sends a certification to the parties and the Department
that explains his or her findings on "[w ]hether the parties participated in the
mediation in good faith," id. at (12)(d), and "the result of any net present value test
expressed in a dollar amount," id. at (12)(e). If the mediator finds the beneficiary
failed to act in good faith, the borrower can use that finding as "a defense to the
nonjudicial foreclosure action," though the beneficiary may later offer facts to rebut
-6-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
the allegation that it failed to act in good faith. Id. at (14)(a). If the mediator's
certification "shows that the net present value of the modified loan exceeds the
anticipated net recovery at foreclosure," that finding "constitutes a basis for the
borrower to enjoin the foreclosure." Id. at (14)(c). The statute does not appear to
allow the beneficiary to subsequently rebut this finding. See id. Last~ the
certification states that mediation has been completed. This allows the notice of sale
to be issued, if the parties have been unable to agree and if the mediator's findings
are not a bar to the foreclosure. Id. at (16).
Following the beneficiary's initial "due diligence" communications with the
borrower (RCW 61.24.031 ), and after the mediation program (RCW 61.24.163) has
been completed, the DTA provides eight additional requisites to a trustee's sale.
RCW 61.24.030(1)-(8). The first requisite to a trustee's sale is that the deed of trust
must contain a power of sale clause, i.e., a clause in the deed that recognizes that the
trustee may sell the property upon default. I d. at (1 ). Second, the deed must state
that the property is not primarily used for agricultural purposes. Id. at (2). Third,
the grantor must have defaulted on the promissory note or other obligation. ld. at
(3). Fourth, the beneficiary must not have a pending lawsuit against the borrower
on the defaulted promissory note. I d. at (4). Fifth, the deed must have been recorded
in the county the property is located. Id. at (5). Sixth, the trustee must maintain
physical presence, telephone service, and availability for personal service of process
within the state. I d. at (6).
-7-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
The seventh requisite to a trustee sale under RCW 61.24.030 is at issue in this
case. It provides that the trustee must have "proof that the beneficiary is the owner"
of the promissory note. Id. at (7)(a). The same subsection also provides that a
declaration stating that "the beneficiary is the actual holder of the promissory note"
"shall be sufficient proof' "[u ]nless the trustee has violated his or her duty [of good
faith] under RCW 61.24.010(4)." Id. at (7)(a), (b).
The eighth requisite to a trustee sale under RCW 61.24.030, concerning the
notice of default, is also at issue in this case. That provision states that the trustee
or beneficiary must issue the notice of default at least 30 days before the notice of
sale issues and also establishes the contents of the notice of default. RCW
61.24.030(8). Among the 12 items that must be included in the notice of default
(e.g., a description of property and the amount in arrears), 1 item may inform the
issue before us. That item provides that the notice of default must include the
name of the "owner of any promissory notes or other obligations secured by the
deed of trust," and the name of the "party acting as a servicer of the obligations
secured by the deed of trust." Id. at (8)(!).
Upon completion of these requisites, the trustee initiates the process of
foreclosing and selling the home. RCW 61.24.040. Upon the sale ofthe home and
the trustee's physical delivery of the deed to the purchaser, the borrower's title
transfers to the purchaser. RCW 61.24.050. By foreclosing on a residential deed of
trust under the DTA rather than on a mortgage through the judicial process, the
-8-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
beneficiary forfeits its right to a deficiency judgment on the loan. RCW
61.24.1 00(1 ).
2. Freddie Mac's Practices in the Secondary Market for Mortgage Notes
As we will discuss further below, Freddie Mac purchased Brown's note on
the secondary market for mortgage notes. 1 Brown seeks mediation with Freddie
Mac. To put these facts in context, we first discuss Freddie Mac's practices in the
secondary market for mortgage notes.
In the simple model of lending described above, there is no question who the
beneficiary is. The beneficiary and the lender are the same institution. That
institution both owns and holds the note for the entire duration of the note. See
generally IT's A WONDERFUL LIFE (Liberty Films 1946). Today, it is more common
that the initia1lender will sell the note in the large secondary market for mortgage
notes. This secondary market complicates the issue that this case turns on-
identifying the beneficiary of Brown's deed of trust.
Freddie Mac, the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae),
and the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) are the largest owners
of residential mortgage notes in the United States. We are told they own or guarantee
more than 90 percent of residential mortgage notes originated in 2014 throughout
the United States. See Amicus Br. of Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. at 3, Trujillo v.
Nw. Tr. Servs., Inc., No. 90509-6 (Wash. Aug. 20, 2015) (Amicus Br.). Freddie Mac
1
We refer to "mortgage notes" to mean both promissory notes secured by mortgages
and promissory notes secured by deeds of trust.
-9-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
owns or guarantees around 300,000 mortgage notes secured by residential homes in
Washington State. !d. About 8,000 of those borrowers are delinquent on payments.
Id.
Freddie Mac does not lend to homebuyers. Instead, Freddie Mac purchases
mortgage notes from the initial lenders. Often, Freddie Mac pools hundreds of these
mortgage notes into a trust, and the trustee issues and sells securities to investors in
various tranches of seniority. The securities represent the investors' claims on the
stream of mortgage payments or other interests (e.g., late fees) on the mortgage
notes. See Cashmere Valley Bank v. Dep 't ofRevenue, 181 Wash. 2d 622, 625-28, 334
P.3d 1100 (2014) (generally discussing mortgage-backed securities). Freddie Mac
guarantees the borrowers' monthly payments on the underlying notes. If a borrower
stops paying, Freddie Mac will step in and pay the investors. Freddie Mac does all
of this to further its congressionally mandated mission to "provide ongoing
assistance to the secondary market for residential mortgages" to thereby "promote
access to mortgage credit throughout the Nation" and expand homeownership. 12
u.s.c. § 1716(3), (4).
Freddie Mac's relationship with the initial lender is important to
understanding Brown's case. When Freddie Mac purchases a mortgage note from a
lender, the lender often agrees to "service" the loan in return for compensation. 2
2
The servicer is not always the original lender. For example, in this case
Countrywide Bank originated Brown's note but Countywide was later purchased by Bank
of America. M&T Bank, unaffiliated with Countrywide or Bank of America, now services
the note.
-10-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
Freddie Mac controls its servicers through a voluminous, detailed handbook. See
FREDDIE MAC, SINGLE-FAMILY SELLER/SERVICER GUIDE (SERVICER'S GUIDE),
http://www.allregs.com/tpl/main.aspx (under "Single-Family Seller/Servicing
Guide, Bulletins, and Industry Letters," click on "Single-Family Seller/Servicer
Guide, Volume 1" or "Single-Family Seller/Servicer Guide, Volume 2"). Under the
Servicer 's Guide, servicers perform daily activities associated with the loan, such as
"invoicing borrowers, collecting mortgage payments, and generally interfacing with
borrowers." Amicus Br. at 4.
