Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Soto, Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
30-DEC-2022
08:07 AM
Dkt. 62 SO

NOS. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX AND CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB,
D/B/A CHRISTIANA TRUST AS OWNER TRUSTEE OF
THE RESIDENTIAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES TRUST III,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RALPH CARDONA SOTO, JR., ALSO KNOWN AS RALPH C. SOTO, JR.;
KIMBERLY ANN SOTO, ALSO KNOWN AS KIMBERLY A. SOTO,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
EWA BY GENTRY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION; and
GUARDIAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT HAWAII, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
JOHN DOES 1-20; JANE DOES 1-20; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-20;
DOE ENTITIES 1-20; AND DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-20,
Defendants

APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CIVIL NO. 17-1-1388)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Ginoza, C.J., and Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)

In these consolidated appeals arising out of a
foreclosure action, Defendants-Appellants Ralph Cardona Soto, Jr.
and Kimberly Ann Soto (the Sotos) appeal from the following:
(1) the Judgment (Foreclosure Judgment), based on the
"Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order
Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
Against All Defendants and for Interlocutory Decree of
Foreclosure" (Foreclosure Order), both entered on
August 30, 2019, by the Circuit Court of the First
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Circuit (Circuit Court); and
(2) the Judgment (Confirmation Judgment), based on the
"Order Confirming Foreclosure Sale, Approving
Commissioner's Report, Allowance of Commissioner's
Fees, Attorney's Fees, Costs, Directing Conveyance and
for Writ of Ejectment" (Confirmation Order), both
entered on January 27, 2022 by the Circuit Court.
These judgments and orders were entered in favor of Plaintiff-
Appellee Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/a/ Christiana
Trust as Owner Trustee of the Residential Credit Opportunities
Trust III (Wilmington) and against all defendants, including the
Sotos.
As to the Foreclosure Judgment and the Foreclosure
Order, the Sotos contend on appeal that the Circuit Court erred
in granting summary judgment in favor of Wilmington, because
Wilmington allegedly failed to establish its standing through
admissible evidence. As to the Confirmation Judgment and the
Confirmation Order, the Sotos contend on appeal that the Circuit
Court erred in determining that the foreclosure sale price for
the subject property was "fair and reasonable."
For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that these
consolidated appeals must be dismissed as moot.

I. Brief Background

On August 25, 2017, Wilmington filed a Complaint for
Mortgage Foreclosure against the Sotos and others. On August 30,
2019, the Circuit Court entered the Foreclosure Order and the
Foreclosure Judgment. On September 27, 2019, the Sotos filed a
notice of appeal from the Foreclosure Order and the Foreclosure
Judgment, creating appellate case number CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX. The
Sotos did not obtain a stay pending appeal.
On January 27, 2022, the Circuit Court entered the
Confirmation Order and the Confirmation Judgment. The
Confirmation Order, among other things, confirmed the sale of the
Property to third-party purchaser Theodore Takai III (T. Takai).
On February 28, 2022, the Sotos filed a notice of appeal from the
Confirmation Order and the Confirmation Judgment, creating

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

appellate case number CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX.
On February 23, 2022, Wilmington filed a motion to
dismiss the appeal in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, arguing that the appeal is
moot because the Sotos failed to obtain a stay, and the land
court property at issue (Property) was sold to a bona fide
purchaser. In response, the Sotos argued, among other things,
that Wilmington had submitted no evidence showing that the sale
of the Property to T. Takai had closed, and the Sotos intended to
appeal from the Confirmation Judgment.
On November 2, 2022, Wilmington filed a motion to
dismiss the appeal in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, along with declarations of
T. Takai and his wife, Courtney Jeanette Nekota Takai
(collectively, the Takais), and an attached copy of the
Commissioner's Deed, which conveyed the Property to the Takais
and was recorded in the Land Court on September 26, 2022.
Wilmington argued that the appeal in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX is moot
because the Sotos failed to obtain a stay, and the Property was
sold to bona fide purchasers, as reflected in the Commissioner's
Deed. The Sotos countered: (1) Mr. Takai was aware of the
appeals in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, which "are an
infirmity in the title of the [P]roperty," thus, he is not a bona
fide purchaser; (2) the Sotos have filed in the Circuit Court a
motion for stay of proceedings pending disposition of these
appeals; and (3) Mr. Takai has not established that he has
"conclusive and unimpeachable" title to the Property because
there is no evidence that a new certificate of title has been
issued.
On December 8, 2022, we entered an order consolidating
the appeals in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX.

