CourtListener 10862942

Texto completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
21-MAY-2026
08:02 AM
Dkt. 79 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, N.A. AS SUCCESSOR TO
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR RESIDENTIAL ASSET
MORTGAGE PRODUCTS, INC., MORTGAGE ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-RS1, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
EDWIN PAET EALA and CAROLINA CABUDOL-EALA,
Defendants-Appellants, and
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., AS NOMINEE FOR
FRANKLIN BANK, SSB; FIA CARD SERVICES, N.A.; LVNV
FUNDING, LLC; PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC; THE
RENAISSANCE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Defendants-Appellees,
and
JOHN DOES 1-20; JANE DOES 1-20; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-20; DOE
ENTITIES 1-20; and DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-20, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CC191001251)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, Guidry, and Gluck, JJ.)

In this foreclosure action, Defendants-Appellants
Edwin Paet Eala and Carolina Cabudol-Eala (the Ealas) appeal
from the March 20, 2025 "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law
and Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Against All Defendants and for Interlocutory Decree of
Foreclosure" and the March 20, 2025 "Final Judgment", entered by
the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court).1
The Ealas contend the Circuit Court erred in granting
summary judgment because there are genuine issues of material
fact as to (1) the trustworthiness and admissibility of the
promissory note (Note) and Mortgage; (2) whether Plaintiff-
Appellee the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company (BONYM)
mailed a default letter to the Ealas; (3) whether the Note was
properly endorsed; and (4) whether the Allonge2 was attached to
the Note.
After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant
legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues
raised and the arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve the
Ealas' contentions as follows, and affirm.
(1) Authenticity of the Note: The Ealas first argue
that BONYM did not establish that prior loan servicers' records
were accurate and trustworthy, such that the Note was
inadmissible. Here, BONYM submitted a lengthy declaration from
Juliana Thurab (Thurab), custodian of records for the PHH
Mortgage Corporation (PHH), the loan servicing company for
BONYM. Thurab's declaration stated, inter alia, that BONYM's
prior loan servicing company, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Ocwen),
conducted a review of the original Note on or about October 21,
2015, "and confirmed the original Note was specially indorsed to
Plaintiff[.]" Thurab's declaration stated that PHH is the

1 The Honorable James H. Ashford presided.
2 An "allonge" is "[a] slip of paper sometimes attached to a
negotiable instrument for the purpose of receiving further indorsements when
the original paper is filled with indorsements." Allonge, Black's Law
Dictionary (12th ed. 2024).

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

successor by merger to Ocwen, and that "PHH's records include
and incorporate records" from prior servicers (including Ocwen).
Thurab further declared that PHH's processes for "boarding"
(i.e., incorporating records from other servicers, including
Ocwen) "ensure the accuracy and trustworthiness of the records
being boarded," and she described those processes. She provided
detailed testimony regarding the Ealas' Note, including that
BONYM "had possession of the original Note, specially indorsed
to Plaintiff, on . . . the date of the filing of the Complaint
in this foreclosure." A declaration from Jeremiah Moeai,
Custodian of Records for TMLF Hawaii LLLC, states that "[t]he
original Note, specially indorsed to [BONYM], is currently
stored at TMLF Hawaii LLLC's designated storage facility in a
fire-proof safe. . . . [BONYM] has authorized TMLF Hawaii LLLC
to be in physical possession of the original Note, specially
indorsed to [BONYM], during the duration of this litigation."
BONYM thus provided sufficient information regarding the
authenticity and trustworthiness of the Note. See U.S. Bank
Tr., N.A. v. Verhagen, 149 Hawaiʻi 315, 327-28, 489 P.3d 419,
431-32 (2021); Bank of Am., N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo, 139 Hawaiʻi
361, 368-70, 390 P.3d 1248, 1255-57 (2017). The Circuit Court
did not err in granting summary judgment.
(2) Default Letter: The Ealas next argue that there
is no proof that BONYM ever mailed the default letter. The
Thurab declaration states, "[o]n or about 03/01/2019, written
notice was given to Borrowers at the Property address via First
Class Mail advising of the default under the Note and
Mortgage[.]" As discussed supra, Thurab's declaration included
detailed information regarding PHH's and Ocwen's (and other loan
servicers') recordkeeping procedures and incorporation of prior

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

servicers' records. The Thurab declaration was sufficient to
authenticate the business records and demonstrate that notices
were, in fact, mailed. See Verhagen, 149 Hawaiʻi at 325, 489
P.3d at 429. BONYM met its initial burden on summary judgment,
and the Ealas did not introduce any evidence to create a genuine
issue of material fact. The Circuit Court did not err.
(3) Note Endorsement: The Ealas' third argument is
that, because of an allegedly improper endorsement on the Note,
BONYM cannot prove that it was the holder of the Note when the
Complaint was filed and when the foreclosure decree was entered.
BONYM, however, met its initial burden on summary judgment by
submitting evidence (Thurab's declaration) demonstrating the
authenticity of the Note, the trustworthiness of prior loan
servicers' business records, the indorsement of the Note to
BONYM, and physical possession of the Note on the relevant
dates. The Ealas did not introduce any evidence to create a
genuine issue of material fact. Therefore, the Circuit Court
did not err in granting summary judgment.
(4) Allonges: The Ealas argue that BONYM failed to
prove that the Allonges were attached to the Note. However, the
Thurab declaration states: "The Note includes an Allonge to
Note ('Allonge 1') which is affixed thereto and which is
intended to be a part of the Note." She also declares that
"Allonge 2 has been voided and is therefore no longer valid."
Once again, BONYM met its initial burden on summary judgment,
and the Ealas did not introduce any evidence to create a genuine
issue of material fact. The Circuit Court did not err.

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the March 20, 2025
Final Judgment.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, May 21, 2026.
On the briefs:
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Keith M. Kiuchi,
Presiding Judge
for Defendants-Appellants.
/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Jade Lynne Ching,
Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellee.
/s/ Daniel M. Gluck
Associate Judge