Travis Mickelson v. Chase Home Finance

Good Law
579 F. App'x 598
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 18, 201413-35008California1,463 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Travis and Danielle Mickelson appeal the district court’s rejection of various claims — some for failure to state a claim, others on summary judgment — arising from the non-judicial foreclosure of their home. We affirm.

I. To the extent the Mickelsons seek to unwind the sale by seeking quiet title or injunctive relief, their failure to assert a claim prior to the trustee’s sale waives those objections under Plein v. Lackey, 149 Wash.2d 214 , 67 P.3d 1061, 1066-67 (2003). They received notice of the right to enjoin the sale, had constructive knowledge of their defenses, and failed to assert them prior to the sale. See, e.g., Frizzell v. Murray, 179 Wash.2d 301 , 313 P.3d 1171, 1174 (2013). Enforcing waiver here is equitable, because the Mickelsons “had knowledge of how to enjoin the sale and failed to do so through [their] own actions,” without being lulled into complaisance “due to the actions of a third party.” Id. at 1175. And it is consistent with the DTA’s policies. Id. We need not address the Mickelsons’ contention that the DTA “does not apply,” because the factual predicate of that argument is baseless: the sale did comply with the requisites of the DTA, as…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.