U.S. Bank National Association v. Chun

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
17-FEB-2026
07:52 AM
Dkt. 53 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 THE
CERTIFICATEHOLDERS CITIGROUP MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST INC.
ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007-AHL3,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee,
v.
PHYLLIS KEHAULANI DUNCAN CHUN,
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
ARROW FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant-Appellee,
and
JOHN AND MARY DOES 1-20, DOE PARTNERSHIPS,
CORPORATIONS, OR OTHER ENTITIES 1-20, Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CIVIL NO. 1CC141002192)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, and Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellant Phyllis
Kehaulani Duncan Chun (Chun), self-represented, appeals from the
September 28, 2023 Judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff/
Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee U.S. Bank National Association as
Trustee for the Certificateholders Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust
Inc. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AHL3
(U.S. Bank) by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit.1/ Chun
also challenges the Circuit Court's September 12, 2023 Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order (FOFs/COLs).

1/
The Honorable Jeffrey P. Crabtree presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

In return for a loan (Loan), Chun executed a promissory
note (Note) in favor of Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.
(Accredited). The Note was secured by a mortgage (Mortgage) on
certain real property owned by Chun. Later, the Loan was
conveyed and the Mortgage was assigned to U.S. Bank; the
servicing of the Loan was transferred to Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc. (SPS).
After Chun defaulted on the Note, U.S. Bank filed a
foreclosure complaint against her. Chun answered the complaint
and filed a counterclaim against U.S. Bank. During the course of
the litigation, U.S. Bank and Chun filed various motions for
summary judgment, all of which were ultimately denied. Following
a three-day jury-waived trial, the Circuit Court entered (1) an
interlocutory decree of foreclosure as requested by U.S. Bank,
and (2) judgment in favor of U.S. Bank on the complaint and the
counterclaim.
On appeal, Chun contends that the Circuit Court erred
in "determining that SPS had possession of [the Note] since 2012
and . . . [U.S.] Bank is the owner of Chun's Mortgage and . . .
Note thereby entitling standing [sic] to bring this wrongful
foreclosure action against Chun." (Capitalization altered.)
Relatedly, Chun challenges FOFs 9 through 17, COLs 5 through 43,
and the Judgment.
We review a trial court's findings of fact under the
clearly erroneous standard. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Behrendt,
142 Hawai#i 37, 40, 414 P.3d 89, 92 (2018) (citing Dan v. State,
76 Hawai#i 423, 428, 879 P.2d 528, 533 (1994)). A finding of
fact "is clearly erroneous when (1) the record lacks substantial
evidence to support the finding, or (2) despite substantial
evidence in support of the finding, the appellate court is
nonetheless left with a definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been made." Est. of Klink ex rel. Klink v. State,
113 Hawai#i 332, 351, 152 P.3d 504, 523 (2007) (quoting Troyer v.
Adams, 102 Hawai#i 399, 409-10, 77 P.3 83, 93-94 (2003)). We
review conclusions of law de novo under the right/wrong standard.
Behrendt, 142 Hawai#i at 40-41, 414 P.3d at 92-93 (citing Marvin
v. Pflueger, 127 Hawai#i 490, 495, 280 P.3d 88, 93 (2012)). "[A

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

conclusion of law] that is supported by the trial court's
[findings of fact] and that reflects an application of the
correct rule of law will not be overturned." Est. of Klink, 113
Hawai#i at 351, 152 P.3d at 523 (quoting Thompson v. Kyo-Ya Co.,
112 Hawai#i 472, 474, 146 P.3d 1049, 1051 (2006)). A mixed
finding of fact and conclusion of law is reviewed under the
clearly erroneous standard because it depends on the facts and
circumstances of the case. Id. (quoting Thompson, 112 Hawai#i at
474, 146 P.3d at 1051).
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
Chun's contentions as follows and affirm.
At the outset, Chun appears to contend that U.S. Bank
lacked standing to enforce the Note when the foreclosure
complaint was filed.
A foreclosing plaintiff must establish its standing to
enforce the subject promissory note when the complaint was filed.
See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo, 139 Hawai#i 361, 368, 390
P.3d 1248, 1255 (2017). A person entitled to enforce the note
includes the "holder," defined in this context as "[t]he person
in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either
to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in
possession[.]" HRS §§ 490:1-201(b), :3-301 (2008); see U.S. Bank
Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust v.
Verhagen, 149 Hawai#i 315, 327-28, 489 P.3d 419, 431-32 (2021)
(ruling that the foreclosing plaintiff presented admissible
evidence showing its actual or constructive possession, through
its loan servicer, of the note indorsed in blank when the
complaint was filed).
Here, U.S. Bank has asserted that through its servicing
agent SPS, it was the holder in possession of the Note and
Allonge to Note (Allonge),2/ indorsed in blank, at the time the

