U.S. Bank National Association v. Moxley ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •   NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    Electronically Filed
    Intermediate Court of Appeals
    CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
    13-MAY-2021
    09:06 AM
    Dkt. 48 OGMD
    NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
    IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
    OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
    U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE,
    SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
    AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
    AS TRUSTEE, ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF WASHINGTON MUTUAL
    ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, WMABS, SERIES 2006-HE1,
    Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAN MOXLEY, Defendant-Appellant,
    and CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A.; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.;
    Defendants-Appellees, and DOES 1 through 20,
    Inclusive, Defendants
    APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    (CIVIL NO. 3CC171000292)
    ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
    (By:  Ginoza, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Nakasone, JJ.)
    Upon consideration of Plaintiff-Appellee U.S. Bank
    National Association as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Bank of
    America, National Association, as Successor by Merger to LaSalle
    Bank National Association, as Trustee, on Behalf of the Holders
    of Washington Mutual Asset-Backed Certificates, WMABS, Series
    2006-HE1's (U.S. Bank) April 28, 2021 motion to dismiss appeal
    for lack of appellate jurisdiction (Motion to Dismiss), self-
    represented Defendant-Appellant Jan Moxley's (Moxley) May 7, 2021
    opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, the papers in support, and
    the record, it appears that we lack jurisdiction over the instant
    appeal.
    On February 24, 2021, Moxley filed a notice of appeal
    from the following judgment and orders entered by the Circuit
    Court of the Third Circuit (circuit court): (1) a September 28,
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    2020 judgment on a decree of foreclosure (Foreclosure Judgment);
    (2) a December 16, 2020 post-judgment order denying Moxley's
    October 13, 2020 post-judgment motion for reconsideration of,
    inter alia, the Foreclosure Judgment (Order Denying
    Reconsideration); and (3) a January 25, 2021 post-judgment order
    denying Moxley's December 3, 2020 post-judgment "Renewed Non-
    Hearing Motion Demand for Jury Trial" (Order Denying Jury Trial).
    It appears we lack jurisdiction to review the foregoing judgment
    and orders.
    The Foreclosure Judgment was an appealable final
    judgment, see Hawai#i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 667-51(a)(1)
    (2016); but Moxley did not file a notice of appeal from the
    Foreclosure Judgment within the 30-day time period required by
    Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 4(a)(1).
    Moxley's October 13, 2020 and December 3, 2020 post-judgment
    motions did not toll or extend the time for Moxley to appeal from
    the Foreclosure Judgment. We construe Moxley's October 13, 2020
    post-judgment motion as a Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP)
    Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment insofar as the
    October 13, 2020 post-judgment motion sought relief from the
    Foreclosure Judgment and was filed more than 10 days after the
    Foreclosure Judgment was entered. This post-judgment HRCP
    Rule 60(b) motion does not qualify as a tolling motion under HRAP
    Rule 4(a)(3). See Lambert v. Lua, 92 Hawai#i 228, 234, 
    990 P.2d 126
    , 132 (App. 1999) ("An HRCP Rule 60(b) motion for relief from
    judgment may toll the period for appealing a judgment or order,
    but only if the motion is served and filed within ten (10) days
    after the judgment is entered."); HRCP Rule 60(b) ("A motion
    under this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a
    judgment or suspend its operation."). Moxley's December 3, 2020
    post-judgment "Renewed Non-Hearing Motion Demand for Jury Trial"
    (Motion for Jury Trial) also did not toll or extend the time for
    Moxley to appeal from the Foreclosure Judgment because it is not
    among the tolling motions specified under HRAP Rule 4(a)(3).
    Accordingly, Moxley's appeal from the Foreclosure Judgment is
    untimely.
    2
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    The circuit court's December 16, 2020 Order Denying
    Reconsideration, which disposed of Moxley's post-judgment
    October 13, 2020 HRCP Rule 60(b) motion, was an appealable final
    order. See Beneficial Hawaii, Inc. v. Casey, 98 Hawai#i 159,
    165, 
    45 P.3d 359
    , 365 (2002) ("A HRCP Rule 60(b) motion
    pertaining exclusively to a foreclosure decree seeks to relieve
    the movant of its effect; therefore, we hold that the circuit
    court's entry of judgment disposing of such a HRCP Rule 60(b)
    motion is a final, appealable order.").1 But Moxley did not file
    a notice of appeal from the Order Denying Reconsideration within
    the 30-day time period required by HRAP Rule 4(a)(1).