If a borrower becomes delinquent and defaults on a loan, the servicer must
"work to remediate delinquent loans by pursuing collection efforts, conducting loss
mitigation activities, and, if necessary, initiating foreclosures." !d. The Servicer 's
Guide authorizes and encourages servicers to modify the mortgage note. See, e.g.,
SERVICER'S GUIDE, supra, chs. 65.4 ("Freddie Mac wants the Servicer to pursue
alternatives to foreclosure whenever possible, because they benefit not only the
Borrower, but also the Servicer, Freddie Mac and other interested parties .... Even
after the Servicer has initiated foreclosure, it should still pursue alternatives to
foreclosure to mitigate potential credit losses, whenever possible."), 65.6
(establishing servicers' required loss mitigation activities), 65.11 (providing that a
servicer may grant a borrower a modified payment plan, a short-term forbearance,
or a long-term forbearance).
If a servicer and the borrower cannot agree on a loan modification, Freddie
Mac authorizes the servicer to institute the foreclosure process. !d. ch. 66.1 ("The
-11-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
Servicer must refer to, manage and complete foreclosure in accordance with this
chapter [chs. 66.1-66.75] when there is no available alternative to foreclosure.").
When a servicer forecloses on a Freddie Mac owned note, the servicer does so in its
own name, not in Freddie Mac's name. See id. ch. 66.11(a) ("The Servicer must
instruct the foreclosure counsel to process the foreclosure in the Servicer' s
name .... "). The servicer has authority to do this because when Freddie Mac
purchases the mortgage note, the Servicer 's Guide requires the note to be indorsed
in blank. See id. ch. 16.4(c) ("At the time the Mortgage is sold to Freddie Mac, the
Seller must [i]ndorse the Note in blank .... "). When a note is indorsed in blank, it
is "payable to bearer and may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone." RCW
62A.3-205(b ).
Before the servicer institutes foreclosure proceedings, Freddie Mac provides
the servicer with actual or constructive possession of the original note. See
SERVICER'S GUIDE, supra, ch. 18.6(d), (e). Under the Servicer 's Guide, the servicer
is deemed to be in constructive possession of the note when the servicer commences
a legal action or files the form (form 1036) that seeks actual possession of the note
from Freddie Mac's note custodian. Id. at 18.6(d). Alternatively, if applicable state
law requires the servicer to have actual possession of the note to institute foreclosure
proceedings, the servicer submits a form 1036 to Freddie Mac's note custodian, who
then delivers physical possession of the note to the servicer. Id. at 18.6(e).
Even while the servicer acts on Freddie Mac's behalf to hold the note, to seek
to modify the note, and to foreclose on the note, Freddie Mac still owns the note. As
-12-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
the note owner, Freddie Mac remains entitled to "the ultimate economic benefit of
payments on the note." Amicus Br. at 3. Thus, the monthly note payments or the
proceeds of a foreclosure sale flow to Freddie Mac, less the servicer' s fee. Freddie
Mac in turn has arrangements where it provides its trustees of pools of mortgage-
backed securities with the funds so that the trustee may pay the investors in
mortgage-backed securities.
Freddie Mac's practice of splitting note ownership from note enforcement is
at the heart of this case. Freddie Mac owns Brown's note. At the same time, a
servicer, M&T Bank, holds the note and is entitled to enforce it. As we will describe
below, Washington's Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) authorizes this division of
note ownership from note enforcement.
3. The Rights ofNote Holders and Note Owners under the UCC
A promissory note evidencing a home loan is often a negotiable instrument,
making article 3 of the UCC applicable. RCW 62A.3-1 02. The promissory note at
issue in this case is a negotiable instrument governed by article 3 of the UCC. 3
3 Subject to exceptions not applicable here, the UCC defines a "negotiable
instrument" as "an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money" ifthree
requirements are met. RCW 62A.3-104. The instrument must (1) be "payable to bearer or
to order at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder"; (2) be "payable
on demand or at a definite time"; and (3) concern only a promise to pay money, rather than
any other performance (except for certain limited exceptions that allow nonmonetary
performance, including that the instrument may include an undertaking or power to give,
maintain, or protect collateral to secure payment). !d. at (a). As to the first element, the
note at issue here is indorsed in blank, see Agency R. (AR) 171, and is thus payable to the
bearer, see RCW 62A.3-205(b). As to the second element, the note is payable at a definite
time, namely the first day of every month until July 1, 2038. AR at 170; see also RCW
62A.3-108(b). As to the third element, the note concerns only Brown's obligation to pay
money and no other performance. AR at 170-71.
-13-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
Under the UCC, promissory notes embrace two sets of rights. The first set of
rights is held by the "person entitled to enforce" the note, a legal term of art
commonly referred to as "PETE" status. See RCW 62A.3-30 1 (definition). The
second set of rights is ownership of the note. The owner has the right to the
economic benefits of the note, such as monthly mortgage payments and foreclosure
proceeds. The PETE and the owner of the note can be the same entity, but they can
also be different entities. The Permanent Editorial Board for the UCC recently
issued an authoritative report on this distinction. See PERMANENT EDITORIAL BD.
FOR UCC, APPLICATION OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE TO SELECTED ISSUES
RELATING TO MORTGAGE NOTES (2011) (UCC REPORT ON MORTGAGE NOTES),
http://www .uniformlaws.org/Shared/Committees_ Materials/PEBUCC/PEB_Report
_111411.pdf.
Washington law defines a "person entitled to enforce an instrument," or a
PETE, as
(i) the holder of the instrument, (ii) a nonholder in possession of the
instrument who has the rights of a holder, or (iii) a person not in possession
ofthe instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to RCW
62A.3-309 or 62A.3-418(d).
RCW 62A.3-301. This statute also clarifies the relationship between PETE status
and ownership status. It provides that a person need not own a note to be entitled to
enforce the note:
A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the
person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the
instrument.
-14-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep't ofCommerce, No. 90652-1
!d. (emphasis added).
The first method to gain PETE status is to be "the holder of the instrument." 4
!d. Washington's UCC defines a "holder" to be the "person in possession of a
negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that
is the person in possession." RCW 62A.l-201(2l)(A); accord BLACK's LAW
DICTIONARY 848 (lOth ed. 2014) (defining "holder" to be a person "who has legal
possession of a negotiable instrument and is entitled to receive payment on it"). The
statute's definition of "holder" does not turn on ownership. That is unsurprising,
given that the statute expressly provides that "[a] person may be a person entitled to
enforce the instrument[, a PETE,] even though the person is not the owner of the
instrument." RCW 62A.3-301 (emphasis added). A leading treatise on article 3 of
the UCC confirms that a holder "may sue in his or her own name to enforce payment
even though he or she is not the owner of the instrument." 6B ANDERSON ON THE
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE§ 3-301:4R at 267 (Lary Lawrence ed., 3d ed., 2003
rev.). 5 This rule focuses on the party who possesses the note in order to protect the
4
The second and third methods of gaining PETE status under RCW 62A.3-301(ii)
and (iii) are not at issue here. As used in subsection (ii), a "nonholder in possession of the
instrument who has the rights of a holder" arises when possession of a note is delivered
without an indorsement and without the note being bearer paper, but still for the purpose
giving the receiving person the right to enforce the note. Here, this method is not at issue
because the note was indorsed in blank. The third method of gaining PETE status concerns
proving the contents of a lost note and payment by mistake. The note at issue here was not
lost, and no mistaken payments were made.