2/
An allonge is a "paper sometimes attached to a negotiable
instrument for the purpose of receiving further indorsements when the original
paper is filled with indorsements." Behrendt, 142 Hawai #i at 39 n.1, 414 P.3d
at 91 n.1 (quoting Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Wise, 130 Hawai #i
11, 14 n.6, 304 P.3d 1192, 1195 n.6 (2013)).

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

complaint was filed on October 20, 2014. At trial, U.S. Bank
presented substantial evidence supporting this assertion. This
evidence included the testimony of Patrick Pittman (Pittman), the
SPS Litigation Director and Document Control Officer with
approximately 21 years of experience working for SPS. He stated
that he is familiar with the practices and procedures of SPS and
the systems of record that SPS uses to create and record
information related to the residential mortgage loans that it
services, including the process by which information is entered
into those systems and how those records are maintained.
FOFs 21 through 36, which Chun does not dispute,3/
further summarized Pittman's testimony and the related
documentary evidence as follows:

21. Where, as here, SPS acquires the servicing rights
from a prior servicer, the prior servicer's records for the
loan are incorporated and boarded into SPS's systems such
that the prior servicer's records concerning the loan are
part of SPS's business records. SPS relies upon the
accuracy of those boarded records in providing its loan
servicing functions.
22. Prior to boarding a loan into SPS's system
platform, SPS conducts a data vetting process or
reconciliation process of all information that is received
from the prior servicer. Hard copy documents are also
reviewed to find any data discrepancies. . . .

23. SPS works with the prior servicer regarding any
data discrepancies or inaccuracies that are found. All
loans that are boarded into SPS's system platform have gone
through the data vetting process. Those records that were
previously incorporated into the prior servicer's records
are then incorporated into SPS's records.
24. On or about September 27, 2012, SPS performed an
audit of the original documents for the Loan, including the
original wet-ink Note and Allonge to Note (together the
"Original Note and Allonge"), the original Mortgage, and the
original Title Policy for the Loan (collectively, the
"Collateral File").
25. On or about September 27, 2012, images of the
Original Note and Allonge, which accurately depict the
Original Note and Allonge (indorsed in blank), were scanned
and uploaded into SPS's database.
. . . .
28. On or about October 10, 2012, the Collateral File
for the Loan, including the Original Note and Allonge, was

3/
See Okada Trucking Co. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 97 Hawai #i 450,
458, 40 P.3d 73, 81 (2002) (unchallenged findings of fact are binding on
appeal).

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

placed into SPS's secured vault facility. . . .
29. In December 2015, the Collateral File for the
Loan, including the Original Note and Allonge, was relocated
from the secured vault facility at [SPS's] initial
headquarters location to the secured vault facility at SPS's
new headquarters ("Decker Lake"), both locations being
within Salt Lake City, Utah.
30. According to the Audit Report for the File Trail
System, which tracks the movement of the collateral file, no
one accessed, and there was no movement of, the Collateral
File for the Loan between November 8, 2012 and December 4,
2015. . . .
. . . .
32. On or about May 5, 2016, the Collateral File for
the Loan was pulled from shelf location 1HK5 in SPS's
secured vault facility at Decker Lake. The Original Note
and Allonge were removed from the Collateral File and sent
to U.S. Bank's foreclosure counsel Leu Okuda & Doi (the " Leu
Firm") with a Bailee Letter.

. . . .
36. Pittman testified that based on his review of
SPS's business records relating to the Loan, [U.S. Bank],
through its agents, had possession of the Original Note and
Allonge at the time the Complaint was filed on October 20,
2014, and at all other times from September 2012 through
present.

