Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Prentice

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
28-NOV-2025
09:00 AM
Dkt. 71 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
EBONI A. PRENTICE, Defendant-Appellant, THE MAUI LANI
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee, and JOHN DOES 1-10;
JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 2-10;
DOE ENTITIES 1-10; and DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-10, Defendants,

THE MAUI LANI COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Defendant/Counterclaimant-
Appellee, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Plaintiff/Counterclaim
Defendant-Appellee,

THE MAUI LANI COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Defendant/Cross-Claimant-
Appellee, v. EBONI A. PRENTICE, Defendant/Cross-Claim Defendant-
Appellant, and JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS
1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 2-10; DOE ENTITIES 1-10; and DOE
GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-10, Defendants/Cross-Claim Defendants,

and

THE MAUI LANI COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Defendant/Additional Cross-
Claimant-Appellee, v. SUNRUN, INC., Defendant/Cross-Claim
Defendant-Appellee, and JOHN ROES 1-10; JANE ROES 1-10; ROE
PARTNERSHIPS; ROE CORPORATIONS; ROE ENTITIES 1-10; and ROE
GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-10, Defendants/Additional Cross-Claim
Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 2CC161000169)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

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

Eboni A. Prentice appeals from the Amended Final
Judgment for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. entered by the Circuit Court
of the Second Circuit on October 27, 2025.1 Prentice challenges
the July 18, 2023 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order
Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Against All
Defendants and for Interlocutory Decree of Foreclosure. We
vacate and remand.
Wells Fargo sued Prentice to foreclose on a mortgage.
A copy of Prentice's Note to Academy Mortgage Corporation was
attached to the complaint. The Note was specially indorsed to
2
Wells Fargo, then indorsed in blank by Wells Fargo.
Wells Fargo moved for summary judgment and a decree of
foreclosure in February 2023.3 The Circuit Court entered an
order granting the motion and a foreclosure judgment on July 18,
2023. Prentice timely appealed. The Amended Final Judgment was
entered on a temporary remand.
Prentice contends that summary judgment should not have
been granted because (1) Wells Fargo failed to show it had
possession of the Note when its complaint was filed, (2) Wells
Fargo did not properly authenticate its business records, and
(3) there were genuine issues of material fact.

1
The Honorable Kirstin M. Hamman presided.
2
"When specially indorsed, an instrument becomes payable to the
identified person and may be negotiated only by the indorsement of that
person." Hawaii Revised Statutes § 490:3-205 (2008).
3
Prentice never answered the complaint. Her default was entered.
It was never set aside. Prentice opposed Wells Fargo's motion for summary
judgment, and the Circuit Court decided the motion on the merits without
setting aside Prentice's default. Wells Fargo's supplemental brief states
"this error should be seen as harmless" and asks that we "review the results
of the foreclosure proceeding as they occurred in the remainder of the record,
given the circuit court's apparent decision to resolve this case as if the
default had in fact been formally set aside." On remand, the parties may
stipulate to set aside the entry of default.

1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Nozawa
v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, 142 Hawai#i 331, 338,
418 P.3d 1187, 1194 (2018). Summary judgment is appropriate when
the moving party shows, by admissible evidence, that the material
facts are uncontroverted and it is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Id. at 342, 418 P.3d at 1198.
(1) A foreclosing plaintiff must establish it was
entitled to enforce the note when its complaint was filed. U.S.
Bank Tr., N.A. v. Verhagen, 149 Hawai#i 315, 327, 489 P.3d 419,
431 (2021). Wells Fargo submitted declarations from its employee
Armenia Harrell. Harrell authenticated records made in the
regular course of Wells Fargo's mortgage servicing business.
Harrell was an "other qualified witness" to
authenticate Wells Fargo's own business records under Hawaii
Rules of Evidence Rule 803(b)(6) because she "received training
on, understand[s] the codes used in, and [has] knowledge of how
information is entered, generated, and maintained on the computer
system used by Wells Fargo to make these records, including, but
not limited to, the document imaging process, how letters are
created and maintained on Wells Fargo's system of record, and how
payments, fees, and charges are tracked on Wells Fargo's system
of record." See State v. Fitzwater, 122 Hawai#i 354, 366, 227
P.3d 520, 532 (2010). Harrell's declaration explained how Wells
Fargo's own records show it had possession of the original Note
when its foreclosure complaint was filed.
Prentice argues that Harrell's declaration doesn't
sufficiently demonstrate circumstances indicating trustworthiness
of Wells Fargo's records as required under Deutsche Bank National
Trust Co. v. Yata, 152 Hawai#i 322, 526 P.3d 299 (2023) and
Verhagen. The documents in those cases had been received from
another loan servicer and incorporated into the current loan
servicer's business records. See Yata, 152 Hawai#i at 333, 526
P.3d at 310 (citing Verhagen, 149 Hawai#i at 325, 489 P.3d at