5
See also SA ANDERSON ON THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE§ 3-201:7, at 449
(Ronald A. Anderson ed., 3d ed., 1994 rev.) ("The mere possession of bearer paper
qualifies the possessor as a holder and establishes that person's right to sue .... The holder
of bearer paper may sue on [the instrument] even though the holder does not have any
express authorization from the beneficial owner of the paper to bring suit."); id. §§ 3-301:5,
at 568 ("It is necessary to distinguish between 'owner' and 'holder.' Holder means a person
-15-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
borrower from being sued fraudulently or by multiple parties on the same note. 5A
ANDERSONONTHEUNIFORMCOMMERCIALCODE § 3-207:7, at449 (3d ed. 1994 rev.)
("The purpose of requiring that the plaintiffhave possession of the paper is to protect
the defendant from multiple liability.").
PETE status triggers key consequences under article 3 of the UCC. By
definition, the PETE is the person entitled to enforce the note, i.e., to sue in its own
name and collect on the note if the obligation has been dishonored. RCW 62A.3-
30 1; see also RCW 62A.3-502 (defining "dishonor"). Thus, article 3 elsewhere
provides that the borrower's "obligation is owed to a person entitled to enforce the
instrument[, the PETE]." RCW 62A.3-412 (emphasis added). As a consequence,
the PETE may modify and discharge the note. See RCW 62A.3-604(a) ("A person
entitled to enforce an instrument[, a PETE], with or without consideration, may
discharge the obligation of a party to pay the instrument (i) by an intentional
voluntary act, such as surrender of the instrument to the party, destruction,
mutilation, or cancellation of the instrument, cancellation or striking out of the
party's signature, or the addition of words to the instrument indicating discharge, or
(ii) by agreeing not to sue or otherwise renouncing rights against the party by a
who is in possession of an instrument issued or indorsed to that person or to his or her order
or to bearer or in blank. An owner of an instrument does not necessarily have possession
of the instrument. ... The fact that a person is not the 'owner' of paper does not affect his
status as a holder." (footnotes omitted)), § 3-201:5, at 448 ("Only the holder of a note can
authorize the foreclosure of the collateral that is security for the note."); accord Richard
Cosway, Negotiable Instruments-A Comparison of Washington Law and Uniform
Commercial Code Article 3, in COLLECTED ESSAYS ON THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
IN WASHINGTON 261,268 (1967) (discussing how RCW 62A.3-301 is consistent with pre-
UCC Washington common law).
-16-
Brown v. Wash. StateDep'tofCommerce, No. 90652-1
signed writing."). When the borrower pays the PETE-and only when the borrower
pays the PETE-the borrower's obligation is discharged. See RCW 62A.3-602(a)
("[A ]n instrument is paid to the extent payment is made ... to a person entitled to ·
enforce the instrument[, a PETE]. To the extent of the payment, the obligation of
the party obliged to pay the instrument is discharged .... " (emphasis added)). After
discharging its obligations to the PETE, the borrower cannot thereafter be held liable
on the note by another party, such as the note owner. !d. 6
In sum, the borrower owes and discharges his or her obligation to the PETE.
The PETE enforces and modifies the note. This relationship remains the case "even
though the [PETE] is not the owner of the instrument." RCW 62A.3-301. The
PETE's possession of the note provides the borrower "with a relatively simple way
of determining to whom his or her obligation is owed and, thus, whom to pay in
order to be discharged." UCC REPORT ON MORTGAGE NOTES, supra, at 8.
We now turn to the ownership of a note under the UCC. The rules concerning
ownership of a note govern who is "entitled to the economic value of the note." Id.
Sometimes "the person entitled to enforce a note[, the PETE,] is also its owner," but
"this need not be the case." !d. In the initial lending transaction, the borrower issues
a note to the lender to evidence the borrower's obligation. The lender holds the note
6 See also SA ANDERSON ON THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE § 3-301:6, at 568-
69 ("The question of who has a beneficial interest in the proceeds of the paper is irrelevant
to the question of who may sue on the paper.... A [borrower] cannot object to suit by the
payee-holder on the ground that a third person has some interest in the proceeds of the note,
as such right is against the holder and does not affect the liability of the [borrower] on his
or her note. No danger of multiple liability exists as a judgment by the holder against the
[borrower] is a final and conclusive determination of the [borrower's] liability.").
-17-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
(and is thus the PETE) and owns the note. But, as here, the lender may sell the note
on the secondary market for mortgage notes. At this point, the PETE's rights and
the owner's rights reside in different parties if the seller of the note does not transfer
possession of the note to the purchaser of the note.
While article 3 of the UCC establishes the PETE's rights, article 9 of the UCC
establishes the owner's rights after the note has been sold. I d. Article 9 is primarily
known for regulating transactions involving security interests in personal property.
RCW 62A.9A-109(a)(l) ("Article [9] applies to ... [a] transaction, regardless of its
form, that creates a security interest in personal property or fixtures by
contract .... "). But article 9 also governs other transactions that do not involve
security interests. As relevant here, "Article [9] applies to ... [a] sale of accounts,
chattel paper, payment intangibles, or promissory notes."7 Id. at (a)(3) (emphasis
added). A promissory note is simply an asset, and, like most assets, it can be sold.
Article 9 governs the sale and ownership of promissory notes. Id.
A purchaser of a promissory note gains "outright ownership" of a note when
the three conditions in RCW 62A.9A-203(b) are satisfied. UCC REPORT ON
MORTGAGE NOTES, supra, at 10. First, value must be given in the transaction. RCW
7
Article 9 regulates both security interests in personal property and the sale of
payment rights such as promissory notes through the use of technical definitional terms.
See UCC REPORT ON MORTGAGE NOTES, supra, at 8-9. The UCC defines a "security
interest" to include "any interest of a ... buyer of ... a promissory note," RCW 62A.l-
20l(b)(35), a "debtor" to include "[a] seller of ... promissory notes," RCW 62A.9A-
102(a)(28)(B), a "secured party" to include a person "to which ... promissory notes have
been sold," id. at (a)(73)(D), and "collateral" to include "promissory notes that have been
sold," id. at (a)(12)(B). With these definitions, "the rules that apply to security interests
that secure an obligation generally also apply to transactions in which a promissory note is
sold." UCC REPORT ON MORTGAGE NOTES, supra, at 9 (emphasis added).
-18-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
62A.9A-203(b)(1). Second, the seller ofthe note must have "rights in" the note. !d.
at (b )(2). In other words, the seller must own the note, as is the case when a lender
originates a loan in the first instance. UCC REPORT ON MORTGAGE NOTES, supra, at
10. Third, the seller of the note must either authenticate a "security agreement" 8 that
describes the note or deliver possession of the note to the purchaser. RCW 62A.9A-
203(b )(3)(A)-(B).