(Record citations omitted.) Substantial evidence thus supported
FOF 48 that "U.S. Bank (through its servicing agent SPS) had
possession of the original duly indorsed Note and Allonge at the
time this action was commenced on October 20, 2014."
Further testimony by U.S. Bank's counsel Lansen Leu and
forensic document examiner Kathleen Nicolaides established that
U.S. Bank maintained possession of the Original Note and Allonge
through trial. At trial, the Original Note and Allonge were
authenticated and admitted into evidence as Exhibit P-90. The
Circuit Court thus concluded in COLs 25 and 27, as follows:

25. The documentary evidence and witness testimony
presented by U.S. Bank at trial clearly established by more
than a preponderance of the evidence that U.S. Bank had
continuous actual or constructive possession (through SPS,
the Leu Firm and Nicolaides) of the Original Note and
Allonge from September 2012 through trial, including on
October 20, 2014 when the Complaint was filed.

. . . .
27. U.S. Bank clearly established by more than a
preponderance of the evidence that it has standing, and was
entitled to bring the lawsuit at the time the Complaint was
filed.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

These mixed determinations of fact and law are
supported by substantial evidence in the record and are not
clearly erroneous. See Verhagen, 149 Hawai#i at 327-28, 489 P.3d
at 431-32.
Chun cites no contrary evidence or offers any
persuasive explanation as to why these determinations are clearly
erroneous. Rather, she argues generally that: (1) "Chun does not
have a contract binding her with . . . U.S. Bank, or stranger and
non-party SPS"; (2) "[U.S. Bank's] complaint . . . provides no
admissible evidence of a possession of Chun's note or mortgage at
case commencement"; (3) "[U.S. Bank] provides no evidence of
actual damages incurred by Chun [sic] to entitle [U.S. Bank] to a
trial or invoke any of the remedial powers of the courts"; and
(4) "[U.S. Bank's] witnesses bringing forth statements on behalf
of Accredited Homelenders [sic] records with no evidence that
they are legitimately entitled to speak on behalf of Accredited
nor is there any evidence that accredited assigned the Note to
any of these alleged entities." (Capitalization altered.)
Chun's first and fourth arguments miss the point. U.S.
Bank submitted substantial evidence that it possessed the Note
and Allonge at the time the complaint was filed through trial.
As the holder of the Note, U.S. Bank was entitled to enforce it
as against Chun. And Chun's second argument fails in light of
the substantial evidence supporting U.S. Bank's possession of the
Note during the relevant period, to which Chun did not object at
trial. As to Chun's third argument, the Circuit Court found in
FOF 50, which Chun does not contest and which substantial
evidence supports, that Chun has not made a payment on the Loan
since October 15, 2009.
In any event, based on our review of the record, we
conclude that substantial evidence also supports FOFs 9 through
17,4/ which are part of a series of FOFs in which the Circuit
Court found: (i) Chun executed the Note and Mortgage originated
by Accredited and agreed to make monthly payments on the Loan

4/
Chun contests only FOFs 9 through 17. Any challenge to the
remaining FOFs is waived. See Okada Trucking, 97 Hawai #i at 458, 40 P.3d at
81; Hawai#i Rule of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(7).

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

(FOFs 3-7); (ii) Chun, in executing the Mortgage, agreed that the
Note "c[ould] be sold one or more times without prior notice to
[her]" and that the servicer of the Loan could change (FOF 8);
(iii) the Loan was conveyed to U.S. Bank in 2007 (FOFs 9-11);
(iv) the Mortgage ("[t]ogether with the [N]ote") was assigned to
U.S. Bank (FOF 14); and (v) effective August 16, 2012 (and with
notice to Chun), the servicing of the Loan was transferred to
SPS, which "is, and was at all times relevant, the
attorney-in-fact and agent for U.S. Bank with respect to the
Loan" (FOFs 12-13, 15-18). The testimony and documentary
evidence supporting each of these FOFs is cited therein. Chun
cites no contrary evidence or offers any persuasive explanation
as to why FOFs 9 through 17 are clearly erroneous. We conclude
they are not.
Chun appears to challenge COLs 5 through 43 based on
U.S. Bank's alleged failure to prove it possessed the Note when
the complaint was filed. That argument fails for the reasons
previously stated. Chun does not otherwise challenge the Circuit
Court's conclusions that her counterclaims fail on alternative
grounds. Any such arguments are therefore deemed waived. See
HRAP Rule 28(b)(7).
For the reasons discussed above, the Judgment entered
on September 28, 2023, by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit
is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 17, 2026.

On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Phyllis Kehaulani Duncan Chun, Chief Judge
Self-represented
Defendant/Counterclaim
Plaintiff-Appellant. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge
Patricia J. McHenry,
Allison Mizuo Lee, and
Michi Momose /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
(Cades Schutte LLP) Associate Judge
for Plaintiff/Counterclaim
Defendant-Appellee.

