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

Securities registered pursuant to ~~section~~Section 12(g) of the Act: ~~None~~None.

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. ☐ Yes ☒ 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 ☒ 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. ☒ Yes ☐ No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of RegulationS-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).

Indicate by check mark ~~if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of RegulationS-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 Form10-K.~~

~~Indicate by check mark~~ whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, anon-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Act). ☐ Yes ☒ No

State the aggregate market value of the voting andnon-voting common equity held bynon-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.

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.

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

List hereunder the following documents if incorporated by reference and the Part of the Form10-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).

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

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

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

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

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

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.

~~On or about December 23, 2009,~~There is no significant update regarding the ~~Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle (the “FHLB-Seattle”) filed a complaint~~litigation matters described in ~~the Superior Court~~Redwood’s Form 10-K for the State of Washington (case number 09-2-46348-4 SEA) against the depositor, Redwood Trust, Inc. (“Redwood Trust”), Morgan Stanley & Co., and Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc. (collectively, the “FHLB-Seattle Defendants”), which alleged 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 alleged that the alleged misstatements concerned 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 alleged claimsyear ended December 31, 2020 under the ~~Securities Act~~heading “Item 1117 of Washington (Section 21.20.005, et seq.) and sought 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, at December 31, 2018, approximately $126 million of principal and $12 million of interest payments had been made in respect of the Seattle Certificate. As of December 31, 2018, the Seattle Certificate had a remaining outstanding principal amount of approximately $8 million. The matter was subsequently resolved and the claims were dismissed by the FHLB-Seattle as to all the FHLB-Seattle Defendants. At the time the Seattle Certificate was issued, the depositor and Redwood Trust agreed to indemnify the underwriters of the 2005-4 RMBS, which underwriters were named as defendants in the 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 resolution 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 the depositor and 26 other defendants (collectively, the “Schwab Defendants”), which alleged 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. Schwab alleged 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 claimed that the 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 alleged that the misstatements for the 2005-4 RMBS concerned 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. The Schwab Certificate was issued with an original principal amount of approximately $15 million, and, at December 31, 2018, approximately $14 million of principal and $1 million of interest payments

had been made in respect of the Schwab Certificate. As of December 31, 2018, the Schwab Certificate had a remaining outstanding principal amount of approximately $1 million. At the time the Schwab Certificate was issued, the depositor and Redwood Trust agreed to indemnify the underwriters of the 2005-4 RMBS, which underwriters were also named as defendants in the 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 resolution of this litigation, the depositor and Redwood Trust 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. As an example, in July 2016 the sponsor, the depositor and their affiliates became aware of a complaint filed by the State of California on April 1, 2016 against Morgan Stanley & Co. and certain of its affiliates alleging, among other things, that there were misleading statements contained in offering materials for 28 different mortgage pass through certificates purchased by various California investors, including various California public pension systems, from Morgan Stanley and alleging that Morgan Stanley made false or fraudulent claims in connection with the sale of those certificates. Of the 28 mortgage pass-through certificates that were the subject of the complaint, two were Sequoia mortgage pass-through certificates issued in 2004 and two were Sequoia mortgage pass-through certificates issued in 2007. With respect to each of those certificates, RWT Holdings, Inc. was the sponsor and Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc. was the depositor. The plaintiffs subsequently withdrew from the litigation their claims based on eight of the 28 mortgage pass-through certificates, including one of the Sequoia mortgage pass-through certificates issued in 2004. At the time these Sequoia mortgage pass-through certificates were issued, the depositor and Redwood Trust agreed to indemnify the underwriters of these certificates for certain losses and expenses they might incur as a result of claims made against them relating to these certificates, including, without limitation, certain legal expenses. Regardless of the outcome of this litigation, the depositor and Redwood Trust could incur a loss as a result of these indemnities.Regulation AB, Legal Proceedings.”

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,~~is subject in connection with ~~their~~its 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. (“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.

~~Since~~Beginning on 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~~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. In November 2018, Wells Fargo Bank ~~has~~ reached an agreement, in which it ~~denies~~denied any wrongdoing, to resolve ~~these~~such claims on a classwide basis for the 271 RMBS trusts ~~currently~~ at issue. ~~The~~On May 6, 2019, the court entered an order approving the settlement ~~agreement is subject to court approval.~~agreement. Separate lawsuits against Wells Fargo Bank making similar allegations filed by certain other institutional investors concerning 57several RMBS trusts in New York federal and state court are not covered by the settlement agreement.

