U.S. National Bank Association v. Galang ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •   NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    Electronically Filed
    Intermediate Court of Appeals
    CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
    11-FEB-2022
    07:56 AM
    Dkt. 43 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 TRUSTEE, SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO
    LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR
    STRUCTURED ASSET INVESTMENT LOAN TRUST MORTGAGE
    PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-11
    Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARTHUR EMIL GALANG;
    NORIVIC V. GALANG; NORMA PASCUAL RODIL,
    Defendants-Appellants, and LASALLE BANK NATIONAL
    ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR LEHMAN BROTHERS-
    STRUCTURED ASSET INVESTMENT LOAN TRUST SALE
    2004-11, Defendant-Appellee, and JOHN DOES 1-50;
    JOHN DOES 1-50; JANE DOES 1-50; DOE PARTNERSHIPS
    1-50, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-50; DOE ENTITIES 1-50,
    AND DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-50, Defendants-
    Appellees
    APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
    (CIVIL NO. 1CC151001045)
    ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
    (By:  Ginoza, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)
    Upon consideration of the Motion to Dismiss Appeal
    (Motion to Dismiss), filed by Plaintiff-Appellee U.S. Bank
    National Association (Appellee) on December 1, 2021, the papers
    in support, and the record, it appears that this court lacks
    jurisdiction over the appeal by self-represented Defendants-
    Appellants Arthur Emil Galang, Norivic V. Galang, and Norma
    Pascual Rodil (Rodil) (collectively, Appellants) from Civil
    No. 1CC151001045.
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    The Circuit Court of the First Circuit's (circuit
    court) February 22, 2020 "Judgment on Findings of Fact,
    Conclusions of Law and Order Granting [Appellee]'s Motion for
    Summary Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure Against All
    [Appellants] on Complaint Filed May 29, 2015 [(Order Granting
    MSJ)]" (Judgment) is final and appealable.           See Jenkins v. Cades
    Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai#i 115, 119, 
    869 P.2d 1334
    ,
    1338 (1994); Ditto v. McCurdy, 103 Hawai#i 153, 157, 
    80 P.3d 974
    ,
    978 (2003); Ueoka v Szymanski, 107 Hawai#i 386, 396, 
    114 P.3d 892
    , 902 (2005). However, Appellants failed to file their
    October 6, 2021 notice of appeal within thirty days after entry
    of the Judgment, as required by Hawai#i Rules of Appellate
    Procedure (HRAP) Rule 4(a)(1). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction
    over the appeal from the Judgment. See Grattafiori v. State, 79
    Hawai#i 10, 13, 
    897 P.2d 937
    , 940 (1995).1
    To the extent Appellants appeal from the circuit
    court's February 22, 2020 Order Granting MSJ, the Order Granting
    MSJ is not independently appealable under the Forgay doctrine,
    the collateral-order doctrine, or Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)
    § 641-1(b) (2016). See Greer v. Baker, 137 Hawai#i 249, 253, 
    369 P.3d 832
    , 836 (2016); HRS § 641-1(b). Further, again, the
    October 6, 2021 notice of appeal would be untimely even if such
    order could be appealed.
    To the extent Appellants appeal from a proposed order
    or judgment, these are not final and, therefore, not appealable.
    See HRS § 641-1(a) (2016).
    Moreover, the appealed September 13, 2021 Amended
    Certificate of Service for the Order Granting MSJ is not
    appealable because it is not a final judgment, order, or decree.
    See HRS § 641-1(a).
    The appealed January 8, 2020 oral order striking
    Appellants' opposition to Appellee's motion for summary judgment
    is not appealable because it is not written. See KNG Corp. v.
    1
    Appellant Arthur Emil Galang previously appealed from the Judgment
    in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, but that appeal was dismissed because he failed to file an
    opening brief.
    2
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    Kim, 107 Hawai#i 73, 77, 
    110 P.3d 397
    , 401 (2005); HRAP
    Rule 4(a)(1).
    And the "Order Denying Motion to Set Aside Default and
    to Appoint Counsel" is not independently appealable under the
    Forgay doctrine, the collateral-order doctrine, or HRS § 641-
    1(b). See Greer, 137 Hawai#i at 253, 369 P.3d at 836; HRS § 641-
    1(b).
    Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to
    Dismiss is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for lack of
    jurisdiction.
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are
    dismissed.
    DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 11, 2022.
    /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
    Chief Judge
    /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
    Associate Judge
    /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
    Associate Judge
    3