7

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
17-FEB-2026
07:52 AM
Dkt. 53 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 THE
CERTIFICATEHOLDERS CITIGROUP MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST INC.
ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007-AHL3,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee,
v.
PHYLLIS KEHAULANI DUNCAN CHUN,
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
ARROW FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant-Appellee,
and
JOHN AND MARY DOES 1-20, DOE PARTNERSHIPS,
CORPORATIONS, OR OTHER ENTITIES 1-20, Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CIVIL NO. 1CC141002192)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, and Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)

Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellant Phyllis
Kehaulani Duncan Chun (Chun), self-represented, appeals from the
September 28, 2023 Judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff/
Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee U.S. Bank National Association as
Trustee for the Certificateholders Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust
Inc. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AHL3
(U.S. Bank) by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit.1/ Chun
also challenges the Circuit Court's September 12, 2023 Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order (FOFs/COLs).

1/
The Honorable Jeffrey P. Crabtree presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

In return for a loan (Loan), Chun executed a promissory
note (Note) in favor of Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.
(Accredited). The Note was secured by a mortgage (Mortgage) on
certain real property owned by Chun. Later, the Loan was
conveyed and the Mortgage was assigned to U.S. Bank; the
servicing of the Loan was transferred to Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc. (SPS).
After Chun defaulted on the Note, U.S. Bank filed a
foreclosure complaint against her. Chun answered the complaint
and filed a counterclaim against U.S. Bank. During the course of
the litigation, U.S. Bank and Chun filed various motions for
summary judgment, all of which were ultimately denied. Following
a three-day jury-waived trial, the Circuit Court entered (1) an
interlocutory decree of foreclosure as requested by U.S. Bank,
and (2) judgment in favor of U.S. Bank on the complaint and the
counterclaim.
On appeal, Chun contends that the Circuit Court erred
in "determining that SPS had possession of [the Note] since 2012
and . . . [U.S.] Bank is the owner of Chun's Mortgage and . . .
Note thereby entitling standing [sic] to bring this wrongful
foreclosure action against Chun." (Capitalization altered.)
Relatedly, Chun challenges FOFs 9 through 17, COLs 5 through 43,
and the Judgment.
We review a trial court's findings of fact under the
clearly erroneous standard. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Behrendt,
142 Hawai#i 37, 40, 414 P.3d 89, 92 (2018) (citing Dan v. State,
76 Hawai#i 423, 428, 879 P.2d 528, 533 (1994)). A finding of
fact "is clearly erroneous when (1) the record lacks substantial
evidence to support the finding, or (2) despite substantial
evidence in support of the finding, the appellate court is
nonetheless left with a definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been made." Est. of Klink ex rel. Klink v. State,
113 Hawai#i 332, 351, 152 P.3d 504, 523 (2007) (quoting Troyer v.
Adams, 102 Hawai#i 399, 409-10, 77 P.3 83, 93-94 (2003)). We
review conclusions of law de novo under the right/wrong standard.
Behrendt, 142 Hawai#i at 40-41, 414 P.3d at 92-93 (citing Marvin
v. Pflueger, 127 Hawai#i 490, 495, 280 P.3d 88, 93 (2012)). "[A

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

conclusion of law] that is supported by the trial court's
[findings of fact] and that reflects an application of the
correct rule of law will not be overturned." Est. of Klink, 113
Hawai#i at 351, 152 P.3d at 523 (quoting Thompson v. Kyo-Ya Co.,
112 Hawai#i 472, 474, 146 P.3d 1049, 1051 (2006)). A mixed
finding of fact and conclusion of law is reviewed under the
clearly erroneous standard because it depends on the facts and
circumstances of the case. Id. (quoting Thompson, 112 Hawai#i at
474, 146 P.3d at 1051).
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
Chun's contentions as follows and affirm.
At the outset, Chun appears to contend that U.S. Bank
lacked standing to enforce the Note when the foreclosure
complaint was filed.
A foreclosing plaintiff must establish its standing to
enforce the subject promissory note when the complaint was filed.
See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo, 139 Hawai#i 361, 368, 390
P.3d 1248, 1255 (2017). A person entitled to enforce the note
includes the "holder," defined in this context as "[t]he person
in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either
to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in
possession[.]" HRS §§ 490:1-201(b), :3-301 (2008); see U.S. Bank
Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust v.
Verhagen, 149 Hawai#i 315, 327-28, 489 P.3d 419, 431-32 (2021)
(ruling that the foreclosing plaintiff presented admissible
evidence showing its actual or constructive possession, through
its loan servicer, of the note indorsed in blank when the
complaint was filed).
Here, U.S. Bank has asserted that through its servicing
agent SPS, it was the holder in possession of the Note and
Allonge to Note (Allonge),2/ indorsed in blank, at the time the

