U.S. Bank National Association v. Meyer

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
21-JUN-2023
08:03 AM
Dkt. 32 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR
STRUCTURED ASSET INVESTMENT LOAN TRUST, MORTGAGE PASS-
THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-3,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
KRISTIN KAY MEYER,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
JOHN HAYWORTH,
Applicant for Intervention-Appellant,
and
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
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CIVIL NO. 1CC131001407)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Nakasone, JJ.)
Applicant for Intervention-Appellant John Hayworth
(Hayworth), self-represented, appeals from the (1) "Order Denying
Motion to Intervene and Set Aside, Filed October 28, 2019 and
Striking of Answer and Counterclaim Filed on October 28, 2019"
(Order Denying Motion to Intervene); and (2) "Order Denying Non-
Party John Hayworth's Motion to Rehear Motion to Intervene and
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Set Aside Filed October 28, 2019" (Order Denying Motion to
Rehear),1 both filed on July 6, 2020 by the Circuit Court of the
First Circuit (Circuit Court).2
On appeal, Hayworth contends that the Circuit Court
erred by: (1) entering an August 20, 2019 foreclosure decree and
judgment in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee U.S. Bank National
Association, as Trustee for Structured Asset Investment Loan
Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-3 (US
Bank); (2) finding that US Bank had standing to foreclose, and
challenging various Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in
the August 20, 2019 foreclosure decree; and (3) denying
Hayworth's Motion to Intervene and Motion to Rehear.3
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we affirm.
On August 20, 2019, the Circuit Court entered a
foreclosure decree and judgment against Defendant-Appellee
Kristin Kay Meyer (Meyer) and all defendants, foreclosing on real
property located on Moua Street in Wai#anae, Hawai#i (Property).
Hayworth was not a party to the foreclosure proceeding.
No party appealed from the August 20, 2019 foreclosure
decree and judgment.
On October 28, 2019, Hayworth filed as a non-hearing
motion, the Motion to Intervene under Hawai#i Rules of Civil
Procedure (HRCP) Rule 24(a),4 asserting that he had an interest
1
Hayworth's Notice of Appeal attaches a May 1, 2020 minute order
denying Hayworth's Motion to Rehear. It is clear from the Opening Brief that
he also appeals from the November 26, 2019 minute order denying the Motion to
Intervene. On July 6, 2020, the Circuit Court filed written orders denying
both motions. We construe Hayworth's appeal to include both of these orders.
2
The Honorable Jeannette H. Castagnetti presided.
3
We have restated and consolidated Hayworth's points of error for
clarity.
4
HRCP Rule 24, entitled "Intervention," states in relevant part:
(a) Intervention of Right. Upon timely application anyone
shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a
statute confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2)
when the applicant claims an interest relating to the
property or transaction which is the subject of the action
(continued...)
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
in the Property and a right to intervene based on "pre-existing
Hawaiian Kingdom Law[.]" Hayworth also filed an "Intervener's
[sic] Answer and Counterclaim" and "Amended Counterclaim." The
Circuit Court denied the Motion to Intervene and struck
Hayworth's Answer and Counterclaim in a November 26, 2019 minute
order.
On April 8, 2020, Hayworth filed the Motion to Rehear,
which the Circuit Court denied in a May 1, 2020 minute order.
On July 6, 2020, the Circuit Court filed its Order
Denying Intervention, striking Hayworth's "Answer and
Counterclaim" because he was "not a party to [the] action." The
Circuit Court also filed its Order Denying Motion to Rehear on
the same date. Hayworth timely appealed both orders.
As to Hayworth's contentions (1) and (2), we do not
have jurisdiction to consider his challenge to the August 20,
2019 foreclosure decree and judgment. Generally, a party who
wishes to challenge a decree of foreclosure must do so "within
the thirty day period following entry of the decree or will lose
the right to appeal that portion of the foreclosure proceeding."
Beneficial Hawaii, Inc. v. Casey, 98 Hawai#i 159, 165, 45 P.3d
359, 365 (2002) (citation omitted). No party appealed the August
20, 2019 foreclosure decree and judgment, and it is not eligible
for appellate review. See Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys. Inc. v.
