U.S. Bank National Association v. Bristol

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
14-NOV-2024
08:05 AM
Dkt. 64 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL
CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE NRZ PASS-
THROUGH TRUST VII(B), A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
KANOA ROSS BRISTOL, Defendant-Appellant,
and
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.;
FIRST HORIZON HOME LOAN CORPORATION; ASSOCIATION
OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF WAIALUA COUNTRY HOMES,
Defendants-Appellees,
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. 1CC081001023)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Nakasone, JJ.)

This appeal arises from an order confirming the sale
of a property in a foreclosure proceeding.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Defendant-Appellant Kanoa Ross Bristol (Bristol)
appeals from the "Order Granting [Plaintiff-Appellee U.S. Bank
National Association, not in its individual capacity but solely
as trustee for the NRZ Pass-Through Trust VII(B), a National
Association (U.S. Bank)]'s Motion for Confirmation of Sale,
Distribution of Proceeds, and for Writ of Ejectment Filed May 2,
2017" (Order Granting Second Motion to Confirm); and Judgment,
both filed and entered on July 12, 2021 by the Circuit Court of
the First Circuit (Circuit Court). 1
On appeal, 2 Bristol contends that the Circuit Court
erred by granting the Second Motion to Confirm because (1) U.S.
Bank "did NOT have standing to bring the foreclosure action
because it was not in possession of the Note at the time the
Complaint was filed"; (2) U.S. Bank "failed to comply" with the
Circuit Court's October 26, 2017 order continuing the
confirmation hearing and requiring that U.S. Bank "'shall
conduct a meaningful and complete review'" of Bristol's May 11,
2017 loan modification application that was pending (Continuance
Order); and (3) the doctrine of laches should apply because U.S.
Bank "waited FIVE years after the foreclosure auction to file
its THIRD [(sic)] Motion for Confirmation of Sale." 3
Upon review of the record on appeal and relevant legal
authorities, giving due consideration to the issues raised and
arguments advanced by the parties, we affirm.

1 The Honorable Jeannette H. Castagnetti presided.

2 Bristol's points of error (POEs) have been reordered and restated
for clarity, and also numbered. See Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule
28(b)(4) (requiring POEs be "set forth in separately numbered paragraphs"
(emphasis added)).

3 Bristol refers to the May 11, 2021 Declaration in support of the
Second Motion to Confirm as a "third" motion for confirmation of sale.

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

(1) Bristol acknowledges that under Mortg. Elec.
Registration Sys., Inc. v. Wise, 130 Hawai‘i 11, 17, 304 P.3d

1192, 1198 (2013), his challenge to the lender's standing was
ordinarily "subsumed under the foreclosure judgment, which had
become final and binding." Bristol argues, however, that he
should be allowed to present his standing challenge in this
confirmation order appeal because a challenge to standing may be
brought "under [Hawai‘i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP)] Rule

60(b) even after a judgment had been entered granting a motion
for summary judgment on the foreclosure[,]" under PennyMac Corp.
v. Godinez, 148 Hawai‘i 323, 325, 328, 474 P.3d 264, 266, 269
(2020) (stating that because "an HRCP Rule 60(b) motion is a
continuation of the original action[,]" "res judicata did not
preclude [defendant]'s post-judgment HRCP Rule 60(b) motion and
that Wise is inapplicable under these circumstances").
Here, Bristol did not appeal from the foreclosure
judgment, and is precluded from challenging standing in this
appeal. See Wise, 130 Hawai‘i at 17, 304 P.3d at 1198. Nor did
Bristol file an HRCP Rule 60(b) motion below. See Godinez, 148
Hawai‘i at 330, 474 P.3d at 271. Bristol's standing challenge
lacks merit.
(2) Bristol argues that U.S. Bank failed to comply
with the Continuance Order for "meaningful and complete review"
of his May 11, 2017 loan modification application because U.S.
Bank took two years to review the application; the June 13, 2019
letter denying the application was never sent to him; and U.S.
Bank never gave him payoff figures as he requested.
The record reflects that Bristol's request for the
payoff quote was made in response to an earlier 2016 Motion for
Confirmation of Sale (First Motion to Confirm), which the

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

Circuit Court denied. When the Second Motion to Confirm at
issue in this appeal was filed on May 2, 2017, Bristol opposed
it, inter alia, on grounds that he had submitted a new loan
modification on May 11, 2017, and requested the Circuit Court
deny the motion until a decision was made on his application.
The record does not reflect that a payoff quote request was made
for the Second Motion to Confirm. At the June 8, 2017 hearing
on the Second Motion to Confirm, Bristol requested a continuance
for U.S. Bank 4 to evaluate his loan modification application,
which the Circuit Court took under advisement. The Circuit
Court then issued its October 26, 2017 Continuance Order
granting Bristol's request, and ordering "a meaningful and
complete review" of the May 11, 2017 application, including "any
final disposition and/or resolution thereof."
U.S. Bank's May 11, 2021 Declaration in support of the
Second Motion to Confirm attached January 31, 2019 and June 13,
2019 letters reflecting the denial of Bristol's May 11, 2017
loan modification application because it "could not reduce [his]
principal and interest payment." In the 2019 letters, Bristol's
application was reviewed for a "[r]etention [o]ption" and
"[n]on-[r]etention [o]ption," and contained directions on how to
appeal the denial. Both letters were sent to Bristol's mailing
address. U.S. Bank confirmed at a June 3, 2021 hearing on the
Second Motion to Confirm, that the June 13, 2019 denial letter
was never received by Bristol, as it was "returned to sender[.]"
Here, Bristol's argument that he never received the
payoff quote is inapposite where the payoff request was made in

