CourtListener 10863521

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
22-MAY-2026
08:22 AM
Dkt. 50 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO BANK OF
AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO LA SALLE
BANK, NA AS TRUSTEE FOR WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES WMALT SERIES 2006-AR6 TRUST, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DAVID D. GOODWIN, Defendant-Appellant,
and
E*TRADE BANK; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ASSOCIATION OF UNIT
OWNERS OF 54-300 AND 54-302 HAUULA, Defendants-Appellees,
and
JOHN AND MARY DOES 1-20; DOE PARTNERSHIPS, CORPORATIONS OR
OTHER ENTITIES 1-20, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CC171001561)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Guidry, JJ.)

This is a judicial foreclosure case. Defendant-

Appellant David D. Goodwin (Goodwin) appeals from the July 29,

2024 "Findings of Fact [(FOFs)]; Conclusions of Law [(COLs)];

Order Entering Foreclosure Decree" (Foreclosure Order), and the
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

August 12, 2024 "Judgment," both entered by the Circuit Court of

the First Circuit (circuit court). 1

Goodwin owned real estate in Honolulu (Property). In

April 2006, Goodwin executed a promissory note (Note) in favor

of lender National City Bank of Indiana. The Note is indorsed

in blank. Goodwin secured the Note with a mortgage on the

Property (Mortgage), executed in favor of National City Mortgage

(NCM), a division of National City Bank of Indiana. The

Mortgage encumbers the fee simple interest in the Property.

Plaintiff-Appellee U.S. Bank National Association,

Successor Trustee to Bank of America, National Association,

Successor by Merger to La Salle Bank NA, as Trustee, for

Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WMALT

Series 2006-AR6 Trust's (U.S. Bank), through its loan servicer

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS), currently has possession

of the Note. On September 25, 2017, U.S. Bank filed its

Complaint in the underlying foreclosure action.

Goodwin asserts three points of error on appeal,

contending that the circuit court erred by: (1) "den[ying] . . .

Goodwin's Motion to Restrict Evidence of [U.S. Bank's]

Possession of Note to December 3, 2008"; (2) making FOFs 9

1 The Honorable Lisa W. Cataldo presided.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

through 12 and 16 through 19; 2 and (3) making COLs 7, 8, 15, 17,

18, 19, and 21. 3

2 FOFs 9 through 12, and 16 through 19, state,

9. [U.S. Bank] called Patrick Pittman [(Pittman)] as
the only trial witness. Pittman has worked for [SPS] for
approximately 22 years, and holds the position of
Litigation Director. One of his responsibilities is as a
"document control officer." [Pittman] testified that he
has access to the records and files kept and maintained by
SPS, and he is familiar with SPS's business recordkeeping
practices as a result of the training he has had and his
22-year tenure at SPS. Among other things, Pittman
testified about SPS's incorporation of business records
from the prior servicer; the data vetting process used to
seek any data discrepancies within the documents received
from the prior servicer; the fact that this vetting process
was completed with no outstanding discrepancies related to
the subject loan; the vault tracking report (P-6), which
reflects the movement of the files that SPS holds within
its vault on-site; the collateral file (P-8) (i.e., the
file that holds all the original loan documents, including
in this case, the original Note); and the document tracking
reports that reflect the tracking of all documents that SPS
maintains on behalf of its clients (P-4, up to May 15,
2019) and P-13).

10. In sum, then, Pittman testified that he is
familiar with the practices and procedures of SPS and the
systems of record that SPS uses to create and record
information related to the residential mortgage loans that
it services and its incorporation process in validating the
records of prior servicers, including the process by which
information is entered into those systems and how those
records are maintained because he received training in
practically every department within SPS and utilizes them
on a regular basis as a routine function of his employment.

11. Pittman identified SPS's software system
platform as "Select CE." This "master system" has a
subsystem from which Exhibit P-6 was obtained. While
Pittman could not remember the name of that subsystem, he
has access to it, pulled Exhibit P-6, and provided it to
counsel.

12. Based on his demeanor and credibility while
testifying, the Court finds Pittman's testimony to be
credible.

. . . .

(continued . . .)
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

2(. . . continued)
16. Exhibit P-13 reflects all transfers of the
possession of the Note. Had SPS transferred possession of
the original Note prior to sending it to its counsel's
office on or about April 12, 2024, that transfer would have
been noted on Exhibit P-13—and there is no such notation.
There was no other transfer of the Note except for when SPS
received it in 2014 and when SPS sent it to counsel in
April 2024.

17. [Goodwin's] cross-examination of Pittman did not
undermine Pittman's testimony regarding SPS's possession of
the Note; nor did [Goodwin] offer any evidence that the
Note left SPS's possession at any time.

