Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC
Washington Supreme Court
374 P.3d 1195 (2016)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Laura Jordan (plaintiff) bought a home in Washington with the help of a loan, which was secured by a deed of trust. The deed of trust contained a provision that authorized the lender to enter and secure the subject property without notice if the borrower defaulted. The lender hired Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (Nationstar) (defendant) to service the loan. Jordan defaulted on her payments. One day while Jordan was at work, Nationstar entered Jordan’s home and changed the locks, leaving Jordan unable to enter upon her return. Though Jordan was later able to recover her belongings, she ultimately vacated the property. Jordan brought suit against Nationstar in state court, alleging trespass, breach of contract, and other state-law violations. Nationstar argued that it had determined Jordan’s home to be abandoned before the rekeying. Nationstar removed the action to federal district court. Jordan and Nationstar agreed that Washington state law prohibited lenders from taking possession of borrowers’ property prior to foreclosure, but Nationstar argued that entering and rekeying a home did not constitute possession. Also, Jordan argued that Washington’s statute on receivership—i.e., the court’s ability to appoint a third-party receiver to take charge of property—provided the only legal means by which mortgaged property could be accessed upon a default. The federal court certified questions involving possession and receivership to the Washington Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Owens, J.)
Dissent (Stephens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.