UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-D

ASSET-BACKED ISSUER DISTRIBUTION REPORT

PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the monthly distribution period from:

~~October~~November 2627, 2018 to ~~November~~December 26, 2018

Commission File Number of issuing entity: 333-159791-05

Central Index Key Number of issuing entity: 0001536694

Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2012-1

(Exact name of issuing entity as specified in its charter)

Commission File Number of depositor: 333-159791-01

Central Index Key Number of depositor: 0001176320

Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc.

(Exact name of depositor as specified in its charter)

Central Index Key Number of sponsor: 0001530239

RWT Holdings, Inc.

(Exact name of sponsor as specified in its charter)

Matthew J. Tomiak

(415) 389-7373

(Name and telephone number, including area code, of the person to contact in connection with this filing)

New York

(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization of the issuing entity)

38-3867571

38-3867572

38-3867573

(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

c/o Citibank, N.A.

388 Greenwich Street, 14^th Floor

New York, New York

10013

(Address of principal executive offices of the issuing entity)

(Zip Code)

(212) 816-5693

(Telephone number, including area code)


	Registered/reporting pursuant to (check one)			Name of exchange (If Section 12(b))
Title of class	Section 12(b)	Section 12(g)	Section 15(d)	Name of exchange (If Section 12(b))
1-A1	¨	¨	x

1-AX	¨	¨	x

2-A1	¨	¨	x

2-AX	¨	¨	x

B-1	¨	¨	x

B-2	¨	¨	x

B-3	¨	¨	x

B-4	¨	¨	x

B-5	¨	¨	x

LT-R	¨	¨	x

R	¨	¨	x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No ¨

PART I – DISTRIBUTION INFORMATION

Item 1. Distribution and Pool Performance Information.

On ~~November~~December 26, 2018, a distribution was made to holders of the certificates issued by Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2012-1.

The distribution report is attached as Exhibit 99.1 to this Form 10-D.

No assets securitized by Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc. (the “Depositor”) and held by Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2012-1 were the subject of a demand to repurchase or replace for breach of the representations and warranties during the monthly distribution period from ~~October~~November 2627, 2018 to ~~November~~December 26, 2018.

RWT Holdings, Inc. (the “Securitizer”), an affiliate of the Depositor, is the sponsor and the Securitizer of assets held by Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2012-1. The Securitizer filed its first Form ABS-15G on February 6, 2012, and most recently filed its Form ABS-15G on May 14, 2018. The CIK number of the Securitizer is 0001530239.

PART II – OTHER INFORMATION

Item 2. Legal Proceedings.

The Depositor has been notified by Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”) of an update to material pending legal proceedings to which Citibank is subject in connection with its role on certain RMBS transactions. The Depositor is not a party to, nor is this Sequoia transaction subject to, the pending legal proceedings.

Disclosure from Citibank, N.A., as securities administrator:

Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”) is acting as Securities Administrator of this RMBS transaction. In the ordinary course of business, Citibank is involved in a number of legal proceedings, including in connection with its role as trustee of certain RMBS transactions. Certain of these Citibank as trustee-related matters are disclosed herein.

On June 18, 2014, a civil action was filed against Citibank in the Supreme Court of the State of New York by a group of investors in 48 private-label RMBS trusts for which Citibank allegedly serves or did serve as trustee, asserting claims for purported violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (the “Trust Indenture Act”), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on Citibank’s alleged failure to perform its duties as trustee for the 48 RMBS trusts. On November 24, 2014, plaintiffs sought leave to withdraw this action. On the same day, a smaller subset of similar plaintiff investors in 27 private-label RMBS trusts for which Citibank allegedly serves or did serve as trustee, filed a new civil action against Citibank in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting similar claims as the prior action filed in state court. In January 2015, the court closed plaintiffs’ original state court action. On September 8, 2015, the federal court dismissed all claims as to 24 of the 27 trusts and allowed certain of the claims to proceed as to the other three trusts. Subsequently, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims with respect to two of the three trusts. On April 7, 2017, Citibank filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed its consolidated opposition brief and cross motion for partial summary judgment on May 22, 2017. Briefing on those motions was completed on August 4, 2017. On March 22, 2018, the court granted Citibank’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and ordered the clerk to close the case. On April 20, 2018, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiffs’ opening brief was filed on August 3, 2018. Citibank filed its opposition on November 2, 2018. Plaintiffs’ filed their reply on November 16, 2018.

On November 24, 2015, the same investors that brought the federal case brought a new civil action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York related to 25 private-label RMBS trusts for which Citibank allegedly serves or did serve as trustee. This case includes the 24 trusts previously dismissed in the federal action, and one additional trust. The investors assert claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest, and violation of New York’s Streit Act (the “Streit Act”). Following oral argument on Citibank’s motion to dismiss, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 5, 2016. On June 27, 2017, the state court issued a decision, dismissing the Event of Default claims, mortgage-file-related claims, the fiduciary duty claims, and the conflict of interest claims. The decision sustained certain breach of contract claims including the claim alleging discovery of breaches of representations and warranties, a claim related to robo-signing, and the implied covenant of good faith claim. Citibank appealed the lower court’s decision, and on January 16, 2018, the Appellate Division, First Department, dismissed the claims related to robo-signing and the implied covenant of good faith, but allowed plaintiffs’ claim alleging discovery of breaches of representations and warranties to proceed.