18. SPS, on behalf of [U.S. Bank], gained possession
of the Note on or about June 25, 2014.

19. [U.S. Bank], through SPS, continuously
maintained possession of the Note, up until it sent it to
its counsel herein on or about April 12, 2024.

(Citations omitted.)

3 COLs 7, 8, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 21 state, in relevant part,

7. As a matter of law, entitlement to enforce the
Note also grants entitlement to enforce the Mortgage. . . .

8. [U.S. Bank] was entitled to enforce the
underlying promissory note because it was in possession of
the Note, which was duly indorsed in blank from June 2014,
onwards, including when this action was commenced.

. . . .

15. [U.S. Bank] proffered its evidence in accordance
with [Hawaii Rules of Evidence Rule] 803(b)(6), which
establishes a hearsay exception for "records of regularly
conducted activity." . . .

. . . .

17. Further, under Rule 803(b)(7), evidence that a
matter is not included in business records kept in
accordance with Rule 803(b)(6) is admissible "to prove the
nonoccurrence or nonexistence of the matter, if the matter
was of a kind that a . . . record . . . was regularly made
and preserved, unless the sources of information or other
circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness." "The
absence of an entry in a business record is technically not
hearsay because it is not, in and of itself, a statement
offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter
asserted." . . . "Rule 803(b)(7) nevertheless classifies
the absent business record as a hearsay exception." . . .
(continued . . .)
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and

relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration

to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties,

we resolve Goodwin's points of error 4 as follows:

(1) Goodwin contends that the circuit court erred by

denying "Goodwin's Motion to Restrict Evidence of [U.S. Bank's]

Possession of Note to December 3, 2008." Goodwin's motion

argued that U.S. Bank must be required to establish that it was

entitled to enforce the Note at the time U.S. Bank's predecessor

in interest, La Salle Bank NA (La Salle), commenced a prior

foreclosure action on the Property in case no. 1CC081002502 on

December 3, 2008 (2008 case) that remained pending until

3(. . . continued)
"[I]f a business record designed to note every transaction
of a particular kind contains no notation of such a
transaction between specified dates, no such transaction
occurred between those dates." . . .

18. Pittman's testimony at trial established that
he is a qualified witness with respect to the business
records of SPS including the meaning and significance of
the non-existence of entries in those business records.

19. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence,
[U.S. Bank] proved all essential elements of its case and
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to
[Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure Rule] 54(b), and an
interlocutory decree of foreclosure.

. . . .

21. [U.S. Bank] is entitled to have its Mortgage
foreclosed upon the Property as described in Exhibit "A,"
and to have the Property sold in a manner provided by law.

(Citations omitted.)

4 We consolidate and reorganize Goodwin's points of error herein.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

February 5, 2024. 5 In denying the motion, the circuit court

effectively determined that U.S. Bank must establish its

standing at the time it filed the Complaint in the instant

action.

"The issue of standing is reviewed de novo on appeal."

Tax Found. of Haw. v. State, 144 Hawaiʻi 175, 185, 439 P.3d 127,

137 (2019) (cleaned up). It is well settled that "a person

seeking to judicially foreclose on a mortgage following a

promissory note default must establish that it was the 'person

entitled to enforce the note' as defined by [Hawaii Revised

Statutes (HRS)] § 490:3-301 [(2008)] at the time the foreclosure

complaint was filed to satisfy standing." Wells Fargo Bank,

N.A. v. Behrendt, 142 Hawaiʻi 37, 41, 414 P.3d 89, 93 (2018)

(emphasis added) (cleaned up); see also Bank of Am., N.A. v.

Reyes-Toledo, 139 Hawaiʻi 361, 367, 390 P.3d 1248, 1254 (2017)

("A foreclosing plaintiff's burden to prove entitlement to

enforce the note overlaps with the requirements of standing in

foreclosure actions as standing is concerned with whether the

parties have the right to bring suit." (cleaned up)).

5 The record of case no. 1CC081002502 reflects that U.S. Bank was
not a party to the 2008 case; indeed, U.S. Bank could not have been a party
to that proceeding, as it did not acquire the Note until June 25, 2014.
Goodwin did not file an answer, or otherwise respond, to La Salle's
complaint. La Salle filed a "Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice of All
Claims and Parties and Release of Notice of Pendency of Action," on
February 5, 2024.
6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The record of case no. 1CC081002502 reflects that U.S.