Wise, 130 Hawai#i 11, 17, 304 P.3d 1192, 1198 (2013) (holding
that a foreclosure judgment becomes "final and binding" when the
time for appealing the judgment passes without an appeal being
taken). Hayworth, as a non-party filing an October 28, 2019
Motion to Intervene, cannot challenge the August 20, 2019
foreclosure decree and judgment, which became final and binding
when no party appealed from it. See id.
4
(...continued)
and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the
action may as a practical matter impair or impede the
applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the
applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing
parties.
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
(3) Hayworth argues that the Circuit Court erred when
it denied his Motion to Intervene because he had an interest in
the Property. Hayworth's argument appears to rely on his
assertion that he "took possession" of the Property when it was
"vacant or abandoned"; and he is an "heir" to the Property and
entitled to possession of the same as a Native Hawaiian, through
a Hawaiian Kingdom Royal land patent to "Abner Paki in 1855"
based on "Hawaiian judicial precedent."
An order denying a motion to intervene pursuant to HRCP
Rule 24(a) is reviewed "under the right/wrong standard." Hoopai
v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 106 Hawai#i 205, 216, 103 P.3d 365, 376
(2004) (ctation omitted). We consider four factors in
determining intervention pursuant to HRCP Rule 24(a)(2),
including:
(1) "whether the application was timely"; (2) "whether the
intervenor claimed an interest relating to the property or
transaction which was the subject of the action"; (3)
"whether the disposition of the action would, as a practical
matter, impair or impede the intervenor's ability to protect
that interest"; and (4) "whether the intervenor's interest
was inadequately represented by the existing defendants."
Id. (quoting Ing v. Acceptance Ins. Co., 76 Hawai#i 266, 271,
874 P.2d 1091, 1096 (1994)).
Hayworth does not present any cognizable legal
authority supporting his claim of an interest in the Property.
See State v. Kaulia, 128 Hawai#i 479, 487, 291 P.3d 377, 385
(2013) (cleaned up) ("Whatever may be said regarding the
lawfulness of its origins, the State of Hawai#i is now, a lawful
government. Individuals claiming to be citizens of the Kingdom
and not of the State are not exempt from application of the
State's laws."); Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Velez, No. CAAP-12-
0000433, 2013 WL 2149695, at *1 (App. May 16, 2013) (SDO) ("Our
appellate courts have repeatedly held that claims involving the
applicability of the Kingdom of Hawai#i laws are without
merit."). The Circuit Court was not wrong in denying the Motion
to Intervene. See Hoopai, 106 Hawai#i at 216, 103 P.3d at 376.
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
We construe Hayworth's Motion to Rehear as a motion for
reconsideration. "The trial court's ruling on a motion for
reconsideration is reviewed under the abuse of discretion
standard." Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Wailea Elua v. Wailea
Resort Co., 100 Hawai#i 97, 110, 58 P.3d 608, 621 (2002).
[T]he purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to
allow the parties to present new evidence and/or arguments
that could not have been presented during the earlier
adjudicated motion. Reconsideration is not a device to
relitigate old matters or to raise arguments or evidence
that could and should have been brought during the earlier
proceeding.
Cho v. State, 115 Hawai#i 373, 384, 168 P.3d 17, 28 (2007)
(alteration in original) (quoting Sousaris v. Miller, 92 Hawai#i
505, 513, 993 P.2d 539, 547 (2000)).
Here, Hayworth's Motion to Rehear did not "present new
evidence and/or arguments that could not have been presented" in
his earlier Motion to Intervene. Id. The Circuit Court did not
abuse its discretion by denying the Motion to Rehear. See Ass'n
of Apartment Owners of Wailea Elua, 100 Hawai#i at 110, 58 P.3d
at 621.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the (1) "Order
Denying Motion to Intervene and Set Aside, Filed October 28, 2019
and Striking of Answer and Counterclaim Filed on October 28,
2019"; and (2) "Order Denying Non-Party John Hayworth's Motion to
Rehear Motion to Intervene and Set Aside Filed October 28, 2019"
both filed on July 6, 2020 by the Circuit Court of the First
Circuit.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 21, 2023.
On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Presiding Judge
John Hayworth,
Applicant for Intervention- /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Appellant. Associate Judge
Justin S. Moyer /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
for Plaintiff-Appellee. Associate Judge
5