UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 20132014

or

For the transition period from                    to                    

333-179292-08

(Commission File Number of issuing entity)

Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-3

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

333-179292

(Commission File Number of depositor)

Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc.

(Exact name of depositor as specified in its charter)

RWT Holdings, Inc.

(Exact name of sponsor as specified in its charter)

New York

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

38-3903315

38-3903316

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

(212) 816-5693

(Telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

None

Securities registered pursuant to section 12(g) of the Act:

None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities

Act.    ¨  Yes    x  No

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the

Act.    ¨  Yes    x  No

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.    x  Yes    ¨  No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

Not Applicable

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.

Not Applicable

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).    ¨  Yes    x  No

State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter.

Not Applicable

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed all documents and reports required to be filed by Section 12, 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 subsequent to the distribution of securities under a plan confirmed by a court.

Not Applicable

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

Not Applicable

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

List hereunder the following documents if incorporated by reference and the Part of the Form 10-K (e.g., Part I, Part II, etc.) into which the document is incorporated: (1) Any annual report to security holders; (2) Any proxy or information statement; and (3) Any prospectus filed pursuant to Rule 424(b) or (c) under the Securities Act of 1933. The listed documents should be clearly described for identification purposes (e.g., annual report to security holders for fiscal year ended December 24, 1980).

Not applicable

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Omitted.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Omitted.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 2. Properties.Properties.

Omitted.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

Omitted.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Omitted.

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Omitted.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data.

Omitted.

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

Omitted.

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.

Omitted.

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

Omitted.

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.

Omitted.

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.

Omitted.

Item 9B. Other Information.

None.

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.

Omitted.

Item 11. Executive Compensation.

Omitted.

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.

Omitted.

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.

Omitted.

Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services.

Omitted.

ADDITIONAL DISLCOSUREDISCLOSURE ITEMS REQUIRED BY GENERAL INSTRUCTION J(2)

Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB, Significant Obligor Financial Information.

No single obligor represents 10% or more of the pool assets held by the issuing entity.

Item 1114(b)(2) of Regulation AB, Significant Enhancement Provider Financial Information.

No entity or group of affiliated entities provides any external credit enhancement or other support for the certificates within this transaction as described under Item 1114(a) of Regulation AB.

Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB, Certain Derivatives Instruments (Financial Information).

No entity or group of affiliated entities provides any derivative instruments or other support for the certificates within this transaction as described under Item 1115 of Regulation AB.

Item 1117 of Regulation AB, Legal Proceedings.

On or about December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle (the “FHLB-Seattle”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the State of Washington (case number 09-2-46348-4 SEA) against the depositor, Redwood Trust, Inc., our subsidiary, Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc. (“SRF”Redwood Trust”), Morgan Stanley & Co., and Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc. (collectively, the “FHLB-Seattle Defendants”) alleging that the FHLB-Seattle Defendants made false or misleading statements in offering materials for a mortgage pass-through certificate (the “Seattle Certificate”) issued in the Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2005-4 securitization transaction (the “2005-4 RMBS”) and purchased by the FHLB-Seattle. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the alleged misstatements concern the (1) loan-to-value ratio of mortgage loans and the appraisals of the properties that secured loans supporting the 2005-4 RMBS, (2) occupancy status of the properties, (3) standards used to underwrite the loans, and (4) ratings assigned to the Seattle Certificate. The FHLB-Seattle alleges claims under the Securities Act of Washington (Section 21.20.005, et seq.) and seeks to rescind the purchase of the Seattle Certificate and to collect interest on the original purchase price at the statutory interest rate of 8% per annum from the date of original purchase (net of interest received) as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The Seattle Certificate was issued with an original principal amount of approximately $133 million, and, as of December 31, 2013,2014, the FHLB-Seattle has received approximately $114.4$115.8 million of principal and $11.0$11.1 million of interest payments in respect of the Seattle Certificate. As of December 31, 2013,2014, the Seattle Certificate had a remaining outstanding principal amount of approximately $19.0$17.5 million. The claims were subsequently dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction as to the depositor and Redwood Trust. The depositor and Redwood Trust and SRF. Redwood agreed to indemnify the underwriters of the 2005-4 RMBS for certain losses and expenses they might incur as a result of claims made against them relating to this RMBS, including, without limitation, certain legal expenses. The FHLB-Seattle’s claims against the underwriters of this RMBS were not dismissed and remain pending. Regardless of the outcome of this litigation, the depositor and Redwood Trust could incur a loss as a result of these indemnities.