II. Discussion

"[A] case is moot if the reviewing court can no longer
grant effective relief." Kaho#ohanohano v. State, 114 Hawai#i
302, 332, 162 P.3d 696, 726 (2007) (emphasis omitted) (quoting
Kemp v. State of Haw. Child Support Enf't Agency, 111 Hawai#i
367, 385, 141 P.3d 1014, 1032 (2006)). "Mootness is an issue of
subject matter jurisdiction. Whether a court possesses subject

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

matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewable de novo."
State v. Nakanelua, 134 Hawai#i 489, 501, 345 P.3d 155, 167
(2015) (brackets and emphasis omitted) (quoting Hamilton ex rel.
Lethem v. Lethem, 119 Hawai#i 1, 4–5, 193 P.3d 839, 842–43
(2008)).
In City Bank v. Saje Ventures II, 7 Haw. App. 130, 748
P.2d 812 (1988), this court stated:

The general rule is that the right of a good faith purchaser
"to receive property acquired at a judicial sale cannot be
affected by the reversal of an order ratifying the sale
where a [supersedeas] bond has not been filed." Leisure
Campground & Country Club Ltd. Partnership v. Leisure
Estates, 280 Md. 220, 223, 372 A.2d 595, 598 (1977). See
also Citibank, N.A. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 645 F.2d 333,
336 (5th Cir. 1981). The purpose of the rule is to advance
"the stability and productiveness of judicial sales." 47
Am. Jur. 2d Judicial Sales § 55 (1969). An exception to the
rule is where the reversal is based on jurisdictional
grounds. Id. at § 54. The second exception is where the
purchaser is the mortgagee since he "does not free himself
from the underlying dispute to which he is a party."
Leisure Campground, 280 Md. at 223, 372 A.2d at 598. See
also 47 Am. Jur. 2d Judicial Sales §§ 59–61.

Id. at 133, 748 P.2d at 814 (some brackets omitted); see also
Lathrop v. Sakatani, 111 Hawai#i 307, 313, 141 P.3d 480, 486
(2006) ("[T]he sale of the property prevents the appellate court
from granting any effective relief."). Moreover, "it is the
appellant's burden to seek a stay if post-appeal transactions
could render the appeal moot." Bank of New York Mellon v. R.
Onaga, Inc., 140 Hawai#i 358, 367, 400 P.3d 559, 568 (2017)
(quoting Lathrop, 111 Hawai#i at 313, 141 P.3d at 486).
In Onaga, the Hawai#i Supreme Court expressly adopted
the City Bank rule "for application to Land Court properties as
well as properties administered pursuant to HRS Chapter 502
(Regular System)[,]" and held that "an appellant challenging a
foreclosure must post a supersedeas bond or otherwise obtain a
stay pursuant to [Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP)] Rule
62 or Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 8."
Onaga, 140 Hawai#i at 367, 400 P.3d at 568. In sum:

A party who wishes to stay an order confirming a foreclosure
sale pending appeal must post a supersedeas bond or
otherwise obtain a stay pursuant to HRCP Rule 62 or HRAP
Rule 8. If a stay is not obtained and the property is sold
to a bona fide purchaser, the appeal should be dismissed as
moot because no effective relief can be granted.