As to this third requirement, if the seller delivers possession of the note to the
purchaser, the purchaser becomes both the owner of the note and the PETE (because
it holds the note). But if-as occurred in this case-the seller does not deliver
possession of the note to the purchaser and instead only authenticates an agreement
that describes the note, the purchaser has established its ownership interest in the
note (because RCW 62A.9A-203(b)'s three conditions are satisfied) but is not the
PETE (because it does not hold the note). See UCC REPORT ON MORTGAGE NOTES,
supra, at 10 ("[I]n this situation, in which the seller of a note may retain possession
of it, the owner of a note may be a different person than the person entitled to enforce
the note[, the PETE].").
Through article 3 and article 9, the UCC authorizes parties to split PETE status
from ownership status in certain circumstances. The PETE may modify and enforce
8
In this context, a "security agreement" is simply a purchase-and-sale agreement of
a promissory note. See RCW 62A.9A-102(a)(74) (defining a "security agreement" to mean
"an agreement that creates or provides for a security interest"); RCW 62A.1-20 1(b)(35) (in
turn defining a "security interest" in relevant part as "any interest of a ... buyer of ... a
promissory note").
-19-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
the note. The borrower pays the PETE to discharge the borrower's obligation. All
the while, the owner retains entitlement to the economic value of the note.
4. Brown's Case
In 2008, Brown's father and stepmother borrowed $68,000 from Countrywide
Bank, evidenced by a promissory note. See Agency R. (AR) at 170-71. The note is
secured by a deed of trust on their home in Kennewick, Washington. 9
After Brown's father and stepmother died, Brown took title to the home and
_assumed the obligations under the note. 10 She then defaulted. The trustee,
Northwest Trustee Services Inc., sent her a notice of default that said Freddie Mac
owns her note and M&T Bank services her note.
Faced with the notice of default, Brown contacted the Northwest Justice
Project's Foreclosure Prevention Unit. An attorney there referred Brown to the
9 The parties agree the note is secured by a publicly recorded deed of trust, but the
deed is not in this court's record. The deed's absence from the record does not affect this
case because RCW 62A.9A-203(g) '"codifies the common-law rule that a transfer of an
obligation secured by a security interest or other lien on personal or real property also
transfers the security interest or lien,"' UCC REPORT ON MORTGAGE NOTES, supra, at 12
n.44 (quoting RCWA 62A.9A-203 U.C.C. cmt. 9); see also RCW 62A.9A-203(g) ("The
attachment of a security interest [i.e., the "interest of a ... buyer of ... a promissory note,"
RCW 62A.l-201(b)(35),] in a right to payment ... secured by a security interest ... on
personal or real property is also attachment of a security interest in the security interest,
mortgage, or other lien."). This statute "explicitly provides that ... the assignment of the
interest of the seller ... automatically transfers a corresponding interest in the mortgage to
the assignee." UCC REPORT ON MORTGAGE NOTES, supra, at 12. The parties present no
arguments relating to the deed of trust as distinct from the note.
10
The Department argues for the first time before this court that Brown did not own
the home at the time she sought mediation. The Department's argument is raised in the
alternative as a separate basis to affirm the superior court if we disagree with its
interpretation of the DTA. See Corr. Dep't's Resp. Br. at 39 n.lO (invoking RAP 2.5(a)'s
penultimate sentence to affirm on this alternative basis). Because we ultimately agree with
the Department's interpretation of the DTA, we do not reach the Department's alternative
basis to affirm.
-20-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
Department for mediation under the FFA. A series of e-mails with the Department
ensued. The following undisputed material facts emerged.
Prior to Brown's default, Countrywide sold Brown's note to Freddie Mac, as
authorized by the note. AR at 170 ("I understand that the Lender may transfer this
Note."). Freddie Mac now owns the note. M&T Bank submitted a declaration under
penalty of perjury to the Department that it is the "actual holder" of the note for the
purpose of complying with RCW 61.24.163(5)(c) and RCW 61.24.030(7)(a). See
AR at 169. When Countrywide sold the note to Freddie Mac, Countrywide issued a
special indorsement on the note in favor of the note holder, M&T Bank. See AR at
171; see also RCW 62A.3-205(a) (defining "special indorsement"). Then M&T
Bank issued a blank indorsement on the note. See AR at 171; see also RCW 62A.3-
205(b) (defining "blank indorsement"). M&T Bank submitted a declaration under
penalty of perjury stating that it was not a beneficiary of deeds of trust in more than
250 homes in Washington in the prior year for the purpose of complying RCW
61.24.166.
Given these undisputed facts, the Department rejected Brown's request for
mediation. It interpreted the beneficiary for purposes of the mediation exemption
statute, RCW 61.24.166, to be the holder of the note, not the owner. Accordingly,
the Department determined that M&T Bank was the beneficiary of Brown's note
and was exempt from mediation under RCW 61.24.166 because it was not a
beneficiary of deeds of trust in more than 250 homes in Washington in the prior year.
-21-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
Brown filed a petition for judicial review of the Department's action in
superior court. 11 The court agreed with the Department's interpretation and affirmed
the Department's denial of mediation. Brown petitioned for direct review. We
retained the petition and set this case for hearing as a companion case to Trujillo v.
Northwest Trustee Services, Inc., 183 Wash. 2d 820, 355 P.3d 1100 (2015). We now
affirm. 12
II. DISCUSSION
Brown alleges that the Department violated the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA), ch. 34.05 RCW, on several grounds, most of which depend on whether the
Department correctly interpreted the DTA. We accordingly tum first to the proper
interpretation of the DTA and then consider Brown's challenges in the context of
theAPA.
A. DTA, ch. 61.24 RCW
Statutory interpretation presents a question of law that we review de novo.
Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wash. 2d 1, 9, 43 P.3d 4 (2002).
11 Brown was joined by two coplaintiffs in the superior court, but they are "not
participating in this appeal." Br. of Appellant at 9.
12 On June 9, 2015, Brown notified the court that M&T Bank agreed to enter a "Trial
Payment Plan" loan modification with Brown, whereby Brown has an opportunity to make
reduced monthly payments. See Suppl. Info. (June 9, 2015). This is a temporary program
Brown intends to complete, and she hopes it will lead to a permanent modification.
Because she may "face the need for foreclosure mediation in the future," she maintains her
request for declaratory relief that the Department's denial of her request for mediation was
based on an erroneous interpretation of the DTA. !d. The Department has not argued that
this affects the case. We agree. This case is not moot because the modification is
temporary and contingent on future behavior. Also, this case involves issues of continuing
and substantial public interest that justify rendering a decision on the merits. See State v.
Hunley, 175 Wn.2d 901,907,287 P.3d 584 (2012).
-22-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
The court's objective is to ascertain and implement the legislature's intent. !d. If
the statute's meaning is plain on its face, we give effect to that plain meaning as the
expression of legislative intent. Id. at 9-10. But if the statute remains '"susceptible
to more than one reasonable interpretation, then [we] may resort to statutory
construction, legislative history, and relevant case law for assistance in discerning
legislative intent."' Anthis v. Copland, 173 Wash. 2d 752, 756, 270 P.3d 574 (2012)
(quoting Christensen v. Ellsworth, 162 Wash. 2d 365, 373, 173 P.3d 228 (2007)).
