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:

March 28, 2017 to April 25, 2017

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

Central Index Key Number of issuing entity: 0001577310

Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-8

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

Commission File Number of depositor: 333-185882-01

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)

46-3062396

46-3072712

(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 (If Section 12(b))
Title of class	Section 12(b)	Section 12(g)	Section 15(d)
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 April 25, 2017, 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 March 28, 2017 to April 25, 2017.

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 14, 2017. 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, as plaintiff, 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., Morgan Stanley & Co., and Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc. (collectively, the “Washington Defendants”) alleging that the Washington Defendants made false or misleading statements in offering materials for a mortgage pass-through certificate (the “Washington Certificate”) issued in the Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2005-4 securitization transaction (the “2005-4 RMBS”) and purchased by the plaintiff. 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 Washington Certificate. The plaintiff alleged claims under the Securities Act of Washington (Section 21.20.005, et seq.) and sought to rescind the purchase of the Washington 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 Washington Certificate was issued with an original principal amount of approximately $133 million, and, as of March 31, 2017, the plaintiff has received approximately $124 million of principal and $11 million of interest payments in respect of the Washington Certificate. As of March 31, 2017, the Washington Certificate had a remaining outstanding principal amount of approximately $10 million. The matter was subsequently resolved and the claims were dismissed by the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle as to all the Washington Defendants. At the time the Washington 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”) 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. 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 SRF. 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 March 31, 2017, approximately $14 million of principal and $1 million of interest payments have been made in respect of the Schwab Certificate. As of March 31, 2017, the Schwab Certificate had a remaining outstanding principal amount of approximately $1 million. On November 14, 2014, Schwab voluntarily dismissed with prejudice its negligent misrepresentation claim, which resulted in the dismissal with prejudice of the depositor from the action. Subsequently, the matter was resolved and Schwab dismissed its claims against the lead underwriter of the 2005-4 RMBS. 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.

In the ordinary course of any litigation matter, including certain of the above-referenced matters, the sponsor, the depositor, and Redwood Trust have engaged and may continue to engage in formal or informal settlement communications with the plaintiffs. Settlement communications may result in settlement agreements, which may be subject to the satisfaction of conditions, contingencies, or approvals and the final dismissal of the complaint by the court. 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, the sponsor, the depositor and their affiliates recently 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 passthrough 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 are the subject of the complaint, two are Sequoia mortgage pass-through certificates issued in 2004 and two are Sequoia mortgage pass-through certificates issued in 2007, with respect to each of which certificates RWT Holdings, Inc. was the sponsor and Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc. was the depositor. At the time these four 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.

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. Citibank’s motion to dismiss the federal complaint was fully briefed as of May 13, 2015. 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 have indicated that they will file a motion for partial summary judgment, which, along with their opposition to Citi’s motion for summary judgment, will be due on May 22, 2017.

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”). Citibank’s motion to dismiss was fully briefed as of April 15, 2016. Following oral argument on Citibank’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 5, 2016. Citibank’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint was fully briefed as of October 21, 2016. We await a decision.

On August 19, 2015, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as Receiver for a 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, entities that have also been sued by FDIC in their capacity as trustee, and whose cases are also in front of Judge Carter. Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss was fully briefed as of March 22, 2016. On September 30, 2016, the Court granted Citibank’s motion to dismiss the complaint 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 October 25, 2016, the court granted leave for defendants to file an opposition brief. Defendants filed their opposition on November 15, 2016 and Plaintiff filed its reply brief on November 22, 2016. We await a decision from the Court on plaintiff’s motion.

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.

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 2013-8, relating to the April 25, 2017 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: May 10, 2017

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 April 25, 2017 distribution.