On or about July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corporation (“Schwab”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California in San Francisco (case number CGC-10-501610) against SRFthe depositor and 26 other defendants (collectively, the “Schwab Defendants”) alleging that the Schwab Defendants made false or misleading statements in offering materials for various residential mortgage-backed securities sold or issued by the Schwab Defendants. With respect to SRF, Schwab allegesalleged only a claim for negligent misrepresentation under California state law against the depositor and sought unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees and costs from the depositor. Schwab claims that SRFthe depositor made false or misleading statements in offering materials for a mortgage pass-through certificate (the “Schwab Certificate”) issued in the 2005-4 RMBS and purchased by Schwab. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the

misstatements for the 2005-4 RMBS concern the (1) loan-to-value ratio of mortgage loans and the appraisals of the properties that secured loans supporting the 2005-4 RMBS, (2)

occupancy status of the properties, (3) standards used to underwrite the loans, and (4) ratings assigned to the Schwab Certificate. On November 14, 2014, Schwab alleges a claim forvoluntarily dismissed with prejudice its negligent misrepresentation under California state law and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.claim, which resulted in the dismissal with prejudice of the depositor from the action. The Schwab Certificate was issued with an original principal amount of approximately $14.8 million, and, as of December 31, 2013,2014, Schwab has received approximately $12.7$12.9 million of principal and $1.3 million of interest payments in respect of the Schwab Certificate. As of December 31, 2013,2014, the Schwab Certificate had a remaining outstanding principal amount of approximately $2.1$1.9 million. SRF has denied Schwab’s allegations. We intend to defend the action vigorously.The depositor and Redwood Trust agreed to indemnify the underwriters of the 2005-4 RMBS, which underwriters arewere also named and remain as defendants in thisthe action, for certain losses and expenses they might incur as a result of claims made against them relating to this RMBS, including, without limitation, certain legal expenses. Regardless of the outcome of this litigation, Redwood could incur a loss as a result of these indemnities.

On or about October 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago (“FHLB-Chicago”) filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (case number 10-CH-45033) against SRFdepositor and more than 45 other named defendants (collectively, the “FHLB-Chicago Defendants”) alleging that the FHLB-Chicago Defendants made false or misleading statements in offering materials for various RMBS sold or issued by the FHLB-Chicago Defendants or entities controlled by them. FHLB-Chicago subsequently amended the complaint to name Redwood Trust Inc. and another one of our subsidiaries, RWT Holdings, Inc., as defendants. With respect to Redwood Trust, Inc., RWT Holdings, Inc., and SRF, the FHLB-Chicago alleges that SRF, Redwood Trust, Inc., and RWT Holdings, Inc. made false or misleading statements in the offering materials for two mortgage pass-through certificates (the “Chicago Certificates”) issued in the Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2006-1 securitization transaction (the “2006-1 RMBS”) and purchased by the FHLB-Chicago. The complaint alleges that the alleged misstatements concern, among other things, the (1) loan-to-value ratio of mortgage loans and the appraisals of the properties that secured loans supporting the 2006-1 RMBS, (2) occupancy status of the properties, (3) standards used to underwrite the loans, (4) ratings assigned to the Chicago Certificates, and (5) due diligence performed on these mortgage loans. The FHLB-Chicago alleges claims under Illinois Securities Law (815 ILCS Sections 5/12(F)-(H)) and North Carolina Securities Law (N.C.G.S.A. §78A-8(2) & §78A-56(a)) as well as a claim for negligent misrepresentation under Illinois common law. On some of the causes of action, the FHLB-Chicago seeks to rescind the purchase of the Chicago Certificates and to collect interest on the original purchase prices at the statutory interest rate of 10% per annum from the dates of original purchase (net of interest received). On one cause of action, the FHLB-Chicago seeks unspecified damages. The FHLB-Chicago also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs. The first of the Chicago Certificates was issued with an original principal amount of approximately $105 million and, as of December 31, 2013, the FHLB Chicago has received approximately $72.3 million of principal and $24.2 million of interest payments in respect of this Chicago Certificate. As of December 31, 2013, this Chicago Certificate had a remaining outstanding principal amount of approximately $32.0 million (after taking into account approximately $1.0 million of principal losses allocated to this Chicago Certificate). The second of the Chicago Certificates was issued with an original principal amount of approximately $379 million and, as of December 31, 2013, the FHLB Chicago has received approximately $258.6 million of principal and $81.5 million of interest payments in respect of this Chicago Certificate. As of December 31, 2013, this Chicago Certificate had a remaining outstanding principal amount of approximately $113.7 million (after taking into account approximately $6.3 million of principal losses allocated to this Chicago Certificate). SRF, Redwood Trust, Inc., and RWT Holdings, Inc. have denied FHLB-Chicago’s allegations. This case is in early stages of discovery, and no trial date has been set. We intend to defend the action vigorously. Redwood agreed to indemnify the underwriters of the 2006-1 RMBS, which underwriters are also named defendants in this action, for certain losses and expenses they might incur as a result of claims made against them relating to this RMBS, including, without limitation, certain legal expenses. Regardless of the outcome of this litigation, Redwood could incur a loss as a result of these indemnities.

