U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, et al v. Estate of Carl Plumb, et al

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
AS TRUSTEE, SUCCESSOR IN
INTEREST TO WILMINGTON TRUST
COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE, SUCCESSOR
IN INTEREST TO BANK OF AMERICA,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS
TRUSTEE FOR STRUCTURED ASSET
INVESTMENT LOAN TRUST
MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-1,
Respondents,
v.
GEORGIA A. PLUMB; JOSHUA C.
PLUMB; KAMERON F. PLUMB; and
THE WORD CHURCH,
Appellants,
ESTATE OF CARL PLUMB,
DECEASED; UNKNOWN HEIRS
AND DEVISEES OF CARL PLUMB,
DECEASED;; CITIBANK, N.A.;
ALSO ALL PERSONS OR PARTIES
UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY RIGHT,
TITLE, LIEN, OR INTEREST IN THE
PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE
COMPLAINT HEREIN,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 37687-7-III
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED
SEPTEMBER 2, 2021
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

No. 37687-7-III
U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Plumb
2
PENNELL, C.J. — Georgia A. Plumb, Joshua C. Plumb, Kameron F. Plumb, and
The World Church (aka Rev. Georgia Plumb) (collectively the Plumbs) appeal a superior
court order denying their motion to vacate a foreclosure order. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 2017, this court addressed an appeal between the parties regarding an order of
foreclosure issued after summary judgment. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Plumb, No. 34615-
3-III (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2017) (unpublished), https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions
/pdf/346153_unp.pdf. In the superior court litigation, the Plumbs argued U.S. Bank
lacked standing to initiate foreclosure proceedings because the bank did not possess
the applicable promissory note on the date it filed suit. We disagreed, explaining the
Plumbs lacked sufficient evidence that U.S. Bank did not hold the note. The Plumbs
unsuccessfully sought review of our decision in both the Washington Supreme Court,
190 Wn.2d 1010 (2018), and United States Supreme Court, 139 S. Ct. 227, reh’g denied,
139 S. Ct. 587 (2018). A mandate was issued from this court on April 19, 2018.
U.S. Bank proceeded with foreclosure proceedings in superior court. Five
months after the superior court issued an order confirming sale of the subject property,
the Plumbs moved to vacate under CR 60(b)(5). The Plumbs again asserted U.S. Bank

No. 37687-7-III
U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Plumb
3
lacked standing to proceed with foreclosure. According to the Plumbs, the lack of
standing divested the superior court of subject matter jurisdiction, thereby rendering
the court’s order void. The trial court denied the motion to vacate. The Plumbs appeal.
ANALYSIS
The trial court did not abuse its discretion1 in denying the motion to vacate.
Alleged defects in standing do not deprive superior courts of jurisdiction over forfeiture
proceedings. In re Estate of Reugh, 10 Wn. App. 2d 20, 57, 447 P.3d 544 (2019), review
denied, 194 Wn.2d 1018, 455 P.3d 128 (2020) (“[I]n Washington, a plaintiff’s lack of
standing is not a matter of subject matter jurisdiction.”); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v.
Slotke, 192 Wn. App. 166, 171, 367 P.3d 600 (2016) (superior courts have jurisdiction
over foreclosure actions). The Plumbs therefore lacked a basis to void the superior court’s
order.
CONCLUSION
The order on appeal is affirmed. The Plumbs’ request for fees and costs is denied.
1 “This court generally reviews a trial court’s decision to deny a motion to vacate
judgment for abuse of discretion.” Castellon v. Rodriguez, 4 Wn. App. 2d 8, 14, 418 P.3d
804 (2018). “However, there is a nondiscretionary duty on the trial court to vacate a void
judgment.” Id. This court reviews “de novo whether a judgment is void.” Id.

No.
37687-7-111
U.S.
Bank Nat'/ Ass 'n
v.
Plumb
A majority
of
the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in
the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant
to
RCW 2.06.040.
Pennell, C.J.
WE CONCUR:
d7
Uoa.?~ 	,ff-
Siddoway,
J.	
'
~~,:r.
Fearing,
J.
4