Bank was not a party to the 2008 case. U.S. Bank and Goodwin

dispute as to whether Goodwin was served. Goodwin did not file

an answer, or otherwise respond, to La Salle's complaint. It

appears that there were no party filings in the 2008 case

between August 2, 2012, when La Salle filed its eighth ex parte

motion for an extension of time to complete service of the

complaint, and February 5, 2024, when the matter was dismissed

by La Salle's filing of a "Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice

of All Claims and Parties and Release of Notice of Pendency of

Action."

U.S. Bank commenced the underlying foreclosure action

upon its filing of the Complaint on September 25, 2017. U.S.

Bank represented that the 2008 case should have been dismissed

earlier, but that it was not due to "error." On this record, we

conclude that U.S. Bank was therefore required to establish its

standing to enforce the Note on September 25, 2017.

(2) Goodwin contends that the circuit court erred by

making FOFs and COLs regarding U.S. Bank's standing to bring

this foreclosure action. "A trial court's findings of fact are

reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard of review.

Conclusions of law, in contrast, are reviewed de novo under the

right/wrong standard of review." Behrendt, 142 Hawaiʻi at 40-41,

414 P.3d at 92-93.
7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

To have standing, U.S. Bank was required to establish

that it was a "person entitled to enforce the note" on

September 25, 2017. Id. at 41, 414 P.3d at 93. It could do

that by demonstrating that its agent was in physical possession

of the Note on September 25, 2017. See HRS § 490:3-301

(defining "'[p]erson entitled to enforce' an instrument" as,

inter alia, "the holder of the instrument"); see also U.S. Bank

Tr., N.A. v. Verhagen, 149 Hawaiʻi 315, 317, 327-28, 489 P.3d

419, 421, 431-32 (2021).

At trial, U.S. Bank demonstrated its possession of the

original Note through Pittman's testimony. Pittman testified

that SPS is the mortgage servicer and attorney-in-fact for U.S.

Bank in the instant case. In his capacity as litigation

director with SPS, Pittman had access to the records and files

kept and maintained by SPS. He was familiar with SPS' business

recordkeeping practices through his training and his 22 years

with SPS. Pittman described the process SPS implements in

incorporating prior business records, such as the Loan records

that SPS received from the prior mortgage servicer, as follows:

[SPS] incorporated [prior servicer's] business records into
our business records and rely on them for the purposes of
further servicing the loan on behalf of the client.

. . . .

[To incorporate the records,] we first did a data
vetting process seeking any data discrepancies within the
information that we received from [the prior servicer].
And if there were any data discrepancies that were
outstanding at the time of the scheduled servicing transfer
8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

of their loan, but those loans would not come into [SPS']
system boarding, or boarding system I should say. They
would stay with the prior servicer . . . until that data
discrepancy is cured.

So, therefore, because we are servicing this loan,
that means that the data vetting process was complete with
no outstanding discrepancies.

Pittman testified that he had personal knowledge of

the subject Loan. Pittman testified that he had knowledge that

SPS was in possession of the original Note on September 25, 2017

because he had "reviewed [SPS'] business records that reflect

the date of [SPS'] possession of the original [N]ote." These

records included: SPS' vault tracking report, which reflected

that the collateral loan file for the Note was placed within

SPS' on-site vault on June 25, 2014; SPS' document tracking

report, which reflected that SPS was in physical possession of

the collateral loan file, including the original Note, from

June 25, 2014 through April 12, 2024; the bailee letter, which

showed transmission of the original Note to U.S. Bank's counsel

on April 12, 2024; the original Note; and the notice of default

that Pittman testified was mailed to Goodwin at the subject

Property on October 1, 2013 by first class mail.

Goodwin's reliance on Verhagen and Deutsche Bank

National Trust Co. v. Yata, 152 Hawaiʻi 322, 526 P.3d 299 (2023),

is misplaced. Both Verhagen and Yata addressed whether, at the

summary judgment stage, there was a genuine issue of material

fact as to foreclosing plaintiff's possession of the note at the

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

time the complaint was filed. Verhagen, 149 Hawaiʻi at 327-28,

489 P.3d at 431-32; Yata, 152 Hawaiʻi at 332-36, 526 P.3d at 308-

13. Here, the circuit court conducted a jury-waived trial, at

which Goodwin's counsel cross-examined Pittman. The circuit

court heard and weighed the evidence presented, and made FOFs

and COLs as to U.S. Bank's standing.

On this record, we conclude that the challenged FOFs

were not clearly erroneous, and the challenged COLs were not

wrong. The circuit court did not err in determining that U.S.

Bank possessed the Note at the time the Complaint was filed, and

that it therefore had standing to bring this foreclosure action.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Foreclosure

Order and Judgment.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, May 22, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Presiding Judge
Keith M. Kiuchi,
for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Associate Judge
Daniel K. Kikawa,
for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Associate Judge