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

Onaga, 140 Hawai#i at 370, 400 P.3d at 571.
Here, the respective declarations of the Takais,
together with the attached Commissioner's Deed, show that on
September 26, 2022, the Commissioner's Deed conveying the
Property to the Takais was recorded in the Office of the
Assistant Registrar of the Land Court as "Document Number T-
11956147 on Cert(s) 705887 resulting in the issuance of Cert(s)
1244276." Nonetheless, the Sotos argue that Mr. Takai is not a
bona fide purchaser.
"An innocent or good faith purchaser is one who, by an
honest contract or agreement, purchases property or acquires an
interest therein, without knowledge, or means of knowledge
sufficient to charge him in law with knowledge, of any infirmity
in the title of the seller." Id. at 367 n.13, 400 P.3d at 568
n.13 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Ka#u
Agribusiness Co. v. Heirs or Assigns of Ahulau, 105 Hawai#i 182,
193, 95 P.3d 613, 624 (2004)).
Here, the Takais attest in their respective
declarations that they submitted the high bid for the Property at
the December 9, 2021 hearing on Wilmington's motion to confirm
the foreclosure sale; the sale of the Property to the Takais was
confirmed; the Commissioner's Deed conveyed the Property to the
Takais as tenants by the entirety; and the Takais are not
affiliated with or otherwise related or connected to Wilmington
or its loan servicer, American Mortgage Investment Partners
Management LLC. The Sotos do not dispute the Takais'
declarations or the Commissioner's Deed. Nor do the Sotos
provide any authority supporting their argument that a pending
appeal from a foreclosure judgment creates an infirmity in the
title of the seller in a judicial foreclosure sale, such that a
third-party purchaser who is aware of the appeal is not a good-
faith purchaser. Indeed, an appellant "who has failed to obtain
a stay by posting a bond, may not attack a good-faith purchaser's
title to property purchased at a judicial sale and confirmed by
court order." Onaga, 140 Hawai#i at 367, 400 P.3d at 568.
In Onaga, the supreme court also noted:

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

When the [purchasers at the judicial foreclosure sale]
purchased the Property, the circuit court had already
determined in the consolidated proceedings that [the
foreclosing entity] had a first priority lien on the
Property. Thus, at the time of the purchase, there would
not have been an "infirmity in the title" based on [the
junior lienholder's] mortgage.

Id. at 367 n.13, 400 P.3d at 568 n.13.
Here, when the Takais purchased the Property, the
Circuit Court had already issued its foreclosure decree via its
Foreclosure Order and Foreclosure Judgment, and confirmed the
foreclosure sale via the Confirmation Order and Confirmation
Judgment. Thus, at the time the Takais purchased the Property,
there was no "infirmity in the title" based on the Sotos'
mortgage to bar the Takais from purchasing the Property in
good-faith.
In sum, the declarations of the Takais and the attached
Commissioner's Deed indicate that the Takais are good-faith
purchasers and the Sotos have not shown otherwise. See City
Bank, 7 Haw. App. at 133, 748 P.2d at 814-15 (noting that the
purchaser of the property was a third-party not involved in the
case and "[t]here is nothing in the record to indicate that [the
third-party purchaser] was not a good faith purchaser");
Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB as Tr. for BCAT 2015-14BTT v.
Domingo, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2022 WL 2757363, at *5 (App. July
14) (SDO), cert. granted, No. SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX, 2022 WL 17665672,
*1 (Haw. Dec. 14, 2022) (ruling that "[t]he Bymel Declaration
indicates that BBNY is a good-faith purchaser and the Domingos
fail to show otherwise"); Ass'n of Condominium Homeowners of
Tropics at Waikele v. Sakuma, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2016 WL
299530, at *2 (Haw. App. Jan. 21, 2016) (concluding that "[t]he
Distribution Statement confirms that the sale of the Property [to
a good-faith purchaser] closed . . . on July 2, 2012.").
The Sotos assert that on October 28, 2022, they filed a
motion for stay in the Circuit Court, and any decision on
Wilmington's pending motions to dismiss these appeals should wait
until the Sotos' motion for stay is heard. However, it is
undisputed that the Sotos did not post a supersedeas bond or
otherwise obtain a stay prior to the Property being sold to the
Takais. In these circumstances, where the Takais have been shown

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

to be good-faith purchasers (see supra), no effective relief can
be granted to the Sotos, and these appeals must be dismissed as
moot. See Onaga, 140 Hawai#i at 370, 400 P.3d at 571.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above, we dismiss these
consolidated appeals as moot.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 30, 2022.

On the briefs:
/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
In CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX: Chief Judge

Frederick J. Arensmeyer
for Defendants-Appellants. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge
Charles R. Prater and
Peter T. Stone
(TMLF Hawaii LLLC) /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
for Plaintiff-Appellee. Associate Judge

In CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX:

Keith M. Kiuchi
for Defendants-Appellants.

Charles R. Prather,
Sun Young Park, Vincent G.
Kruse, Jason L. Cotton, and
Peter T. Stone
(TMLF Hawaii LLLC)
for Plaintiff-Appellee
Stone

7