4 On August 31, 2020, U.S. Bank was substituted as plaintiff, for
Bank of New York Mellon FKA the Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Holders
of the Certificates, First Horizon Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series
(FHAMS 2005-FA5), by First Horizon Home Loans, Master Servicer, in its
Capacity as Agent for the Trustee Under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

relation to the First Motion to Confirm, and no payoff quote was
requested for the Second Motion to Confirm at issue in this
appeal. Bristol provides no legal support for his argument that
the time period from the October 26, 2017 Continuance Order to
the January 31, 2019 denial letter (which is 15 months and not
"two years" as Bristol claims) was an inordinate delay that
violated the Continuance Order. Bristol's argument that he
never received the second June 13, 2019 denial letter lacks
merit, where U.S. Bank sent two denial letters, and Bristol does
not claim on appeal that he never received the first January 31,
2019 denial letter. 5 Moreover, Bristol's claim that he did not
receive the second denial letter does not establish that U.S.
Bank failed to conduct the meaningful review ordered by the
court. The record reflects that U.S. Bank complied with the
Circuit Court's Continuance Order to conduct "a meaningful and
complete review" of Bristol's May 11, 2017 application, and the
Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion by granting the
Second Motion to Confirm. See Sugarman v. Kapu, 104 Hawai‘i 119,

124, 85 P.3d 644, 649 (2004) ("[T]he circuit court's authority
to confirm a judicial sale is a matter of equitable discretion."
(cleaned up)).
(3) Bristol argues that the doctrine of laches should
apply because U.S. Bank "waited FIVE years" after the
foreclosure decree and judgment, and "FOUR YEARS from the date
of the last hearing" in 2017, to file the Declaration in support
of the Second Motion to Confirm. 6

5 U.S. Bank points out in its Answering Brief that "[t]here is no
dispute, however, that [Bristol] received the January 31, 2019 denial
letter." Bristol did not respond to this argument in his Reply Brief.

6 Bristol also argues that U.S. Bank "never proved the PRESENT
amount owed"; and that "$842,669.35 was NOT the amount that the Court found
was due and owing" in the foreclosure decree. This argument was not raised

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

The two requirements for laches to apply are: (1) "a
delay by the plaintiff in bringing his claim, and that delay
must have been unreasonable under the circumstances"; and (2)
"that delay must have resulted in prejudice to defendant."
HawaiiUSA Fed. Credit Union v. Monalim, 147 Hawai‘i 33, 42, 464
P.3d 821, 830 (2020) (cleaned up).
Here, the record does not reflect an unreasonable
delay by U.S. Bank in confirming the sale, under the
circumstances of this case. After the November 2, 2015
foreclosure judgment was entered, the property was sold on April
14, 2016. The May 2, 2016 First Motion to Confirm was denied by
an August 15, 2016 order because of Bristol's request for the
payoff quote. The May 2, 2017 Second Motion to Confirm was
continued by the October 26, 2017 Continuance Order, because of
Bristol's request for a review of his May 11, 2017 loan
modification application. U.S. Bank denied Bristol's
application in 2019. Between March 19, 2020 and April 13, 2021,
COVID-19 emergency orders issued by the Hawai‘i courts postponed
public sales of property to April 19, 2021. 7 Within a month
after the resumption of public sales of property on April 19,
2021, U.S. Bank filed its May 11, 2021 Declaration in support of
the Second Motion to Confirm. Thus, the record shows that the
delays to confirm the sale were caused by Bristol's requests for
payoff figures and review of a new loan modification
application, followed by the COVID-19 emergency orders

below, and is waived. See Haw. Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, Inc., 114 Hawai‘i 438,
500, 164 P.3d 696, 758 (2007) ("As a general rule, if a party does
not raise an argument at the circuit court level, that argument will be
deemed to have been waived on appeal; this rule applies in both criminal and
civil cases." (cleaned up)).

7 We take judicial notice of the pertinent COVID-19-related orders
under Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence Rule 201.

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

postponing foreclosure sales. These delays were not caused by
U.S. Bank and were not unreasonable under the circumstances.
See Monalim, 147 Hawai‘i at 42, 464 P.3d at 830. The Circuit
Court did not err by concluding that "the delays . . . were at
[Bristol]'s request" and due to "[Bristol]'s request for loss
mitigation." As Bristol did not establish the first prong for
laches, we need not further address this defense.
For the foregoing reasons, the "Order Granting
Plaintiff's Motion for Confirmation of Sale, Distribution of
Proceeds, and for Writ of Ejectment Filed May 2, 2017"; and
Judgment, both filed and entered on July 12, 2021 by the Circuit
Court of the First Circuit, are affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, November 14, 2024.
On the briefs:
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Keith M. Kiuchi,
Presiding Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Jade Lynne Ching,
Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellee.
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Associate Judge

7