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:

September 26, 2014 to October 27, 2014

Commission File Number of issuing entity: 333-185882-04

Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-8

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

Commission File Number of depositor: 333-185882-01

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	46-3062396 46-3072712
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization of the issuing entity)	(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

c/o Citibank, N.A.
388 Greenwich Street, 14th 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
Title of class	Section 12(b)	Section 12(g)	Section 15(d)	(If Section 12(b))
A-1	¨	¨	x	_________
A-2	¨	¨	x	_________
A-3	¨	¨	x	_________
A-I01	¨	¨	x	_________
A-I02	¨	¨	x	_________
B-1	¨	¨	x	_________
B-2	¨	¨	x	_________
B-3	¨	¨	x	_________
B-4	¨	¨	x	_________
B-5	¨	¨	x	_________
R	¨	¨	x	_________
LT-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 October 27, 2014, a distribution was made to holders of the certificates issued by Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-8.

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 2013-8 were the subject of a demand to repurchase or replace for breach of the representations and warranties during the monthly distribution period from September 26, 2014 to October 27, 2014.

RWT Holdings, Inc. (the “Securitizer”), an affiliate of the Depositor, is the sponsor and the Securitizer of assets held by Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-8. The Securitizer filed its first Form ABS-15G on February 6, 2012, and most recently filed its Form ABS-15G on February 11, 2014. The CIK number of the Securitizer is 0001530239.

PART II – OTHER INFORMATION

Item 2. 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 Redwood Trust, Inc. (“Redwood Trust”), Redwood Trust’s subsidiary, the depositor, Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc. (“SRF”), 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 September 30, 2014, the FHLB-Seattle has received approximately $115.4 million of principal and $11.1 million of interest payments in respect of the Seattle Certificate. As of September 30, 2014, the Seattle Certificate had a remaining outstanding principal amount of approximately $17.9 million. The claims were subsequently dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction as to Redwood Trust and SRF. Redwood Trust 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, 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 SRF 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 alleges that SRF 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. Schwab alleges a claim for negligent misrepresentation under California state law and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Schwab Certificate was issued with an original principal amount of approximately $14.8 million, and, as of September 30, 2014, Schwab has received approximately $12.8 million of principal and $1.3 million of interest payments in respect of the Schwab Certificate. As of September 30, 2014, the Schwab Certificate had a remaining outstanding principal amount of approximately $2.0 million. SRF has denied Schwab’s allegations. This case is in discovery, and no trial date has been set. We intend to defend the action vigorously. Redwood Trust agreed to indemnify the underwriters of the 2005-4 RMBS, which underwriters were also named as 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 Trust could incur a loss as a result of these indemnities.

On or about October 15, 2010, a complaint was filed by a plaintiff in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against the depositor and more than 45 other named defendants (collectively, the “Illinois Defendants”) alleging that the Illinois Defendants made false or misleading statements in offering materials for various residential mortgage-backed securities sold or issued by the Illinois Defendants or entities controlled by them. The plaintiff subsequently amended the complaint to name Redwood Trust and another one of Redwood Trust’s subsidiaries, RWT Holdings, Inc., as defendants. With respect to Redwood Trust, RWT Holdings, and the depositor, the plaintiff alleged that Redwood Trust, RWT Holdings, and the depositor made false or misleading statements in the offering materials for two mortgage pass-through certificates (the “Illinois Certificates”) issued in the Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2006-1 securitization transaction (the “2006-1 RMBS”) and purchased by the plaintiff. The complaint alleged 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 Illinois Certificates, and (5) due diligence performed on these mortgage loans. The plaintiff alleged 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 plaintiff sought to rescind the purchase of the Illinois 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 plaintiff sought unspecified damages. The plaintiff also sought attorneys’ fees and costs. The first of the Illinois Certificates was issued with an original principal amount of approximately $105 million and, as of September 30, 2014, the plaintiff has received approximately $74.5 million of principal and $24.8 million of interest payments in respect of this Illinois Certificate. As of September 30, 2014, this Illinois Certificate had a remaining outstanding principal amount of approximately $28.9 million (after taking into account approximately $1.8 million of principal losses allocated to this Illinois Certificate). The second of the Illinois Certificates was issued with an original principal amount of approximately $379 million and, as of September 30, 2014, the plaintiff has received approximately $266.8 million of principal and $83.7 million of interest payments in respect of this Illinois Certificate. As of September 30, 2014, this Illinois Certificate had a remaining outstanding principal amount of approximately $104.6 million (after taking into account approximately $7.3 million of principal losses allocated to this Illinois Certificate). The plaintiff and the Redwood Defendants recently agreed to settle the complaint on mutually satisfactory terms.

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.

Item 9. 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 2013-8, relating to the October 27, 2014 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.

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: November 10, 2014

EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit Number	Description
Exhibit 99.1	Monthly report distributed to holders of the certificates issued by Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-8, relating to the October 27, 2014 distribution.