In addition to the foregoing cases, in August 2014 and August 2015 Nomura Credit & Capital Inc. (“Nomura”) and Natixis Real Estate Holdings, LLC (“Natixis”) filed a total of seven third-party complaints against Wells Fargo Bank in New York state court. In the underlying first-party actions, Nomura and Natixis have been sued for alleged breaches of representations and warranties made in connection with residential mortgage-backed securities sponsored by them. In the third-party actions, Nomura and Natixis allege that Wells Fargo Bank, as master servicer, primary servicer or securities administrator, failed to notify Nomura and Natixis of their own breaches, failed to properly oversee the primary servicers, and failed to adhere to accepted servicing practices. Natixis additionally alleges that Wells Fargo Bank failed to perform default oversight duties. Wells Fargo Bank has asserted counterclaims alleging that Nomura and Natixis failed to provide Wells Fargo Bank notice of their representation and warranty breaches.

With respect to each of the foregoing litigations, Wells Fargo Bank believes ~~plaintiffs’~~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 related RMBS trusts.

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.

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 this10-K filing. Therefore, there is no reference to Christiana in the chart below; nor does this10-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 this10-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 this10-K filing.

Regulation AB

Reference

Servicing Criteria

Wells Fargo Bank

N.A., as Master

Servicer

Citibank, N.A., as

Securities

Administrator

and Paying Agent

Cenlar,

FSB, as

Servicer

Redwood

Residential

Acquisition

Corporation,

as Servicing

Administrator

Wells Fargo

Bank

N.A., as

Custodian

General Servicing Considerations

1122(d)(1)(i)

Policies and procedures are instituted to monitor any performance or other triggers and events of default in accordance with the transaction agreements.

1122(d)(1)(ii)

If any material servicing activities are outsourced to third parties, policies and procedures are instituted to monitor the third party’s performance and compliance with such servicing activities.

1122(d)(1)(iii)

Any requirements in the transaction agreements to maintain aback-up servicer for the pool assets are maintained.

N/A

1122(d)(1)(iv)

A fidelity bond and errors and omissions policy is in effect on the party participating in the servicing function throughout the reporting period in the amount of coverage required by and otherwise in accordance with the terms of the transaction agreements.

1122(d)(1)(v)

Aggregation of information, as applicable, is mathematically accurate and the information conveyed accurately reflects the information.

Cash Collection and Administration

1122(d)(2)(i)

Payments on pool assets are deposited into the appropriate bank collection accounts and related bank clearing accounts no more than two business days following receipt, or such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements.

1122(d)(2)(ii)

Disbursements made via wire transfer on behalf of an obligor or to an investor are made only by authorized personnel.

1122(d)(2)(iii)

Advances of funds or guarantees regarding collections, cash flows or distributions, and any interest or other fees charged for such advances, are made, reviewed and approved as specified in the transaction agreements.

1122(d)(2)(iv)

The related accounts for the transaction, such as cash reserve accounts or accounts established as a form of over collateralization, are separately maintained (e.g., with respect to commingling of cash) as set forth in the transaction agreements.

1122(d)(2)(v)

Each collection account is maintained at a federally insured depository institution as set forth in the transaction agreements. For purposes of this criterion, “federally insured depository institution” with respect to a foreign financial institution means a foreign financial institution that meets the requirements of Rule13k-1(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act.

1122(d)(2)(vi)

Unissued checks are safeguarded so as to prevent unauthorized access.

1122(d)(2)(vii)

Reconciliations are prepared on a monthly basis for all asset-backed securities related bank accounts, including collection accounts and related bank clearing accounts. These reconciliations are (A) mathematically accurate; (B) prepared within 30 calendar days after the bank statement cutoff date, or such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements; (C) reviewed and approved by someone other than the person who prepared the reconciliation; and (D) contain explanations for reconciling items. These reconciling items are resolved within 90 calendar days of their original identification, or such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements.

Investor Remittances and Reporting

1122(d)(3)(i)

Reports to investors, including those to be filed with the Commission, are maintained in accordance with the transaction agreements and applicable Commission requirements. Specifically, such reports (A) are prepared in accordance with timeframes and other terms set forth in the transaction agreements; (B) provide information calculated in accordance with the terms specified in the transaction agreements; (C) are filed with the Commission as required by its rules and regulations; and

(D) agree with investors’ or the trustee’s records as to the total unpaid principal balance and number of pool assets serviced by the Servicer.

(Except

NOT

1122(d)

(3)(i)

(C))

1122(d)(3)(ii)

Amounts due to investors are allocated and remitted in accordance with timeframes, distribution priority and other terms set forth in the transaction agreements.