1. Statutory Text
The parties dispute the meaning of four statutory provisions. See RCW
61.24.166 (mediation exemption provision), .005(2) (definition of "beneficiary"),
.163(5)(c) (proof of beneficiary status), .030(7) (proof of beneficiary status). In
cases such as this one, where the holder and the owner of the note are different
entities, we conclude these provisions are ambiguous.
Because we must determine whether the beneficiary of Brown's deed of trust
is exempt from mediation, we start our analysis with the mediation exemption statute
itself, RCW 61.24.166. That statute provides:
The provisions ofRCW 61.24.163 [i.e., the FFA mediation program] do not
apply to any federally insured depository institution, as defined in 12 U.S.C.
Sec. 46l(b)(l)(A), that certifies to the department under penalty of perjury
that it was not a beneficiary of deeds of trust in more than two hundred fifty
trustee sales of owner-occupied residential real property that occurred in this
state during the preceding calendar year.
RCW 61.24.166. Here, only one element of this exemption-the "beneficiary of
deeds of trust"-is disputed. If "a beneficiary of deeds of trust" refers to the owner
-23-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
of the note (here, Freddie Mac), the statute entitles Brown to mediation with Freddie
Mac. That is because Freddie Mac is not a federally insured depository institution,
so Freddie Mac cannot claim the exemption. But if "a beneficiary of deeds of trust"
refers to the holder of the note (here, M&T Bank), the statute does not entitle Brown
to·mediation. That is because M&T Bank is a federally insured depository institution
that has certified under penalty of perjury to the Department that it has been a
beneficiary in less than 250 residential Washington homes in the last year. Thus,
this case turns on whether "a beneficiary of deeds of tn1st" in the exemption statute
means the "owner" or the "holder" of the note. The exemption statute itself does not
answer that question, so the parties turn to related statutes.
The logical place to turn next is to the statute's definition of "beneficiary."
Under the statute's definition,
"Beneficiary" means the holder of the instrument or document evidencing the
obligations secured by the deed of trust, excluding persons holding the same
as security for a different obligation.
RCW 61.24.005(2). According to the Department, this definition unambiguously
supports its view that a beneficiary for purposes of the mediation exemption
provision, RCW 61.24.166, is the holder of the note. Were that the only related
statute at issue, the definition's plain language would resolve this case. But two
related statutes create ambiguity.
These two related statutes discuss how a party proves that it is a beneficiary.
After the parties have been referred to mediation, the FFA provides that they must
-24-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
exchange information with each other and the mediator. RCW 61.24.163(4).
Among other things, the purported beneficiary must provide
[p ]roof that the entity claiming to be the beneficiary is the owner of any
promissory note or obligation secured by the deed of trust. Sufficient proof
may be a copy of the declaration described in RCW 61.24.030(7)(a).
!d. at (5)(c) (emphasis added). The cross-referenced subsection, which is one of the
nine requisites to a trustee's sale, provides that
[i]t shall be requisite to a trustee's sale ... [t]hat, for residential real property,
before the notice of trustee's sale is recorded, transmitted, or served, the
trustee shall have proof that the beneficiary is the owner of any promissory
note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust. A declaration by the
beneficiary made under the penalty of perjury stating that the beneficiary is
the actual holder of the promissory note or other obligation secured by the
deed of trust shall be sufficient proof as required under this subsection.
RCW 61.24.030(7)(a) (emphasis added).
These provisions create ambiguity in cases where the owner of the note is
different from the holder of the note because the provisions each have a sentence
that, standing alone, could be read to support either party's conclusion. Brown
focuses on the italicized portions above. She argues these provisions require that the
beneficiary own the note. But if we give effect to her reading, the second sentence
of RCW 61.24.030(7)(a)-providing that a declaration that the beneficiary is the
actual holder "shall be sufficient proof' as required by the subsection-is
superfluous and inharmonious in cases where it is undisputed that the owner and the
holder are different entities. Further, Brown's position-that the word "beneficiary"
in the mediation exemption statute, RCW 61.24.166, means "owner"-would be
inconsistent with the statutory definition of "beneficiary." See RCW 61.24.005(2)
-25-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
(defining "beneficiary" to be "the holder of the instrument or document evidencing
the obligations secured by the deed of trust," not the owner).
By contrast, the Department focuses on the underlined portions above. It
emphasizes that a declaration saying the beneficiary is the actual holder "shall be
sufficient proof' as required by RCW 61.24.030(7)(a). But if we give effect the
Department's reading, the first sentence of RCW 61.24.030(7)(a)-providing that
the trustee must have "proof that the beneficiary is the owner"-is superfluous and
inharmonious in cases where it is undisputed that the holder is not the owner.
Because these provisions are ambiguous in situations where the note owner
and holder are different parties, we cannot conclude that either Brown's or the
Department's interpretation is plainly correct and the other side's interpretation is
plainly wrong. We thus tum to other indicators of legislative intent-statutory
context, case law, and legislative history.
2. Statutory Context
The Department argues that Washington's UCC supports its interpretation
that the beneficiary for the purpose of the mediation exemption statute is the note
holder. Brown argues that the content of certain forms under the DTA-specifically,
the notice of default form and the notice of sale form-supports her interpretation
that the beneficiary is the owner for the purpose of the mediation exemption statute,
RCW 61.24.166. We find the Department's contentions more persuasive.
-26-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
a. TheUCC
The relevant UCC principles discussed above, see supra pp. 12-19, guide our
analysis. M&T Bank is the holder of Brown's note because M&T Bank possesses
the note and because the note, having been indorsed in blank, is payable to bearer.
RCW 62A.1-201(21)(A) (holder); RCW 62A.3-205(b) (indorsed in blank). As the
holder of the note, M&T Bank is entitled to enforce the note; it is the PETE. RCW
62A.3-30l(i). As the PETE, M&T Bank has the authority to modify and discharge
the obligation. RCW 62A.3-604. If Brown had fulfilled her obligation and paid
M&T Bank, the obligation would have been discharged and she would have been
protected from any other suit on the note. RCW 62A.3-602(a).
We agree with the Department that the UCC's focus on PETE status aligns
with the legislature's intent behind the DTA's mediation program. See Bain, 175
Wash. 2d at 103-04 (interpreting the DTA in light of article 3 principles). By enacting
a program designed to promote the modification of notes, the legislature necessarily
intended the party with the authority to negotiate and modify the note to be present
in the FFA mediation session. See RCW 61.24.163(7)(b)(ii) (requiring the mediator
to send a notice stating that "a person with authority to agree to a resolution,
including a proposed settlement, loan modification, or dismissal or continuation of
the foreclosure proceeding, must be present ... during the mediation session"). As
discussed above, the party with such modification authority is the PETE, regardless
of whether the PETE owns the note. See supra pp. 12-19. We implement the
-27-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
legislature's intent by holding that the party with the authority to modify the loan
under article 3 of the UCC-here, the note holder, M&T Bank-is the beneficiary
for purposes of the mediation exemption provision, RCW 61.24.166. The
Department was entitled to rely on the undisputed declaration stating M&T Bank
was the actual holder of the note, thereby satisfying RCW 61.24.030(7)(a) andRCW
61.24.163(5)(c).
b. DTAForms
Brown contends the notice of default provision, RCW 61.24.030(8), supports
her argument that the beneficiary for purposes of the mediation exemption provision,
RCW 61.24.166, is the owner of the note.
