CourtListener 10877368

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
18-JUN-2026
12:06 PM
Dkt. 36 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

LANI PACIFIC, a registered business entity,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR
THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED AS OF NOVEMBER 1, 2006
SECURITIZED ASSET BACKED RECEIVABLES LLC TRUST 2006-FR4,
Defendant-Appellee, and
DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive,
Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 3CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

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

Self-represented Plaintiff-Appellant Lani Pacific 1

appeals from the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit's August 21,

2024 Judgment that entered summary judgment in favor of

1 As explained in this court's summary disposition order in
consolidated cases CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, David Paul Biesemeyer
is the "Registrant/Sole Proprietor" of Lani Pacific, and Lani Pacific is a
trade name registered by Biesemeyer. See generally Garcia v. Fernandez, 146
Hawaiʻi 627, 463 P.3d 1284, Nos. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2020 WL
2991784, at *2 (App. June 4, 2020) (SDO) (holding that a sole proprietorship
may litigate pro se).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Defendant-Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as

Trustee for the Pooling and Servicing Agreement Dated as of

November 1, 2006 Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC Trust

2006-FR4 (Deutsche Bank). 2

On appeal, Lani Pacific challenges the denial of its

Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 60(b) motion and the

granting of Deutsche Bank's summary judgment motion.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve this

appeal as discussed below and affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

The litigation related to this case spans over ten

years and involves four circuit court proceedings and three

appeals to this court:

A. 2015 Foreclosure Action (Case No. 3CC15100074K)

In 2015, Deutsche Bank filed a complaint against

Michael N. Bauer and Lori J. Bauer (together, the Bauers) to

foreclose a mortgage on 79-7250 Saint Paul Road, Kealakekua,

Hawaiʻi 96750 (the Property).

However, in 2016, the circuit court dismissed the

complaint under Rule 29 of the Rules of the Circuit Courts of

2 The Honorable Wendy M. DeWeese presided.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the State of Hawaiʻi (RCCH) for lack of prosecution. 3 The

dismissal order stated that the "dismissal may be set aside and

the action reinstated by order of the court for good cause upon

motion duly filed" within ten days. No motion to set aside was

ever filed, and no final judgment was ever entered.

In 2018, Lani Pacific purchased the Property from the

Bauers via quitclaim deed for $2,000.00.

B. 2019 Foreclosure Action (Case No. 3CC19100014K)

In 2019, Deutsche Bank filed a foreclosure complaint

against the Bauers and Lani Pacific (2019 Foreclosure Action).

In 2020, Deutsche Bank moved for summary judgment and/or default

judgment and an interlocutory decree of foreclosure. Lani

Pacific opposed the motion, arguing that the mortgage

assignments were false or fraudulent.

In 2021, the circuit court granted Deutsche Bank a

foreclosure decree and a corresponding judgment, finding that

Lani Pacific took title to the Property subject to Deutsche

3 RCCH Rule 29 provides:

An action may be dismissed with prejudice sua sponte
with written notice to the parties for want of prosecution
where all defendants are in default and if the plaintiff
fails to obtain entry of default and fails to apply for
default judgment within six months after all defendants are
in default. Such dismissal may be set aside and the action
reinstated by order of the court for good cause shown upon
motion duly filed not later than ten (10) days from the
date of the order of dismissal.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Bank's mortgage, and thus, Lani Pacific's interest was

extinguished upon entry of the decree.

C. 2020 Quiet Title Action (Case No. 3CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

Meanwhile, Lani Pacific filed a complaint to quiet

title against Deutsche Bank (2020 Quiet Title Action), arguing

that title to the Property was vested in Lani Pacific and

Deutsche Bank had no interest therein. 4

Deutsche Bank moved for judgment on the pleadings or

for summary judgment in the alternative, arguing that Deutsche

Bank had a valid mortgage interest in the Property. In 2021,

the circuit court entered an order and corresponding judgment

granting Deutsche Bank's motion for summary judgment and

dismissing the case with prejudice.

D. Consolidated Appeals (Case Nos. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-
XX-XXXXXXX)

Lani Pacific appealed from the judgments in the 2019

Foreclosure Action and 2020 Quiet Title Action. This court

consolidated the cases and affirmed both judgments. The Hawaiʻi

Supreme Court denied Lani Pacific's application for certiorari.

4 On August 25, 2020, the circuit court concluded that the 2020 Quiet
Title Action presented a compulsory counterclaim to the claims in the 2019
Foreclosure Action, and it orally consolidated the cases. However, no
written consolidation order appears in either case. Thus, the cases were
never officially consolidated.
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

E. 2023 Action (Case No. 3CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

Following the denial of its application for

certiorari, Lani Pacific filed in circuit court "A NEW CIVIL

ACTION FILING THAT INCLUDES A RULE 60(B)(6) MOTION TO SET ASIDE

THE JUDGMENTS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES" and listed the 2019

Foreclosure Action and 2020 Quiet Title Action, which created a

new case (2023 Action).