1122(d)(3)(iii)

Disbursements made to an investor are posted within two business days to the Servicer’s investor records, or such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements.

1122(d)(3)(iv)

Amounts remitted to investors per the investor reports agree with cancelled checks, or other form of payment, or custodial bank statements.

Pool Asset Administration

1122(d)(4)(i)

Collateral or security on pool assets is maintained as required by the transaction agreements or related pool asset documents.

X**

1122(d)(4)(ii)

Pool assets and related documents are safeguarded as required by the transaction agreements.

X**

1122(d)(4)(iii)

Any additions, removals or substitutions to the asset pool are made, reviewed & approved in accordance with any conditions or requirements in the transaction agreements.

1122(d)(4)(iv)

Payments on pool assets, including any payoffs, made in accordance with the related pool asset documents are posted to the Servicer’s obligor records maintained no more than two business days after receipt, or such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements, and allocated to principal, interest or other items (e.g., escrow) in accordance with the related pool asset documents.

1122(d)(4)(v)

The Servicer’s records regarding the pool assets agree with the Servicer’s records with respect to an obligor’s unpaid principal balance.

1122(d)(4)(vi)

Changes with respect to the terms or status of an obligor’s pool assets (e.g., loan modifications orre-agings) are made, reviewed and approved by authorized personnel in accordance with the transaction agreements and related pool asset documents.

1122(d)(4)(vii)

Loss mitigation or recovery actions (e.g., forbearance plans, modifications and deeds in lieu of foreclosure, foreclosures and repossessions, as applicable) are initiated, conducted and concluded in accordance with the timeframes or other requirements established by the transaction agreements.

1122(d)(4)(viii)

Records documenting collection efforts are maintained during the period a pool asset is delinquent in accordance with the transaction agreements. Such records are maintained on at least a monthly basis, or such other period specified in the transaction agreements, and describe the entity’s activities in monitoring delinquent pool assets including, for example, phone calls, letters and payment rescheduling plans in cases where delinquency is deemed temporary (e.g., illness or unemployment).

1122(d)(4)(ix)

Adjustments to interest rates or rates of return for pool assets with variable rates are computed based on the related pool asset documents.

1122(d)(4)(x)

Regarding any funds held in trust for an obligor (such as escrow accounts): (A) such funds are analyzed, in accordance with the obligor’s pool asset documents, on at least an annual basis, or such other period specified in the transaction agreements; (B) interest on such funds is paid, or credited, to obligors in accordance with applicable pool asset documents and state laws; and (C) such funds are returned to the obligor within 30 calendar days of full repayment of the related pool assets, or such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements.

1122(d)(4)(xi)

Payments made on behalf of an obligor (such as tax or insurance payments) are made on or before the related penalty or expiration dates, as indicated on the appropriate bills or notices for such payments, provided that such support has been received by the servicer at least 30 calendar days prior to these dates, or such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements.

1122(d)(4)(xii)

Any late payment penalties in connection with any payment to be made on behalf of an obligor are paid from the Servicer’s funds and not charged to the obligor, unless the late payment was due to the obligor’s error or omission.

1122(d)(4)(xiii)

Disbursements made on behalf of an obligor are posted within two business days to the obligor’s records maintained by the servicer, or such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements.

1122(d)(4)(xiv)

Delinquencies, charge-offs and uncollectible accounts are recognized and recorded in accordance with the transaction agreements.

1122(d)(4)(xv)

Any external enhancement or other support, identified in Item 1114(a)(1) through (3) or Item 1115 of Regulation AB, is maintained as set forth in the transaction agreements.

N/A

The report on assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria furnished pursuant to Item 1122 of Regulation AB by the Corporate Trust Services division of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the “Company”) for its master servicing platform discloses that a material instance of noncompliance occurred, as described below:


