Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Ma'ilei

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
17-MAY-2024
07:54 AM
Dkt. 54 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR MORGAN
STANLEY ABS CAPITAL I INC. TRUST 2006-HE3, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MAPUANA FANGA MA#ILEI; FILIPE ULOI MA#ILEI, Defendants-Appellants;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; EM ASSOCIATES INC., DBA STATE WIDE
COLLECTIONS, Defendants-Appellees,
and
JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10;
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES 1-10 and DOE GOVERNMENTAL
UNITS 1-10, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CC071001214)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Nakasone, JJ.)

Mapuana Fanga Ma#ile#i and Filipe Uloi Ma#ile#i (the
Ma#ile#is), representing themselves, appeal from the "Order
Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Reissuance of Writ of Possession"
and the "Reissued Writ of Possession," both entered by the
Circuit Court of the First Circuit on May 22, 2019.1 We affirm.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company filed a complaint
for foreclosure against the Ma#ile#is on July 2, 2007. A
Foreclosure Judgment was entered on January 21, 2010. The
Ma#ile#is didn't appeal. The property was sold at public auction.

1
The Honorable Jeannette H. Castagnetti presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

A Judgment Confirming Sale was entered on July 26, 2011. The
Ma#ile#is didn't appeal. Deutsche Bank moved for reissuance of a
writ of possession on March 4, 2019. The Order and the Reissued
Writ were entered on May 22, 2019. This appeal followed.2
We must first address Deutsche Bank's contention that
we lack jurisdiction because the Order is not a final order and
wasn't certified for interlocutory appeal. The Order was entered
after the circuit court entered the Judgment Confirming Sale; it
was a post-judgment order. A post-judgment order is appealable
under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 641-1(a) if the order ends
the post-judgment proceeding, leaving nothing further to be done.
Ditto v. McCurdy, 103 Hawai#i 153, 157, 80 P.3d 974, 978 (2003).
The Order and Reissued Writ meet these criteria. We have
appellate jurisdiction.
(1) The Ma#ile#is argue that the circuit court erred by
reissuing the writ of possession because they were never served
with Deutsche Bank's foreclosure complaint. The record shows
that substitute service on the Ma#ile#is was effected on
October 30, 2007, through Pipiena Maka, who signed both
acknowledgments of service. See Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure
(HRCP) Rule 4(d)(1)(A). The Ma#ile#is did not move to vacate the
Foreclosure Judgment under HRCP Rule 60(b). See Beneficial Haw.,
Inc. v. Casey, 98 Hawai#i 159, 45 P.3d 359 (2002) (analyzing HRCP
Rule 60(b) motion filed eleven months after foreclosure decree
entered). Issues about service of the foreclosure complaint are
not properly before us in this appeal from the Reissued Writ.
See Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Wise, 130 Hawai#i 11,
304 P.3d 1192 (2013) (mortgagors who didn't appeal from
foreclosure judgment couldn't challenge mortgagee's standing to
foreclose in appeal from order confirming sale).

2
The Ma#ile#is' opening brief does not comply with Rule 28 of the
Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure. However, self-represented litigants who
fail to comply with court rules are not foreclosed from appellate review if we
can discern their arguments. See Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai#i 368, 380-81, 465
P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020).

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

(2) The Ma#ile#is argue that Deutsche Bank lacked
standing to foreclose. They did not raise this issue in an
appeal from the Foreclosure Judgment. They cannot raise the
issue in this appeal. Wise, 130 Hawai#i at 19, 304 P.3d at 1200.
(3) The Ma#ile#is argue that the circuit court erred by
reissuing an expired writ. The circuit court's July 26, 2011
order granting Deutsche Bank's motion to confirm the foreclosure
sale directed issuance of a writ of possession. The Ma#ile#is
cite no authority showing that the circuit court lacked
jurisdiction or authority to enforce its order confirming the
sale. There was no error. See HRS §§ 603-21.5(a)(3), 603-
21.9(6).
For these reasons, the "Order Granting Plaintiff's
Motion for Reissuance of Writ of Possession" and the "Reissued
Writ of Possession[,]" both entered on May 22, 2019, are
affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 17, 2024.

On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Mapuana Fanga Ma#ile#i, Acting Chief Judge
Filipe Uloi Ma#ile#i,
Self-represented /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Defendants-Appellants. Associate Judge

Jesse W. Schiel, /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Nicholas R. Monlux, Associate Judge
Jesse D. Franklin-Murdock,
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

3