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

429, and quoting Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Behrendt, 142 Hawai#i
37, 45, 414 P.3d 89, 97 (2018)).
Here, Wells Fargo's own records show it possessed the
original Note. Promissory notes are not hearsay. Verhagen, 149
Hawai#i at 317, 489 P.3d at 421. Harrell was qualified to prove
that Wells Fargo was a "[p]erson entitled to enforce" the Note
under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 490:3-301 when its complaint was
filed.
(2) Prentice argues that summary judgment should not
have been granted because "the record of the prior servicer
should not be admitted[.]" She again relies on Behrendt,
Verhagen, and Yata. Her argument has merit.
The Note is dated July 2, 2015. Academy Mortgage is
the lender. Prentice signed the Note on July 6, 2015. Harrell's
declaration states that Wells Fargo "became servicer for the Loan
effective 09/01/2015." Exhibit 9 shows the location of the
collateral file for Prentice's loan on 07/17/2015 to be NWB-CUST,
but Harrell's declaration doesn't identify NWB-CUST or state who
serviced Prentice's loan before Wells Fargo took over on
September 1, 2015.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
Prentice, Nozawa, 142 Hawai#i at 338, 418 P.3d at 1194, someone
other than Wells Fargo serviced Prentice's loan between July 6,
2015 (when Prentice signed the Note) and September 1, 2015.
Wells Fargo should have incorporated the prior servicer's records
into its own. Harrell's declaration doesn't show circumstances
indicating the trustworthiness of the incorporated records, which
should have included the history of Prentice's loan payments
between July 6, 2015 and September 1, 2015. The accuracy of the
prior servicer's payment history affects the accuracy of
Exhibit 6, Wells Fargo's own payment history, which is material
to whether and when Prentice defaulted.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Other than the copy of the Note,4 Wells Fargo failed to
establish the facts material to its motion for summary judgment
through admissible evidence. See Yata, 152 Hawai#i at 333, 526
P.3d at 310; Verhagen, 149 Hawai#i at 325, 489 P.3d at 429;
Behrendt, 142 Hawai#i at 45, 414 P.3d at 97.
(3) Prentice argues that summary judgment should not
have been granted because there were genuine issues of material
fact. We conclude there were, but not those involving Patrick
Soria or payments Prentice claims to have made to him.5
Wells Fargo originally moved for summary judgment on
February 9, 2017. The motion was supported by a declaration from
Wells Fargo employee Gary L. Hughes. Hughes stated: "Wells Fargo
has serviced the Loan since its origination." Hughes is
contradicted by Harrell, who stated Wells Fargo "became servicer
for the Loan effective 09/01/2015."
The contradiction is material because if Wells Fargo
was not the original loan servicer, it would have to show
circumstances indicating trustworthiness of the prior loan
servicer's records incorporated by Wells Fargo. See Yata, 152
Hawai#i at 333, 526 P.3d at 310; Verhagen, 149 Hawai#i at 325, 489
P.3d at 429; Behrendt, 142 Hawai#i at 45, 414 P.3d at 97. That
genuine issue of material fact should have precluded summary
judgment because, as we stated, the record doesn't show
circumstances indicating the trustworthiness of any prior
servicer's incorporated records.

4
The copy of the Note attached to the motion for summary judgment
was properly authenticated by Wells Fargo's counsel, who had possession of the
original Note when the motion was filed.
5
We express no opinion concerning the materiality of the payments
Prentice contends she made to Soria, or their legal effect.

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The October 27, 2025 Amended Final Judgment is vacated
and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with
this summary disposition order.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 28, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Keith M. Kiuchi, Chief Judge
for Defendant-Appellant
Eboni A. Prentice. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Associate Judge
Edmund K. Saffery,
Deirdre Marie-Iha, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Kenory E. Khuy, Associate Judge
Kellie K. L. Wong,
for Plaintiff-Appellee
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

5