Deutsche Bank moved for summary judgment, arguing

that: (1) the claims were barred by res judicata because they

arise out of the same transactions and occurrences as the 2019

Foreclosure Action and 2020 Quiet Title Action, (2) the claims

should have and could have been raised in the 2019 Foreclosure

Action and 2020 Quiet Title Action, (3) Lani Pacific lacked

standing to challenge the mortgage assignment, and (4) the

mortgage assignment was not fraudulent.

In 2024, the circuit court entered an order and

corresponding judgment granting Deutsche Bank's summary judgment

motion and concluding that (1) Lani Pacific lacked standing to

challenge the mortgage assignment, (2) there was no fraud on the

court in the 2019 Foreclosure Action or the 2020 Quiet Title

Action, and (3) Lani Pacific's other claims were barred by res

judicata, because they arose out of the same transactions and

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

occurrences as the 2019 Foreclosure Action and 2020 Quiet Title

Action and the arguments could have been raised in those cases.

Lani Pacific appealed.

II. DISCUSSION

Although Lani Pacific's opening brief does not comply

with Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28, we endeavor to

address its appeal to the extent we can discern the issues

raised. See Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawaiʻi 368, 380, 465 P.3d 815,

827 (2020). In its points of error, Lani Pacific contends the

circuit court misapplied res judicata, misconstrued standing,

erred in upholding a void foreclosure judgment, and failed to

recognize fraud upon the court. These points of error are based

on Lani Pacific's arguments that (1) the dismissal of the 2015

Foreclosure Action rendered all other judgments void, and

(2) Deutsche Bank's attorneys' failure to inform the court of

the 2015 Foreclosure Action's dismissal was fraud upon the

court.

We review an award of summary judgment de novo.

Taniguchi v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of King Manor, Inc., 114

Hawaiʻi 37, 46, 155 P.3d 1138, 1147 (2007).

But, before we address Lani Pacific's arguments, we

first consider the propriety of using HRCP Rule 60(b) to

initiate the 2023 Action. HRCP Rule 60(b) authorizes the court

to relieve a party from a final judgment "on motion":
6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court
may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from
a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due
diligence could not have been discovered in time to move
for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether
heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;
(4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been
satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment
upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise
vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment
should have prospective application; or (6) any other
reason justifying relief from the operation of the
judgment.

The motion shall be made within a reasonable time,
and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one year
after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or
taken. A motion under this subdivision (b) does not affect
the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation.

This rule does not limit the power of a court to
entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a
judgment, order, or proceeding, or to set aside a judgment
for fraud upon the court. Writs of coram nobis, coram
vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the
nature of a bill of review, are abolished, and the
procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be
by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent
action.

(Formatting altered and emphases added.) The Hawaiʻi Supreme

Court clarified that "an HRCP Rule 60(b) motion is a

continuation of the original action." PennyMac Corp. v.

Godinez, 148 Hawaiʻi 323, 328, 474 P.3d 264, 269 (2020).

Here, in the 2023 Action, Lani Pacific filed in the

circuit court "A NEW CIVIL ACTION FILING THAT INCLUDES A

RULE 60(B)(6) MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENTS IN THE FOLLOWING

CASES" and listed the 2019 Foreclosure Action and 2020 Quiet

Title Action, which created a new case.

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

However, as stated above, HRCP Rule 60(b) is a

continuation of the original proceeding and, thus, cannot be a

basis for initiating an independent action. See id.

Accordingly, to the extent we can construe Lani Pacific's 2023

Action as an HRCP Rule 60(b) motion, it is a continuation of the

2019 Foreclosure Action and the 2020 Quiet Title Action. See

id.

Because "an HRCP Rule 60(b) motion is a continuation

of the original action," such a motion is not precluded by res

judicata. See id. Res judicata, which "precludes not only the

relitigation of claims or defenses that were litigated in a

previous lawsuit, but also of all claims and defenses that might

have been properly litigated but were not litigated or decided,"

applies only to separate actions or proceedings. Wilmington

Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB v. Domingo, 155 Hawaiʻi 1, 15, 556 P.3d 347,

361 (2024); PennyMac Corp., 148 Hawaiʻi at 330, 474 P.3d at 271

(explaining that "res judicata only applies between separate

actions or proceedings").

We now turn to Lani Pacific's argument that, pursuant

to HRCP Rule 60(b), the dismissal of the 2015 Foreclosure Action

rendered the judgments in the 2019 Foreclosure Action and 2020

Quiet Title Action void.