The trustee or beneficiary issues the notice of default to the borrower. RCW
61.24.030(8). The notice of default must inform the borrower, among other things,
of"the name and address of the owner of any promissory notes or other obligations
secured by the deed of trust" and "the name, address, and telephone number of a
party acting as a servicer of the obligations secured by the deed of trust." !d. at (8)(l)
(emphasis added). Only after the notice of default has been issued may an attorney
or housing counselor refer a borrower to FFA mediation. RCW 61.24.163(1). But,
when the attorney or housing counselor does so, the Department's form asks for the
contact information of the "Beneficiary (Holder of Note)." WASH. STATE DEP'T OF
COMMERCE, Foreclosure Fairness Program, http://www.commerce.wa.gov/
Programs/housing/Foreclosure/Pages/default.aspx (last visited Oct. 19, 20 15) (click
"Referral to Mediation Form and Instructions" to download form). According to
-28-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
Brown, the Department's interpretation "creates an illogical system where the
information [the Department] asks for on the referral form, namely the identity of
the beneficiary, cannot be obtained by a referrer from the [notice of default]-the
issuance of which triggers the right to ask for FFA mediation." Br. of Appellant at
25.
We disagree. A borrower can identify the note holder based on the
information provided in the notice of default. The notice of default informs the
borrower of the identity of the "servicer." RCW 61.24.030(8)(/). "Servicer" is not
a legal term of art. Homeowners use the word to refer to the bank to which they
send mortgage payments because they reasonably believe the servicer is the person
entitled to enforce the note and because paying the servicer will discharge their
obligation. That is true when the servicer holds the note. RCW 62A.3-
30l(i), -602(a). The inference that a "servicer" denotes a "holder" is therefore
apparent and we decline to read the notice of default form as creating an absurd or
illogical system for borrowers seeking FFA mediation.
Brown next argues that the statute's notice of sale form appears to equate
beneficiary status with ownership. It provides in part, "The attached Notice of
Trustee's Sale is a consequence of default(s) in the obligation to [blank space], the
Beneficiary of your Deed of Trust and owner of the obligation secured thereby."
RCW 61.24.040(±). This form language contemplates the traditional scenario where
one party both owns and holds the note, making that party clearly the beneficiary.
But the form does not require that the borrower's obligation is always owed to the
-29-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
owner of the note because that would make the DTA conflict with article 3 of the
UCC. Article 3 provides that a borrower's "obligation is owed to a person entitled
to enforce the instrument[, the PETE]," RCW 62A.3-412 (emphasis added), and "[a]
person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument[, a PETE,] even though
the person is not the owner of the instrument," RCW 62A.3-30 1 (emphasis added).
3. CaseLaw
In 2012, we decided Bain, 175 Wash. 2d 83, a case concerning the Mortgage
Electronic Registration System Inc. (MERS). In 2014, the Court of Appeals decided
Trujillo v. Northwest Trustee Services, Inc., 181 Wn. App. 484,326 P.3d 768 (2014),
rev'd in part, 183 Wash. 2d 820. We subsequently issued a decision in Lyons v. US.
Bank NA, 181 Wash. 2d 775, 336 P.3d 1142 (2014), a case arising in similar
circumstances as in Trujillo. We then granted the petition for review in Trujillo, 182
Wash. 2d 1020 (20 15), and set oral arguments on the same day as in this case. 13
a. Bain
In Bain, we considered three certified questions concerning MERS. MERS is
a corporation that maintains "a private electronic registration system for tracking
ownership of mortgage-related debt" and "is frequently listed as the 'beneficiary' of
the deeds of trust that secure its customers' interests in the homes securing the
debts." Bain, 175 Wash. 2d at 88; see also id. at 94-98. The first certified question,
13
We recently issued our decision in Trujillo, reversing the Court of Appeals and
holding, consistent with Lyons, that a trustee may not rely on an ambiguous declaration as
to whether the beneficiary is the actual holder of a note. Trujillo, 183 Wash. 2d at 826-27.
-30-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
relevant here, asked "whether MERS [can be] a lawful beneficiary ... if it does not
hold the promissory notes secured by the deeds of trust." !d. at 89.
We answered the question no. See id. at 91 ("CERTIFIED QUESTIONS: 1.
Is [MERS] a lawful 'beneficiary' within the terms of the [DTA, RCW] 61.24.005(2),
if it never held the promissory note secured by the deed of trust? [Short answer:
No.]" (third alteration in original)), 120 ("CONCLUSION[:] Under the deed of trust
act, the beneficiary must hold the promissory note and we answer the first certified
question 'no."'). Bain thus recognized that holding the note is essential to
beneficiary status. !d. This conclusion was primarily based on a plain reading of
the definition of"beneficiary" in the statute. See id. at 98-99. We reasoned the DTA
"recognizes that the beneficiary of a deed of trust at any one time might not be the
original lender. The act gives subsequent holders ofthe debt the benefit of the act by
defining 'beneficiary' broadly as 'the holder of the instrument or document
evidencing the obligations secured by the deed of trust.'" !d. at 88 (quoting RCW
61.24.005(2)). The Bain opinion rejected various counterarguments and supported
its primary reason in various ways, see id. at 98-110, 14 and its conclusion is clear.
14
Two of Bain' s supporting rationales are relevant here. First, Bain concluded that
the beneficiary must hold the note for DTA purposes in order to harmonize the DTA with
article 3 of the DCC because holding a note triggers PETE status under Article 3, RCW
62A.3-30l(i), and beneficiary status under RCW 61.24.005(2). See Bain, 175 Wash. 2d at
103-04. Second, Bain supported its holding that the beneficiary must hold the note by
referencing the FFA and recognizing that noteholders have the authority to modify a note.
See id. at 103 ("[I]f the legislature understood 'beneficiary' to mean 'noteholder,' then [the
FFA's findings] make[] considerable sense" because the legislature "was attempting to
create a framework where the stakeholders could negotiate a deal in the face of changing
conditions.").
-31-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
"Simply put, if MERS does not hold the note, it is not a lawful beneficiary." 15 !d.
at 89.
We follow Bain' s affirmation of the plain language of the definition of
beneficiary in RCW 61.24.005(2). That statute defines a beneficiary as "the holder
of the instrument" and makes no mention of ownership. RCW 61.24.005(2).