	• With respect to servicing criterion 1122(d)(2)(v), custodial accounts for certain transactions on the RMBS Master Servicing Platform were not maintained at a federally insured depository institution as set forth in the transaction agreements because they did not satisfy account eligibility requirements.
Servicing Criterion 1122(d)(2)(v) provides as follows:
	• “Each custodial account is maintained at a federally insured depository institution as set forth in the transaction agreements. For purposes of this criterion, ‘federally insured depository institution’ with respect to a foreign financial institution means a foreign financial institution that meets the requirements of 240.13k-1(b)(1) of this chapter.”
Management’s Discussion of Material Instance of Noncompliance and Steps Taken to Remedy the Material Instance of Noncompliance
1122(d)(2)(v) – Maintenance of Custodial Accounts:
	(a) The transaction agreements for the RMBS Master Servicing Platform transactions require the institutions maintaining custodial accounts for each transaction to satisfy certain eligibility criteria. Generally, such eligibility criteria can be satisfied if the institution holding the account either (i) possesses requisite long and/or short-term credit ratings from the specified rating agency(ies) (collectively, the “Requisite Ratings”), or (ii) satisfies one of the other alternative means of establishing account eligibility (collectively, “Alternative Means”). For the Period, Management has determined that certain custodial accounts held at Wells Fargo for certain transactions in the RMBS Master Servicing Platform were not maintained “as set forth in the transaction agreements” because (i) the Company’s or the Company’s holding company, as applicable, long and/or short-term issuer ratings during the Period were lower than the related Requisite Ratings thresholds for such transactions, and (ii) there was no Alternative Means during the Period to satisfy account eligibility requirements for such transactions.
	(b) In December 2019, for approximately 1,200 transactions that were on the RMBS Master Servicing Platform at the time, the Company sent notices to investors and certain transaction parties, including trustees, for which the Company, at the time, believed there was, or could be, account eligibility noncompliance (the “December 2019 Notice”). Based on its review, the Company concluded in its 2019 Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria that the scope of (i.e. number of impacted transactions with) account eligibility noncompliance for the RMBS Master Servicing Platform was significantly lower than indicated by the number of transactions listed on the December 2019 Notice.
	(c) Based on its ongoing review during the Period, Management believes that less than half of the approximately 1,200 RMBS Master Servicing Platform transactions included in the December 2019 Notice had account eligibility noncompliance. During the Period, in response to questions it received from some trustees for some transactions with account eligibility noncompliance, the Company provided additional information to such trustees. Based on its continuing review during the Period, the Company identified a small number of additional transactions in its RMBS Master Servicing Platform with account eligibility noncompliance that were not included in the December 2019 Notice. Where applicable, the Company updated prior information given to the related trustees. The Company is currently pursuing action to remediate the account eligibility noncompliance for transactions in the RMBS Master Servicing Platform.
	(d) Although the lack of Requisite Ratings or Alternative Means described above resulted in technical noncompliance with the relevant transaction agreements, Management believes that such technical noncompliance does not have a material impact on either (i) the Company’s ability to master service the transactions in accordance with the transaction agreements, or (ii) the securities issued in connection with the related transactions or the investors holding such securities.

The identified instance did not involve the servicing of the assets backing the asset-backed securities covered in this Form 10-K.

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.

Title of each class	Trading Symbol(s)	Name of each exchange on which registered
None


Exhibit Number		Description

(4)		Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2014, by and among Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc., as depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as master servicer, Citibank, N.A., as securities administrator and Christiana Trust, A Division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as trustee (incorporated by reference to Form8-K filed on January 6, 2014, Exhibit 20.2) (SEC File Number333-185882-02)

(31)		Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification

(33)		Reports on Assessment of Compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed issuers

		33.1 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer

		33.2 Cenlar, FSB, as Servicer

		33.2a ~~Corelogic~~CoreLogic Tax Services, LLC ~~(formerly First American)~~(“CoreLogic”), asSub-Contractor for Cenlar FSB, as to Item 1122(d)(4)(xi)



		33.2b ~~Assurant,~~American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively, “Assurant”), asSub-Contractor for Cenlar FSB, as to Item 1122(d)(4)(xi)

		33.3 Redwood Residential Acquisition Corporation, as Servicing Administrator

		33.4 Citibank, N.A., as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent

		33.5 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian

(34)		Attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities

		34.1 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer

		34.2 Cenlar, FSB, as Servicer

		34.2a ~~Corelogic~~CoreLogic Tax Services, LLC ~~(formerly First American)~~(“CoreLogic”), asSub-Contractor for Cenlar FSB, as to Item 1122(d)(4)(xi)

		34.2b ~~Assurant,~~American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively, “Assurant”), asSub-Contractor for Cenlar FSB, as to Item 1122(d)(4)(xi)

		34.3 Redwood Residential Acquisition Corporation, as Servicing Administrator

		34.4 Citibank, N.A., as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent

		34.5 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian

(35)		Servicer Compliance Statement

		35.1 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer

		35.2 Cenlar, FSB, as Servicer

		35.3 Redwood Residential Acquisition Corporation, as Servicing Administrator

		35.4 Citibank, N.A., as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent


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 a material instance of noncompliance occurred with respect to the servicing criterion set forth in Item 1122(d)(2)(v) as follows.