The business of the sponsor, the depositor, the seller and their affiliates has included, and continues to include, activities relating to the acquisition and securitization of residential mortgage loans. In addition, the business of the sponsor has, in the past, included activities relating to the acquisition and securitization of debt obligations and other assets through the issuance of collateralized debt obligations (commonly referred to as CDO transactions). Because of their involvement in the securitization and CDO businesses, the sponsor, the depositor, the seller and their affiliates could become the subject of litigation relating to these businesses, including additional litigation of the type described above, and could also become the subject of governmental investigations, enforcement actions, or lawsuits and governmental authorities could allege that these entities violated applicable law or regulation in the conduct of their business.

In fact, the sponsor and its affiliates have received, and responded to, information requests and subpoenas from two governmental authorities (one by the SEC relating to the sponsor’s CDO business and one by the National Credit Union Administration relating to a residential mortgage securitization conducted by the sponsor and the depositor). It is possible that the sponsor, the depositor, the seller or their affiliates might not be successful in defending or responding to any litigation, governmental investigation or related action and any losses incurred as a result of the resolution of any such action or investigation could have a material adverse effect on the sponsor, the depositor, the seller or their affiliates. In any case, regardless of the merits of any allegation or legal action that may be brought against the sponsor, the depositor, the seller or their affiliates, or of their success in defending against such allegations or legal actions, the costs of defending against any such allegation or legal action may be significant or material and could have a material adverse effect on the sponsor, the depositor, the seller or their affiliates.

The depositor has been notified by Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”) and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”), respectively, of material pending legal proceedings to which Citibank and Wells Fargo are, respectively, subject in connection with their role as trustee on certain RMBS transactions. This Sequoia transaction is not a party to nor subject to the pending legal proceedings.

The disclosure that the depositor received from each of Citibank and Wells Fargo, respectively, is included here:

Citibank, N.A.

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. One such proceeding was a civil action filed against Citibank in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on June 18, 2014 by a group of investors in 48 private-label RMBS trusts for which Citibank serves or did serve as trustee, asserting claims for alleged violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, 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 serves or did serve as trustee, filed a new civil action against Citibank in the Southern District of New York asserting similar claims as the prior action filed in state court.

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 intends to vigorously defend against the litigation. Furthermore, neither the above-disclosed litigation nor any other pending legal proceeding involving Citibank will materially affect Citibank’s ability to perform its duties under the Pooling & Servicing Agreement for the RMBS trusts.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