2/
An allonge is a "paper sometimes attached to a negotiable
instrument for the purpose of receiving further indorsements when the original
paper is filled with indorsements." Behrendt, 142 Hawai #i at 39 n.1, 414 P.3d
at 91 n.1 (quoting Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Wise, 130 Hawai #i
11, 14 n.6, 304 P.3d 1192, 1195 n.6 (2013)).

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

complaint was filed on October 20, 2014. At trial, U.S. Bank
presented substantial evidence supporting this assertion. This
evidence included the testimony of Patrick Pittman (Pittman), the
SPS Litigation Director and Document Control Officer with
approximately 21 years of experience working for SPS. He stated
that he is familiar with the practices and procedures of SPS and
the systems of record that SPS uses to create and record
information related to the residential mortgage loans that it
services, including the process by which information is entered
into those systems and how those records are maintained.
FOFs 21 through 36, which Chun does not dispute,3/
further summarized Pittman's testimony and the related
documentary evidence as follows:

21. Where, as here, SPS acquires the servicing rights
from a prior servicer, the prior servicer's records for the
loan are incorporated and boarded into SPS's systems such
that the prior servicer's records concerning the loan are
part of SPS's business records. SPS relies upon the
accuracy of those boarded records in providing its loan
servicing functions.

22. Prior to boarding a loan into SPS's system
platform, SPS conducts a data vetting process or
reconciliation process of all information that is received
from the prior servicer. Hard copy documents are also
reviewed to find any data discrepancies. . . .
23. SPS works with the prior servicer regarding any
data discrepancies or inaccuracies that are found. All
loans that are boarded into SPS's system platform have gone
through the data vetting process. Those records that were
previously incorporated into the prior servicer's records
are then incorporated into SPS's records.

24. On or about September 27, 2012, SPS performed an
audit of the original documents for the Loan, including the
original wet-ink Note and Allonge to Note (together the
"Original Note and Allonge"), the original Mortgage, and the
original Title Policy for the Loan (collectively, the
"Collateral File").
25. On or about September 27, 2012, images of the
Original Note and Allonge, which accurately depict the
Original Note and Allonge (indorsed in blank), were scanned
and uploaded into SPS's database.
. . . .
28. On or about October 10, 2012, the Collateral File
for the Loan, including the Original Note and Allonge, was

3/
See Okada Trucking Co. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 97 Hawai #i 450,
458, 40 P.3d 73, 81 (2002) (unchallenged findings of fact are binding on
appeal).

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

placed into SPS's secured vault facility. . . .
29. In December 2015, the Collateral File for the
Loan, including the Original Note and Allonge, was relocated
from the secured vault facility at [SPS's] initial
headquarters location to the secured vault facility at SPS's
new headquarters ("Decker Lake"), both locations being
within Salt Lake City, Utah.
30. According to the Audit Report for the File Trail
System, which tracks the movement of the collateral file, no
one accessed, and there was no movement of, the Collateral
File for the Loan between November 8, 2012 and December 4,
2015. . . .
. . . .

32. On or about May 5, 2016, the Collateral File for
the Loan was pulled from shelf location 1HK5 in SPS's
secured vault facility at Decker Lake. The Original Note
and Allonge were removed from the Collateral File and sent
to U.S. Bank's foreclosure counsel Leu Okuda & Doi (the " Leu
Firm") with a Bailee Letter.

. . . .

36. Pittman testified that based on his review of
SPS's business records relating to the Loan, [U.S. Bank],
through its agents, had possession of the Original Note and
Allonge at the time the Complaint was filed on October 20,
2014, and at all other times from September 2012 through
present.