On August 19, 2015, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for a failed financial institution filed a civil action against Citibank in the Southern District of New York. This action relates to one private-label RMBS trust for which Citibank formerly served as trustee. FDIC asserts claims for breach of contract, violation of the Streit Act, and violation of the Trust Indenture Act. Citibank jointly briefed a motion to dismiss with The Bank of New York Mellon and U.S. Bank, N.A., entities that have also been sued by FDIC in their capacity as trustee, and these cases have all been consolidated in front of Judge Carter. On September 30, 2016, the Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On October 14, 2016, FDIC filed a motion for reargument or relief from judgment from the Court’s dismissal order. On July 11, 2017, Judge Carter ruled on the motion for reconsideration regarding his dismissal of the action. He denied reconsideration of his decision on standing, but granted leave to amend the complaint by October 9, 2017. The FDIC subsequently requested an extension of time to file its amended complaint, which was granted. The FDIC filed its amended complaint on December 8, 2017. Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 13, 2018. On April 18, 2018, plaintiff filed its opposition. Defendants filed their joint reply on May 3, 2018.

There can be no assurances as to the outcome of litigation or the possible impact of litigation on the trustee or the RMBS trusts. However, Citibank denies liability and continues to vigorously defend against these litigations. Furthermore, neither the above-disclosed litigations nor any other pending legal proceeding involving Citibank will materially affect Citibank’s ability to perform its duties as securities administrator under the pooling and servicing agreement for this RMBS transaction.

The Depositor has been notified by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A . (“Wells Fargo”) of an update to material pending legal proceedings to which Wells Fargo is subject in connection with its role as trustee of certain RMBS transactions.

This registrant is not a party to, nor is this Sequoia transaction subject to, the pending legal proceedings.

Disclosure from Wells Fargo, N.A.:

Since June 18, 2014, a group of institutional investors have filed civil complaints in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, and later the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (“Wells Fargo Bank”) in its capacity as trustee for certain residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”) trusts. The complaints against Wells Fargo Bank alleged that the trustee caused losses to investors and asserted causes of action based upon, among other things, the trustee's alleged failure to: (i) notify and enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of representations and warranties, (ii) notify investors of alleged events of default, and (iii) abide by appropriate standards of care following alleged events of default. Relief sought included money damages in an unspecified amount, reimbursement of expenses, and equitable relief. Wells Fargo Bank has reached an agreement, in which it denies any wrongdoing, to resolve these claims on a classwide basis for the 271 RMBS trusts currently at issue. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval. Separate lawsuits against Wells Fargo Bank making similar allegations filed by certain other institutional investors concerning 58 RMBS trusts in New York federal and state court are not covered by the agreement. In September 2017, Royal Park Investments SA/NV (“Royal Park”), one of the plaintiffs with respect to two trusts in the remaining cases, filed a putative class action complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and money damages based on Wells Fargo Bank’s indemnification from trust funds for legal fees and expenses Wells Fargo Bank incurs or has incurred in defending the case filed by Royal Park. With respect to the foregoing litigations, Wells Fargo Bank believes plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and intends to contest the claims vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the litigations or the possible impact of the litigations on Wells Fargo Bank or the RMBS trusts.

The Depositor has been notified by U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S Bank”) of an update to material pending legal proceedings to which U.S. Bank is subject in connection with its role as trustee of certain RMBS transactions.

This registrant is not a party to, nor is this Sequoia transaction subject to, the pending legal proceedings.

Disclosure from U.S. Bank:

Since 2014 various plaintiffs or groups of plaintiffs, primarily investors, have filed claims against U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”), in its capacity as trustee or successor trustee (as the case may be) under certain residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”) trusts. The plaintiffs or plaintiff groups have filed substantially similar complaints against other RMBS trustees, including Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon and Wells Fargo. The complaints against U.S. Bank allege the trustee caused losses to investors as a result of alleged failures by the sponsors, mortgage loan sellers and servicers for these RMBS trusts and assert causes of action based upon the trustee's purported failure to enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for alleged breaches of representations and warranties concerning loan quality. The complaints also assert that the trustee failed to notify securityholders of purported events of default allegedly caused by breaches of servicing standards by mortgage loan servicers and that the trustee purportedly failed to abide by a heightened standard of care following alleged events of default.

Currently U.S. Bank is a defendant in multiple actions alleging individual or class action claims against the trustee with respect to multiple trusts as described above. Previously, U.S. Bank disclosed that the most substantial case was: BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio et al v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. 605204/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (class action alleging claims with respect to approximately 770 trusts) and its companion case BlackRock Core Bond Portfolio et al v. U.S Bank National Association, No. 14-cv-9401 (S.D.N.Y.) (collectively, the “BlackRock cases”). U.S. Bank has entered into a settlement agreement that will resolve the BlackRock cases following approval of the dismissals by the applicable court. Some of the trusts implicated in the aforementioned Blackrock cases, as well as other trusts, are involved in actions brought by separate groups of plaintiffs related to no more than 100 trusts per case.

U.S. Bank cannot assure you as to the outcome of any of the litigation, or the possible impact of these litigations on the trustee or the RMBS trusts. However, U.S. Bank denies liability and believes that it has performed its obligations under the RMBS trusts in good faith, that its actions were not the cause of losses to investors and that it has meritorious defenses, and it intends to contest the plaintiffs’ claims vigorously.

Item 10. Exhibits.

(a) The following is a list of documents filed as part of this Report on Form 10-D:

(99.1): Monthly report distributed to holders of the certificates issued by Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2012-1, relating to the ~~November~~December 26, 2018 distribution.

(b) The exhibits required to be filed by the Registrant pursuant to this Form 10-D are listed above and in the Exhibit Index that immediately follows the signature page hereof.

EXHIBIT INDEX

ExhibitNumber		Description
Exhibit 99.1		Monthly report distributed to holders of the certificates issued by Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2012-1, relating to the ~~November~~December 26, 2018 distribution.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc.

(Depositor)

/s/ Matthew Tomiak

Matthew Tomiak, Vice President

Date: ~~December~~January 79, ~~2018~~2019

Filing Compare · Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2012-1