On June 18, 2014, a group of institutional investors filed a civil complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., in its capacity as trustee under 276 residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”) trusts, which was later amended on July 18, 2014, to increase the number of trusts to 284 RMBS trusts. On November 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the state court action without prejudice. That same day, a group of institutional investors filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., alleging claims against the bank in its capacity as trustee for 274 residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”) trusts (the “Complaint”). In December 2014, the plaintiffs’ motion to voluntarily dismiss their original state court action was granted. As with the prior state court action, the Complaint is one of six similar complaints filed contemporaneously against RMBS trustees (Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon and US Bank) by a group of institutional investor plaintiffs. The Complaint against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. alleges that the trustee caused losses to investors and asserts causes of action based upon, among other things, the trustee’s alleged failure to (i) enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of representations and warranties, (ii) notify investors of alleged events of default purportedly caused by breaches by mortgage loan servicers, and (iii) abide by appropriate standards of care following alleged events of default. Relief sought includes money damages in an unspecified amount, reimbursement of expenses, and equitable relief. Other cases alleging similar causes of action have been filed against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and other trustees by RMBS investors in these and other transactions. There can be no assurances as to the outcome of the litigation, or the possible impact of the litigation on the trustee or the RMBS trusts. However, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 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 any losses to investors, and that it has meritorious defenses, and it intends to contest the plaintiffs’ claims vigorously.

Item 1119 of Regulation AB, Affiliations and Certain Relationships and Related Transactions.

The seller and servicing administrator, the sponsor and the depositor are each either directly or indirectly wholly-owned subsidiaries of Redwood Trust, Inc. There is not currently, and there was not during the past two years, any material business relationship, agreement, arrangement, transaction or understanding that is or was entered into outside the ordinary course of business or is or was on terms other than would be obtained in an arm’s length transaction with an unrelated third party, between (a) any of the seller, the sponsor, the depositor and the issuing entity on the one hand and (b) any of the trustee, any servicer, the custodian, the master servicer, the securities administrator or either originator of the mortgage loans on the other hand.

Item 1122 of Regulation AB, Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria.

The reports on assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and the related attestation reports on such assessments of compliance are attached hereto under Item 15.

The registrant has prepared the Table below in connection with this transaction. The Table shows, in one compiled format, which entity participating in a servicing function for this transaction was assigned responsibility for each criterion in Item 1122(d). In the Table below, certain criteria are not applicable, given the structure of the offering, and accordingly no entity is assigned responsibility for such criteria.

Also, Christiana Trust, a division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB (“Christiana”), the trustee, does not participate in any servicing function for the transaction that is the subject of this 10-K filing. Therefore, there is no reference to Christiana in the chart below; nor does this 10-K filing include any assessment or auditor report from Christiana. Finally, any discrepancies between the chart below and the assessment of compliance exhibit provided by any party listed in the chart is explained by the fact that the chart is specific to the transaction that is the subject of this 10-K filing, whereas each party’s respective assessment of compliance is issued on a platform basis and includes coverage of other additional transactions that are not the subject of this 10-K filing.

SEQUOIA RESIDENTIAL FUNDING, INC.

SEMT 2013-3

RegRegulation AB 1122(d)

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

The assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria for the twelve months ended December 31, 2013, furnished pursuant to Item 1122 of Regulation AB by the Corporate Trust Services division of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the “2013 Wells Fargo Assessment”) for its platform, discloses that material instances of noncompliance occurred with respect to the servicing criteria described in Item 1122(d)(3)(i)(B) and Item 1122(d)(3)(ii) of Regulation AB. The 2013 Wells Fargo Assessment is attached to this Form 10-K as exhibit 33.6.

Management’s assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB for the Period, disclosed that material instances of noncompliance occurred with respect to the servicing criteria set forth in both of Items 1122(d)(3)(i)(B) and 1122(d)(3)(ii), as follows:

Management’s Discussion on Material Instances of Noncompliance by the Company

I.Defined Terms.

For purposes of thisSchedule B, reference is made to the following defined terms.

II.General

Through its normal business procedures and through other procedures, including procedures performed in connection with the preparation of the 2013 Item 1122 Compliance Reports, the Company determined that Identified Payment Errors and Identified Reporting Errors occurred during the Period on certain RMBS transactions in the RMBS Bond Administration Platform. Although no individually identified error, in and of itself, was found to be material to the RMBS Bond Administration Platform, Management determined that, for RMBS Bond Administration Platform purposes, the aggregate number of errors constituted material noncompliance with respect to both Items 1122(d)(3)(i)(B) and 1122(d)(3)(ii) of Regulation AB. All of the Identified Payment Errors and Identified Reporting Errors were addressed as further discussed in the Remediation section below.

