UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014

or

For the transition period from                      to                     

333-185882-04

(Commission File Number of issuing entity)

Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-8

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

333-185882-01

(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)

46-3062396

46-3072712

(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.

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 DISCLOSURE 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. (“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, 2014, the FHLB-Seattle has received approximately $115.8 million of principal and $11.1 million of interest payments in respect of the Seattle Certificate. As of December 31, 2014, the Seattle Certificate had a remaining outstanding principal amount of approximately $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 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 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 the depositor. Schwab claims 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 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 voluntarily dismissed with prejudice its negligent misrepresentation 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, 2014, Schwab has received approximately $12.9 million of principal and $1.3 million of interest payments in respect of the Schwab Certificate. As of December 31, 2014, the Schwab Certificate had a remaining outstanding principal amount of approximately $1.9 million. The depositor and Redwood Trust agreed to indemnify the underwriters of the 2005-4 RMBS, which underwriters were also named and remain 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 outcome 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.

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”) of an update to material pending legal proceedings to which Citibank is subject in connection with its role 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 Citibank 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, Citibpk 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.

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, Wilmington Trust, National Association (“Wilmington”), 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 Wilmington in the chart below; nor does this 10-K filing include any assessment or auditor report from Wilmington. 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.

First Republic Bank services less than 5% of the mortgage loans in this transaction. Therefore, for purposes of Item 1123 First Republic Bank is not a servicer that meets the threshold criteria in Item 1108 of Regulation AB and First Republic Bank did not provide for this transaction a servicer compliance statement pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

SEQUOIA RESIDENTIAL FUNDING, INC.

SEMT 2013-8

Regulation AB 1122(d)

CitiMortgage, Inc.

The assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria for the twelve months ended December 31, 2014, furnished pursuant to Item 1122 of Regulation AB by CitiMortgage, Inc. (the “2014 CitiMortgage Assessment”) for its platform, discloses that material instances of noncompliance occurred with respect to the servicing criteria described in Items 1122(d)(3)(i)(B) and 1122(d)(3)(ii) of Regulation AB. The 2014 CitiMortgage Assessment is attached to this Form 10-K as exhibit 33.1.

Material Instances of Noncompliance by the Company

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 as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014, disclosed the following material noncompliance with servicing criteria 1122(d)(3)(i)(B) and 1122(d)(3)(ii):

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

Regulation AB Item 1122(d)(3)(i)(B) and 1122(d)(3)(ii) – In certain instances, for the 33 CMLTI securities that are part of the Platform, advances of funds on delinquent loans were stopped by the third party primary servicers due to their determination of non-recoverability under the related transaction agreements. Upon modification of such delinquent loans, the third party primary servicers capitalized the loan arrearages, increasing the loan balances. The capitalization of the delinquent principal and interest loan arrearages were reported by the Servicer as a current period scheduled payment when bringing the loan to a current payment status under the loan modification. The correct reporting of the loan payments in these instances per the transaction agreements should have been to report them as recoveries of a prior period scheduled payment on the reports to investors. Due to the misreporting of the arrearages as current period scheduled payments rather than as a recovery of prior period scheduled payments, these amounts were not remitted in accordance with the terms set forth in the transaction agreements resulting in a misallocation between classes in the transaction.

Based on Management’s review of transactions in the Platform that included modifications of loans in a stop-advance position, the misreporting described above impacted 17 CMLTI transactions (“Affected Transactions”). The total of amounts actually misreported is approximately $2.5M (related to 103 loans) out of the $1.0B in 2014 CMLTI security remittances (0.2% of total CMLTI remittances). However, the control weakness pertaining to the misreporting described above could have had a larger impact on the Affected Transactions if such transactions had been collateralized by additional loans that experienced modifications following the stopping of advances. Additionally, the control weakness described above could have potentially impacted each of the additional 16 CMLTI transactions (“Unaffected Transactions”) included in the Platform (with the total of Affected Transactions and Unaffected Transactions representing 38.4% of the total number transactions in the Platform for which the Company prepares reports to investors), if the underlying loans for the Unaffected Transactions had also experienced modifications following the stopping of advances.

This Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-8 transaction was not one of the Affected Transactions and the above reported instances of material noncompliance with Regulation AB servicing criteria 1122(d)(3)(i)(B) and 1122(d)(3)(ii) did not involve the pool assets in this transaction.

Remediation actions related to the above noncompliance:

As of December 15, 2014, corrective action plans were initiated to prevent future instances of this issue. The new Master Servicer control is designed to ensure loans in a stop advance position have prior period scheduled payment collections reported as recoveries to the Security Administrator going forward. The cumulative life to date misallocations of payments will be corrected for each bond impacted, targeted for completion by June 30, 2015.

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.

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.

Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc.

(Depositor)

EXHIBIT INDEX