    The failure to file a timely notice of appeal in a
    civil matter is a jurisdictional defect that the parties cannot
    waive and appellate courts cannot disregard in the exercise of
    judicial discretion. Bacon v. Karlin, 
    68 Haw. 648
    , 650, 
    727 P.2d 1127
    , 1129 (1986); HRAP Rule 26(b) ("[N]o court or judge or
    justice is authorized to change the jurisdictional requirements
    contained in Rule 4 of [the HRAP]."). Accordingly, we lack
    appellate jurisdiction to review the September 28, 2020
    Foreclosure Judgment and the December 16, 2020 Order Denying
    Reconsideration.
    The Order Denying Jury Trial is appealable,2 and
    Moxley's appeal from the order is timely. Nonetheless, we lack
    jurisdiction to review the Order Denying Jury Trial because the
    issue is moot. "Mootness is an issue of subject matter
    jurisdiction." Doe v. Doe, 120 Hawai#i 149, 164, 
    202 P.3d 610
    ,
    625 (App. 2009). "As a general rule, a case is moot if the
    reviewing court can no longer grant effective relief." In Re
    Marn Family, 141 Hawai#i 1, 7, 
    403 P.3d 621
    , 627 (2016) (citation
    1
    Although U.S. Bank argued, inter alia, that the December 16, 2020
    Order Denying Reconsideration was not appealable because it was not reduced to
    a separate judgment, the separate judgment requirement in Jenkins v. Cades
    Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai#i 115, 119, 
    869 P.2d 1334
    , 1338 (1994), is
    "inapposite in the post-judgment context." Ditto v. McCurdy, 103 Hawai #i 153,
    158, 
    80 P.3d 974
    , 979 (2003).
    2
    The Order Denying Jury Trial is appealable because it adjudicated all
    the issues in Moxley's December 3, 2020 post-judgment motion and left no
    further issues from that post-judgment motion for any further adjudication.
    See Ditto, 103 Hawai#i at 157, 
    80 P.3d at 978
     ("A post-judgment order is an
    appealable final order under HRS § 641–1(a) if the order ends the proceedings,
    leaving nothing further to be accomplished.").
    3
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    omitted). "A case is moot if it has lost its character as a
    present, live controversy of the kind that must exist if courts
    are to avoid advisory opinions on abstract propositions of law."
    Kaho#ohanohano v. State, 114 Hawai#i 302, 332, 
    162 P.3d 696
    , 726
    (2007) (citations and emphasis omitted).
    Here, Moxley's appeal from the Order Denying Jury Trial
    does not present a live issue, and we thus do not have
    jurisdiction to review it. Moxley's December 3, 2020 Motion for
    Jury Trial pertains to the merits of the underlying foreclosure
    case, which the circuit court determined via the Foreclosure
    Judgment and Order Denying Reconsideration. As noted, Moxley did
    not timely appeal from the Foreclosure Judgment or Order Denying
    Reconsideration, and we thus lack jurisdiction to review that
    judgment and order, which are final and binding. Because
    Moxley's Motion for Jury Trial pertains to the merits of the
    foreclosure decree, and this court cannot review the merits of
    the foreclosure decree, we cannot provide any effective relief.
    Moxley's appeal from the Order Denying Jury Trial is thus moot.
    In addition, none of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine
    apply: public interest, see Doe v. Doe, 116 Hawai#i 323, 327, 
    172 P.3d 1067
    , 1071 (2007); "capable of repetition yet evading
    review," see State v. Tui, 138 Hawai#i 462, 468, 
    382 P.3d 274
    ,
    280 (2016); or "collateral consequences," see Hamilton ex rel.
    Lethem v. Lethem, 119 Hawai#i 1, 7-11, 
    193 P.3d 839
    , 845-49
    (2008). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the Order
    Denying Jury Trial.
    Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to
    Dismiss is granted, and appeal number CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX is
    dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions in
    appeal number CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX are dismissed as moot.
    DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 13, 2021.
    /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
    Chief Judge
    /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
    Associate Judge
    /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
    Associate Judge
    4