In some instances, the Identified Payment Errors were also considered material to the transactions on which they occurred. None of the Identified Reporting Errors were considered material for a particular transaction. For all transactions in the RMBS Bond Administration Platform, Management delivered an Item 1123 certification to the extent it was obligated to do so under the applicable transaction agreements and Regulation AB. Where an Identified Payment Error was considered material for an individual transaction, the Item 1123 certification for that transaction included a description of the nature and status of such error.

The Company developed a unique Model for each transaction in its RMBS Bond Administration Platform. On the whole, there are millions of calculations performed by the Models each distribution period for the thousands of transactions in the RMBS Bond Administration Platform.The Company’s waterfall payment calculation and reporting functions can be categorized into three processes: (i) Model Inputs, (ii) Model Programs, and (iii) Model Output Transmissions.

The Identified Payment Errors that occurred during the Period were attributable to Model Errors that occurred on certain RMBS transactions. As in 2011 and 2012, the Model Errors generally occurred due to the significant deterioration in mortgage loan performance¹ experienced by many RMBS transactions over the past several years. This deterioration in performance continues to impact Models and has led to increased Model Input Errors and Model Program Errors.² The Identified Reporting Errors that occurred during the Period were attributable to the Identified Payment Errors and missing or inaccurate information on the investor reports.

Model Programs and Model Inputs and the processes related to Model Programs and Model Inputs are, over the life of a transaction, constantly being adjusted in an effort to ensure accurate payments and reporting. Continual adjustments are required because the transactions and securities to which the Models relate are very complex and the technology and processes related to Model Programs and Model Inputs are equally complex. The level of adjustment needed for Model Programs, Model Inputs and related processes has increased as mortgage loan performance deterioration increased. The Identified Payment Errors and Identified Reporting Errors occurred during the Period notwithstanding these Model adaptations and adjustments. As further discussed in the Remediation section below, there are ongoing efforts to identify, correct and prevent problems with Models in an effort to minimize future payment and reporting errors.

III.Scope of the Material Instances of Noncompliance

A.Identified Payment Errors. During the Period, there were approximately 103³ Identified Payment Errors on RMBS transactions in the RMBS Bond Administration Platform. The Identified Payment Errors resulted from Model Input Errors, Model Program Errors and Model Output Transmission Errors.⁴

The high level of RMBS mortgage loan performance deterioration has also contributed to Model Program Errors. The extensive collateral losses in RMBS transactions have triggered waterfall scenarios that were considered unlikely to occur at the inception of the transactions (if they were considered at all) and were not as clearly detailed as other provisions in the transaction agreements that direct waterfall calculations and distributions. Because such waterfall scenarios were not forecasted by issuers and underwriters, the Company was not provided with the necessary benchmark data needed to adequately test and validate the waterfall scenarios triggered by the unanticipated deterioration of mortgage loan performance. In turn, this inability to test the application of the waterfall in the extremely stressed conditions that thereafter occurred contributed to the occurrence of Model Program Errors.

B.Identified Reporting Errors. For the Period, there were approximately 172⁵ Identified Reporting Errors on RMBS transactions in the RMBS Bond Administration Platform.

C.Comparison of 2013 Identified Payment Errors and Identified Reporting Errors to 2012 Payment and Reporting Errors

The 2013 Identified Payment Errors and the Identified Reporting Errors were generally similar in type to the payment and reporting errors that led to the material instances of noncompliance disclosed on Management’s 2012 assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria. However the errors generally occurred on different transactions than 2012. Moreover, the specific circumstances that gave rise to the errors in 2013 generally differed from the circumstances experienced in 2012. In a few cases, the same transaction was impacted in both 2012 and 2013 because

the error carried over from monthly distribution periods in 2012 to monthly distribution periods in 2013. As a result, the error affected both the 2013 Assessment and the 2012 assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria. The correction of the 2013 Identified Payment Errors and Identified Reporting Errors was specific to the affected transactions and such correction does not preclude the possibility that a similar type of error would occur on a different transaction in 2014.