Consistent with article 3 's recognition that a holder of a note is entitled to enforce
the note, we adhere to Rain's holding that RCW 61.24.005(2) requires the
beneficiary be the holder of the note. See Bain, 175 Wash. 2d at 91, 120. To conclude
otherwise-i.e., to hold that the "beneficiary" for purposes of the mediation
exemption statute, RCW 61.24.166, is the owner and not the note holder-would
undermine Bain' s core rationale that rested on the definition of a beneficiary in RCW
61.24.005(2) as the note holder. 16
15
Brown quotes statements from Bain that casually refer to ownership of the note.
Br. of Appellant at 18, 30. The quotes are taken out of context from Bain's general
background section on the DTA and in the analysis of the second certified question inBain,
which is not at issue here.
16 Our recent decision in Cashmere Valley Bank, 181 Wash. 2d 622, reinforces what
we have said about the distinction between an owner of a note and a holder of a note. We
held there that merely because an institution has a right to the economic benefits of
mortgage-backed securities (i.e., is the owner of the mortgage notes or is a trust beneficiary
where the settlor of the trust owns the notes) does not necessarily mean the institution has
"any legal recourse to the underlying trust assets in the event of default." Id. at 625. We
further recognized an institution could be the person entitled to enforce the mortgage note,
the PETE, even though it was not the owner. I d. at 626 n.4 (noting that when a lender sells
a mortgage note on the secondary market, the "lender may continue servicing the mortgage
for a fee" and "in the event of the borrower's default, the lender may foreclose on the
property and pass along proceeds from the sale, less the lender's fee or share, to the buyer"),
636 (recognizing that when the trustee of a pool mortgage-backed securities holds the
mortgage notes on behalf of the owner of the mortgage notes, the trustee can foreclose),
641 (similar).
-32-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
b. Trujillo and Lyons
In Trujillo, a homeowner claimed the trustee violated its duty of good faith
under RCW 61.24.010(4) when the trustee relied on a beneficiary declaration to
satisfy RCW 61.24.030(7)(a). The declaration said the purported beneficiary, Wells
Fargo, was "'the actual holder of the promissory note ... evidencing the ... loan or
has requisite authority under RCW 62A.3-301 to enforce said [note]."' Trujillo, 181
Wash. App. at 488 (emphasis added) (first and third alterations in original). The Court
of Appeals synthesized the concepts of "beneficiary," id. at 495-97, "owner," id. at
497-501, and "holder," id. at 501-02. It concluded, "RCW 61.24.030(7)(a), properly
read, does not require Wells Fargo to also be the 'owner' of the note. Rather, it
requires that a person entitled to enforce a note be a holder and need not also be an
owner." Id. at 502. The Court of Appeals thus held the trustee did not violate its
duty of good faith when it relied on this declaration.
We decided Lyons shortly afterwards. As relevant here, in Lyons we
considered whether a trustee violated its duty of good faith when it relied on a
beneficiary declaration similar to the one in Trujillo to satisfy RCW 61.24.030(7)(a).
The declaration in Lyons said the purported beneficiary was the "actual holder of the
promissory note ... or has requisite authority under RCW 62A.3-301 to enforce said
obligation." Lyons, 181 Wash. 2d at 780 (emphasis added). We held that "the
declaration at issue here does not comply with RCW 61.24.030(7)(a)," because it is
ambiguous concerning which of the three grounds under RCW 62A.3-30 1 the
purported beneficiary invoked. I d. at 791. We held a purported beneficiary satisfies
-33-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
RCW 61.24.030(7)(a) by providing a declaration stating it is the "actual holder" of
the note. But, by RCW 61.24.030(7)(a)'s terms, we recognized a purported
beneficiary does not satisfy RCW 61.24.030(7)(a) by stating that it meets the second
or third method of obtaining PETE status under RCW 62A.3-301(ii) and (iii). We
thus remanded the case for trial, instructing the trustee that it must satisfy RCW
61.24.030(7)(a) "but may not just rely on this ambiguous declaration." !d. at 791. 17
As relevant here, our holdings in Lyons and Trujillo confirm that a trustee can
rely on a declaration consistent with its duty of good faith if the declaration
unambiguously states the bendiciary is the actual holder. 18 Here, the declaration
does not suffer from the ambiguity at issue in Lyons and Trujillo. It states that "M&T
Bank is the actual holder of the promissory note." AR at 169. It does not have a
following "or ... " provision that created ambiguity about whether the declarations
at issue in Lyons and Trujillo complied with RCW 61.24.030(7)(a)'s terms. Because
these cases turned on ambiguity in the declaration that is not present here, they do
not control our analysis.
17
As noted, our recent decision in Trujillo is consistent with this holding.
18
Accordingly, Brown's argument that the Department failed to act in good faith
because it knew Freddie Mac was the owner of the note is not well taken. Cf RCW
61.24.030(7)(b) (providing a trustee cannot rely on a beneficiary declaration if the trustee
has violated its duty of good faith); RCW 61.24.163(5)(c) (incorporating the method of
proving beneficiary status under RCW 61.24.030(7)(a) for the purpose ofFFA mediation).
The situation would be different if the Department had information contradicting M&T
Bank's declaration that it was the actual holder of the note, but no one contested the truth
ofM&T Bank's declaration. That declaration was therefore sufficient proof as required by
RCW 61.24.030(7)(a) and RCW 61.24.163(5)(c).
-34-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
4. Legislative History
The legislative history behind the enactment of RCW 61.24.030(7)(a) sheds
some light on the legislature's intent. See LAWS OF 2009, ch. 292, § 8; see also
Suppl. Br. of Pet'r at 12-14, Trujillo v. Nw. Tr. Servs., Inc., No. 90509-6 (Wash.
Aug. 20, 2015) (Suppl. Br. ofPet'r). That provision was enacted in 2009, along with
the due diligence communication procedures that are required before a notice of
default may be issued. LAWS OF 2009, ch. 292.
The legislative staffs summary of public testimony identifies the apparent
impetus for RCW 61.24.030(7)(a): "Few homeowner know who has the authority to
negotiate with them due to loan repackaging. The entity owning the loan should
have to present the paper to prove they have authority to foreclose." S.B REP. ON
S.B. 5810, at 4, 61st Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2009) (emphasis added),
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2009-1 O/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/Senate/581 0
%20SBA %20FIHI%2009.pdf.
With RCW 61.24.030(7)(a), the legislature attempted to resolve this problem
of homeowners not knowing who has the authority to enforce and modify their notes
by including both the concepts of owning and holding the note. 19 Yet in cases where
the owner and the holder of the note are different entities, as here, the provision is
ambiguous. Cf Dale A. Whitman & Drew Milner, Foreclosing on Nothing: The
Curious Problem of the Deed of Trust Foreclosure without Entitlement To Enforce
19
A prior bill ofwhatlaterbecame RCW 61.24.030(7)(a) focused only on the holder
of the note, while the enacted version focuses on both the owner and the holder. See Suppl.
Br. ofPet'r at 12-14. ·
-35-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
the Note, 66 Ark. L. REv. 21, 26 & n.23 (2013) (stating that RCW 61.24.030(7)(a)
was subject to "considerable confusion" because the statute "conflates 'owner' and
'holder"').