The complaint in the 2015 Foreclosure Action was

dismissed under RCCH Rule 29 for lack of prosecution. For an
8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

RCCH Rule 29 dismissal to be an adjudication on the merits under

HRCP Rule 41(b)(3) 5 and with prejudice, there must be a final

judgment as required by HRCP Rule 58. 6 See Saplan v. U.S. Bank

Nat'l Ass'n, as Tr. for BAFC 2007-A, 154 Hawaiʻi 181, 188-89, 549

P.3d 266, 273-74 (2024) (holding, as to an RCCH Rule 12(q)

dismissal for want of prosecution, that "the ICA and circuit

court both erred to the extent they suggested that the dismissal

of the 2011 action was 'on the merits' for the purpose of claim

preclusion" where there was no final judgment entered).

The dismissal order in the 2015 Foreclosure Action

stated that the "action is dismissed for want of prosecution

pursuant to [RCCH] Rule 29" and the "dismissal may be set aside

5 HRCP Rule 41(b)(3) provides:

(b) Involuntary dismissal: Effect thereof.

. . .

(3) Unless the court in its order for dismissal
otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision and
any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a
dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, or
for failure to join a party under Rule 19, operates as an
adjudication upon the merits.

6 HRCP Rule 58 provides:

Rule 58. ENTRY OF JUDGMENT.

Unless the court otherwise directs and subject to the
provisions of Rule 54 of these rules and Rule 23 of the
Rules of the Circuit Courts, the prevailing party shall
prepare and submit a proposed judgment. The filing of the
judgment in the office of the clerk constitutes the entry
of the judgment; and the judgment is not effective before
such entry. The entry of the judgment shall not be delayed
for the taxing of costs. Every judgment shall be set forth
on a separate document.

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

and the action reinstated by order of the court for good cause

upon motion duly filed" within ten days. No motion to set aside

was filed, and no final judgment was entered. Thus, there was

no final judgment on the merits in the 2015 Foreclosure Action

that would render the 2019 Foreclosure Action and the 2020 Quiet

Title Action void.

Lani Pacific also argues that Deutsche Bank's

attorneys committed fraud upon the court, because Deutsche

Bank's attorneys' affirmation failed to apprise the circuit

court that the 2015 Foreclosure Action was dismissed. However,

this issue is waived.

"Legal issues not raised in the trial court are

ordinarily deemed waived on appeal." Ass'n of Apartment Owners

of Wailea Elua v. Wailea Resort Co., 100 Hawaiʻi 97, 107, 58 P.3d

608, 618 (2002). And HRCP Rule 9(b) requires that, "[i]n all

averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting

fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity."

Lani Pacific does not cite to where in the record it

raised the failure to apprise the circuit court of the dismissal

of the 2015 Foreclosure Action as a basis for its fraud claim.

And even if Lani Pacific's argument was preserved, there was no

final judgment on the merits in the 2015 Foreclosure Action.

See PennyMac Corp., 148 Hawaiʻi at 327, 474 P.3d at 268. As

discussed above, a final judgment was not entered in the 2015
10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Foreclosure Action. As there was no final judgment on the

merits, any failure to inform the circuit court of the dismissal

for lack of prosecution in the 2015 Foreclosure Action did not

amount to fraud upon the court.

Finally, to the extent Lani Pacific's 2023 Action can

be construed as a separate action, Lani Pacific requested

damages based on wrongful foreclosure, fraud, unlawful

conversion, and misuse of process.

A party asserting res judicata must show "(1) there

was a final judgment on the merits, (2) both parties are the

same or in privity with the parties in the original suit, and

(3) the claim decided in the original suit is identical with the

one presented in the action in question." PennyMac Corp., 148

Hawaiʻi at 327, 474 P.3d at 268 (quoting Bremer v. Weeks, 104

Hawaiʻi 43, 54, 85 P.3d 150, 161 (2004)). "[R]es judicata

precludes not only the relitigation of claims or defenses that

were litigated in a previous lawsuit, but also of all claims and

defenses that might have been properly litigated but were not

litigated or decided." Domingo, 155 Hawaiʻi at 15, 556 P.3d at

361.

As described above, there were final judgments on the

merits in the 2019 Foreclosure Action and the 2020 Quiet Title

Action, those judgments were affirmed on appeal, and an

application for certiorari was denied. Deutsche Bank and Lani
11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Pacific were parties in the 2019 Foreclosure Action, the 2020

Quiet Title Action, and the 2023 Action. And the claims in all

three actions involved whether Deutsche Bank had a valid

mortgage interest in the Property. Thus, the claims in the 2023

Action were raised or could have been raised in the 2019

Foreclosure Action and the 2020 Quiet Title Action and are

barred by res judicata.

Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in granting

Deutsche Bank's motion for summary judgment.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the circuit court's

August 21, 2024 Judgment.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, June 18, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Chief Judge
David Paul Biesemeyer
for Lani Pacific, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
a registered business entity, Associate Judge
self-represented Plaintiff-
Appellant. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Associate Judge
David A. Nakashima,
Jade Lynne Ching,
(Nakashima Ching),
for Defendant-Appellee.