MEPPELINK v. Hidden Acres Homeowners Association; Occupants of the Premises, Counter-defendants. (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-29No. No. 20-35667

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment, finding that Wilmington, as the holder of the promissory note, was entitled under Washington law to enforce the note through judicial foreclosure.

Meppelink appealed from the district court's grant of partial summary judgment on a counterclaim filed by Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, seeking judicial foreclosure of her home. The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision de novo and upheld it, finding that under Washington law, Wilmington, as the holder of Meppelink's promissory note, had the legal authority to initiate a judicial foreclosure proceeding on the deed of trust securing that note.

Meppelink raised several objections on appeal, including that the district court's use of Rule 54(b) certification created improper piecemeal litigation and that the court exhibited bias or favoritism toward the defendants. The court rejected all of these contentions as without merit. The court also noted that it lacked jurisdiction over any claims not included in the Rule 54(b) certification and declined to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the holder of a promissory note has authority to commence judicial foreclosure of a secured deed of trust under Washington law
Whether the district court's Rule 54(b) certification created improper piecemeal litigation
Whether the district court exhibited bias or favoritism toward defendants

Procedural posture

Meppelink appealed pro se from the district court's entry of partial summary judgment on Wilmington's counterclaim for judicial foreclosure, certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Ayna Amanda Meppelink appeals pro se from the district courts judgment on defendant Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSBs counter claim seeking judicial foreclosure on Meppelinks home. Because the district court certified its interlocutory order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the grant of partial summary judgment. White v. City of Sparks, 500 F.3d 953, 955 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court properly granted partial summary judgment on Wilmingtons counterclaim because under Washington law, Wilmington is the holder of Meppelinks promissory note and entitled to enforce it by commencing a judicial foreclosure. See Wash. Rev. Code § 62A.1-201 (21)(A) (defining a holder with respect to a negotiable instrument); Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co. v. Slotke, 192 Wash.App. 166, 367 P.3d 600, 601, 604 (2016) (noting that “the holder of a promissory note secured by a deed of trust has authority to elect to commence a judicial foreclosure of that deed of trust[;]” provisions of the Deed of Trust Act relating to nonjudicial foreclosures of a deed of trust have “no bearing on a judicial foreclosure of a deed of trust because such a foreclosure, as the statutes make clear, is controlled by the law of mortgages”); see also Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Grp., Inc., 175 Wash.2d 83, 285 P.3d 34, 38-39, 42-44 (2012) (en banc) (requirements for judicial foreclosure).

Contrary to Meppelinks contention, the district courts entry of partial judgment under Rule 54(b) did not create an inappropriately piecemeal litigation. See Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873, 877-79 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth standard of review and criteria for Rule 54(b) certification).

We lack jurisdiction to consider claims other than those certified in the district courts Rule 54(b) order. See Air-Sea Forwarders, Inc. v. Air Asia Co., 880 F.2d 176, 179 n.1 (9th Cir. 1989) (no appellate jurisdiction exists over claims the district court did not include it is Rule 54(b) order).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We reject as without merit Meppelinks contentions that the district court ignored state court rulings, was biased against her, or showed favoritism towards the defendants.

AFFIRMED.