(Record citations omitted.) Substantial evidence thus supported
FOF 48 that "U.S. Bank (through its servicing agent SPS) had
possession of the original duly indorsed Note and Allonge at the
time this action was commenced on October 20, 2014."
Further testimony by U.S. Bank's counsel Lansen Leu and
forensic document examiner Kathleen Nicolaides established that
U.S. Bank maintained possession of the Original Note and Allonge
through trial. At trial, the Original Note and Allonge were
authenticated and admitted into evidence as Exhibit P-90. The
Circuit Court thus concluded in COLs 25 and 27, as follows:

25. The documentary evidence and witness testimony
presented by U.S. Bank at trial clearly established by more
than a preponderance of the evidence that U.S. Bank had
continuous actual or constructive possession (through SPS,
the Leu Firm and Nicolaides) of the Original Note and
Allonge from September 2012 through trial, including on
October 20, 2014 when the Complaint was filed.
. . . .
27. U.S. Bank clearly established by more than a
preponderance of the evidence that it has standing, and was
entitled to bring the lawsuit at the time the Complaint was
filed.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

These mixed determinations of fact and law are
supported by substantial evidence in the record and are not
clearly erroneous. See Verhagen, 149 Hawai#i at 327-28, 489 P.3d
at 431-32.
Chun cites no contrary evidence or offers any
persuasive explanation as to why these determinations are clearly
erroneous. Rather, she argues generally that: (1) "Chun does not
have a contract binding her with . . . U.S. Bank, or stranger and
non-party SPS"; (2) "[U.S. Bank's] complaint . . . provides no
admissible evidence of a possession of Chun's note or mortgage at
case commencement"; (3) "[U.S. Bank] provides no evidence of
actual damages incurred by Chun [sic] to entitle [U.S. Bank] to a
trial or invoke any of the remedial powers of the courts"; and
(4) "[U.S. Bank's] witnesses bringing forth statements on behalf
of Accredited Homelenders [sic] records with no evidence that
they are legitimately entitled to speak on behalf of Accredited
nor is there any evidence that accredited assigned the Note to
any of these alleged entities." (Capitalization altered.)
Chun's first and fourth arguments miss the point. U.S.
Bank submitted substantial evidence that it possessed the Note
and Allonge at the time the complaint was filed through trial.
As the holder of the Note, U.S. Bank was entitled to enforce it
as against Chun. And Chun's second argument fails in light of
the substantial evidence supporting U.S. Bank's possession of the
Note during the relevant period, to which Chun did not object at
trial. As to Chun's third argument, the Circuit Court found in
FOF 50, which Chun does not contest and which substantial
evidence supports, that Chun has not made a payment on the Loan
since October 15, 2009.
In any event, based on our review of the record, we
conclude that substantial evidence also supports FOFs 9 through
17,4/ which are part of a series of FOFs in which the Circuit
Court found: (i) Chun executed the Note and Mortgage originated
by Accredited and agreed to make monthly payments on the Loan

4/
Chun contests only FOFs 9 through 17. Any challenge to the
remaining FOFs is waived. See Okada Trucking, 97 Hawai #i at 458, 40 P.3d at
81; Hawai#i Rule of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(7).

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

(FOFs 3-7); (ii) Chun, in executing the Mortgage, agreed that the
Note "c[ould] be sold one or more times without prior notice to
[her]" and that the servicer of the Loan could change (FOF 8);
(iii) the Loan was conveyed to U.S. Bank in 2007 (FOFs 9-11);
(iv) the Mortgage ("[t]ogether with the [N]ote") was assigned to
U.S. Bank (FOF 14); and (v) effective August 16, 2012 (and with
notice to Chun), the servicing of the Loan was transferred to
SPS, which "is, and was at all times relevant, the
attorney-in-fact and agent for U.S. Bank with respect to the
Loan" (FOFs 12-13, 15-18). The testimony and documentary
evidence supporting each of these FOFs is cited therein. Chun
cites no contrary evidence or offers any persuasive explanation
as to why FOFs 9 through 17 are clearly erroneous. We conclude
they are not.
Chun appears to challenge COLs 5 through 43 based on
U.S. Bank's alleged failure to prove it possessed the Note when
the complaint was filed. That argument fails for the reasons
previously stated. Chun does not otherwise challenge the Circuit
Court's conclusions that her counterclaims fail on alternative
grounds. Any such arguments are therefore deemed waived. See
HRAP Rule 28(b)(7).
For the reasons discussed above, the Judgment entered
on September 28, 2023, by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit
is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 17, 2026.

On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Phyllis Kehaulani Duncan Chun, Chief Judge
Self-represented
Defendant/Counterclaim
Plaintiff-Appellant. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge
Patricia J. McHenry,
Allison Mizuo Lee, and
Michi Momose /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
(Cades Schutte LLP) Associate Judge
for Plaintiff/Counterclaim
Defendant-Appellee.

7