When we construe an ambiguous statute, we adopt the "'interpretation which
best advances the perceived legislative purpose."' Dumas v. Gagner, 137 Wash. 2d
268, 286, 971 P.2d 17 (1999) (quoting Wichert v. Cardwell, 117 Wash. 2d 148, 151,
812 P.2d 858 (1991)). The legislature's clear purpose was to ensure the party with
the authority to enforce and modifY the note is the party engaging in mediation and
foreclosure. As discussed above, the holder of the note, the PETE, is the person with
the authority to enforce and modify the note.
We hold that a party's undisputed declaration submitted under penalty of
perjury that it is the holder of the note satisfies RCW 61.24.030(7)(a)'s requisite to
a trustee sale and RCW 61.24.163(5)(c)'s proof of beneficiary provision for FFA
mediation. M&T Bank submitted such a declaration. It is therefore the beneficiary
for the purposes of the mediation exemption provision, RCW 61.24.166. M&T Bank
is exempt from mediation because it is a federally insured depository institution that
has certified under penalty of perjury that it has been a beneficiary in less than 250
residential Washington homes in the last year. !d. The Department correctly denied
Brown's request for mediation under the FFA.
B. APA, ch. 34.05 RCW
Because Brown's petition for judicial review of the Department's denial of
her mediation request arises under the APA, ch. 34.05 RCW, we must address the
-36-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
impact of our interpretation of the DTA in that context. Appellate courts review an
agency's decision de novo and apply the APA "'directly to the record before the
agency."' Wash. Indep. Tel. Ass 'n v. Wash. Utils. & Transp. Comm 'n, 149 Wash. 2d
17, 24, 65 P.3d 319 (2003) (quoting Tapper v. Emp't Sec. Dep't, 122 Wash. 2d 397,
402, 858 P.2d 494 (1993)).
Under the APA, a plaintiff may petition for judicial review concerning the
lawfulness of an agency's promulgated rules and regulations, RCW 34.05.570(2), of
an agency's orders in adjudicative proceedings, id. at (3), and of "other agency
action," id. at (4). The parties agree that the Department's action is neither a
regulation nor an adjudicative order but is "other agency action."
RCW 34.05.570(4) governs judicial review of "other agency action." An
agency violates that statute when the agency "fail[s] to perform a duty that is
required by law," id. at (4)(b), when the agency's actions are "[u]nconstitutional,"
id. at (c)(i), when the agency's actions are "[o]utside the statutory authority of the
agency," id. at (c)(ii), when the agency's actions are "[a]rbitrary or capricious," id.
at (c)(iii), and when the agency's actions are "[t]aken by persons who were not
properly constituted as agency officials lawfully entitled to take such action," id. at
(c)(iv).
Brown challenges the Department's denial of her request for mediation on all
of the grounds except the last. In her three nonconstitutional challenges, Brown
simply contends she "should prevail if the Court concludes that [the Department's]
interpretation of the FFA was erroneous." Reply Br. of Appellant at 13; see also
-37-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
generally Br. of Appellant at 34-40; Reply Br. of Appellant at 13-16. Because the
Department correctly interpreted the DTA, as described above, the Department did
not violate the APA on these three grounds.
Brown's final challenge is that the Department's interpretation of the DTA
was unlawful agency action under RCW 34.05.570(4)(c)(i) because it was
unconstitutional. Brown contends the Department's interpretation of the DTA,
which we have adopted, violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the
United States and Washington constitutions. U.S. CoNST. amend. XIV,§ 1; WASH.
CONST. art. I, §§ 3, 12. Under our interpretation of the DTA, the Department
correctly grants or denies mediation based on whether the note holder was the
beneficiary in more than 250 residential foreclosures in the state of Washington in
the prior year. So interpreted, Brown argues the DTA treats similarly situated
homeowners-whose notes are owned by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae-differently,
with "no rational basis." Br. of Appellant at 45. According to Brown, access to
mediation turns on "an irrelevant factor, the identity of the servicer," and is a
"random lottery." Id. at 45-46.
We reject this challenge. As Brown acknowledges, we review the
constitutionality of the DTA provisions at issue under the highly deferential standard
of rationality review because the provisions are economic legislation that do not
involve fundamental rights. Id. at 44. 20 Accordingly, "the legislative classification
2
°For this reason, Brown's equal protection and due process arguments are identical
in substance, and we do not analyze them discretely. Brown has not identified relevant
-38-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
will be upheld unless it rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to achievement of
legitimate state objectives," State v. Shawn P., 122 Wash. 2d 553, 561, 859 P.2d 1220
(1993), and "a statutory classification will be upheld if any conceivable state of facts
reasonably justifies the classification," id. at 563-64. A statute is not invalid because
it is over- or underinclusive in achieving the legislature's purpose unless no
conceivable facts and justifications save the law from being wholly irrational. See
Am. Legion Post No. 149 v. Dep 't ofHealth, 164 Wash. 2d 570, 609-10, 192 P.3d 306
(2008).
Brown is incorrect that the Department's interpretation turns on an "an
irrelevant factor, the identity of the servicer." Br. of Appellant at 45. As we have
explained, that factor is relevant because the servicer holds the note, has authodty to
enforce the note, has authority to modify the note, is the person to whom the
borrower owes her obligation, and is the person to whom the borrower pays to
discharge her obligation. See supra pp. 12-19. The Department's scheme draws a
distinction that subjects to mediation only the biggest servicers-i.e., those that were
beneficiaries in more than 250 residential foreclosures in the prior year. RCW
61.24.166. The legislature conceivably perceived such servicers to be a major
contributor to the foreclosure crisis and conceivably decided that smaller
contributors to the foreclosure crisis ought not bear the burdens of mediation. Of
course, all numerical cutoffs have arbitrariness. But under rationality review of
distinctions between the state and federal constitutions in her challenge, so we decline to
assign differences to them here.
-39-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
economic legislation, "'[i]t is no requirement of equal protection that all evils of the
same genus be eradicated or none at all,"' Am. Legion Post No. 149, 164 Wash. 2d at
609-10 (quoting O'Hartigan v. Dep 't of Pers., 118 Wash. 2d 111, 124, 821 P.2d 44
( 1991)), and the legislature may enact laws that "take one step at a time, addressing
itself to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind,"
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., 348 U.S. 483, 489, 75 S. Ct. 461, 99 L. Ed. 563
(1955). We reject Brown's constitutional challenge.
III. CONCLUSION
We hold a party satisfies the proof of beneficiary prov1s1ons RCW
61.24.030(7)(a) and RCW 61.24.163(5)(c) when it submits an undisputed
declaration under penalty of perjury that it is the actual holder of the promissory
note. That party is the beneficiary for the purposes of the mediation exemption
provision, RCW 61.24.166, because the note holder is the party entitled to modify
and enforce the note. The Department's denial of Brown's request for mediation did
not violate the APA. We affirm the superior court's judgment.
-40-
Brown v. Wash. State Dep 't of Commerce, No. 90652-1
WE CONCUR:
/
-41-