Examples of Model Program Errors that occurred similarly in both years involve (i) post-credit support depletion loss allocation methodology and payment priority rules, and (ii) the calculation of group-directed cash flows, interest calculation elements, and pre-credit support depletion loss allocation methodology.

Examples of Model Input Errors that occurred similarly in both years involve (i) improper coding of cash adjustments and using incorrect prior month data, (ii) loan modification inputs related to capitalization of delinquent amounts and the recovery of advances related thereto and modified interest rates in certain transaction structures, and (iii) cash adjustments related to servicer advance reimbursements that caused errors in certain calculations (e.g., the net weighted average coupon rate calculations).

While there were Model Output Transmission Errors in 2012 that contributed to the determination that there was a material instance of noncompliance with respect to Item 1122(d)(3)(ii) of Regulation AB for 2012, they generally differed from the Model Output Transmission Errors experienced in 2013. Most of the 2013 Model Output Transmission Errors were untimely transmissions of output from the related Models whereas the Model Output Transmission Errors in 2012 were timely but inaccurate transmissions of output from the related Models.

Comparing the Identified Reporting Errors in 2013 to the identified reporting errors in 2012, a substantial number in each year were caused by the payment errors (i.e., reporting an incorrect payment). There were other reporting errors in both years that related to missing and incorrect bond information and missing and incorrect mortgage loan information.

IV.Remediation

The Company has taken appropriate corrective action, or is in the process of determining appropriate corrective action, for all the Identified Payment Errors. The Identified Payment Errors for which such corrective action has been taken were rectified by means of (i) restating all affected distribution periods⁶, (ii) in one case, adjusting the affected distribution periods on a future distribution date⁷, and (iii) with respect to the Model Output Transmission Errors described in the Scope section above where the distribution was delayed by approximately one to two business days, making the additional required distribution. The restatements and adjustments occurred between January 2013 and February 2014. Investors received notice of such restatements and adjustments by means of posting revised payment date statements to the Company’s corporate trust website (www.ctslink.com).

The Company has also taken appropriate corrective action, or is in the process of determining appropriate corrective action, for all of the Identified Reporting Errors. The Identified Reporting Errors for which such corrective action has been taken were addressed either through the issuance of a revised payment date statement (possibly in connection with a restatement of the affected distribution period) or through including the corrected reporting element on the next payment date statement.

Further, with respect to RMBS transactions generally in the RMBS Bond Administration Platform, the Company is engaged in an ongoing effort to examine and adjust waterfall calculations, operational processes and quality control measures applied to the payment calculation and reporting process in an effort to minimize future errors. To that end, the Company has undertaken an expansive project to identify, correct and prevent problems with its Models and the individual transactions that exhibited these problems. Due to the complexity of the issues and transactions involved, this is a long term, intensive project involving significant internal and external resources. In conjunction with other steps taken, the Company believes that these efforts will result in ongoing improvements to its payment and reporting processes.

Throughout 2012 and 2013, the Company has adopted numerous other initiatives in an effort to add rigor to its operational processes and quality control measures. The initiatives relate to both preventing Model Errors and identifying and correcting Model Errors. Examples of measures to prevent Model Errors include, among other things, enhancements to its (i) new Model creation procedures, (ii) procedures for pre-closing review of waterfall language in transaction agreements, and (iii) procedures for pre-payment date testing of transaction level payment calculations and reporting elements. Examples of measures to identify and correct Model Errors include, among other things, (a) enhanced procedures relating to Model revisions, (b) the creation of a team charged with conducting a careful analysis of every Model Error to determine if any additional controls are necessary to prevent the errors from re-occurring, and (c) the creation of a team to proactively perform Model Program corrections to prevent future Model Errors. The Company has hired a significant number of additional staff and reorganized various teams to more effectively manage the above-mentioned operational processes and quality control measures.

Item 1123 of Regulation AB, Servicer Compliance Statement.

The servicer compliance statements are attached hereto under Item 15.

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules.

(a) List the following documents filed as a part of the report:

(b) See subparagraph (a)(3) above.

(c) Omitted.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) 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.

Date: March 28, 2014

EXHIBIT INDEX

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) 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.

Date: March 30, 2015

EXHIBIT INDEX