Skip to Content

Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court, No. SCWC-14-0001134

No. SCWC-14-0001134, Thursday, September 15, 2016, 8:45 a.m.

U.S. BANK N.A., in its capacity as Trustee for the Registered Holders of Mastr Asset Backed Securities Trust 2005-NC1, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2205-NC1, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSEPH KEAOULA MATTOS and CHANELLE LEOLA MENESES, Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants, and CITIFINANCIAL, INC., ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF TERRAZA/CORTEBELLA/LAS BRISAS/TIBURON, EWA BY GENTRY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.

The above-captioned case was set for argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom 
Ali`iolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

Attorneys for Petitioners:

Melodie Aduja, Gary Victor Dubin and Frederick J. Arensmeyer

Attorneys for Respondent U.S. Bank:

Paul Alston, J. Blaine Rogers, and Kee M. Campbell

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/23/16.

COURT: MER, CJ; PAN, SSM, RWP, and MDW, JJ.

Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants Joseph Keaoula Mattos and Chanelle Leola Meneses (Petitioners) seek review of the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ (ICA) March 9, 2016 Judgment on Appeal, entered pursuant to its February 12, 2016 Published Opinion, which affirmed the Circuit Court of the First Circuit’s (circuit court) August 26, 2014 “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure Against All Defendants on Complaint Filed July 21, 2011”, and Judgment. The circuit court granted summary judgment and a decree of foreclosure in favor of Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee U.S. Bank N.A., in its Capacity as Trustee for the Registered Holders of Mastr Asset Backed Securities Trust 2005-NC1, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-NC1 (U.S. Bank) and against Petitioners, ruling that U.S. Bank was entitled to enforcement of the note and mortgage. On appeal, the ICA affirmed the circuit court in a summary disposition order. Thereafter, the ICA published its summary disposition order as an opinion based on U.S. Bank’s motion for publication. 

On certiorari, Petitioners argue that the ICA erred in affirming the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment because there are genuine issues of material fact related to the admissibility and validity of the evidence supporting the two mortgage assignments to U.S. Bank that call into question its standing to foreclose on the subject property. Petitioners assert that the assignments were void because the loan documents (1) were robo-signed by persons without sufficient authority or personal knowledge of the contents of the assignments or their validity in contravention of HRS § 667-17, which requires every attorney who files a foreclosure suit to affirm that the attorney has verified the accuracy of the documents submitted, (2) violated the trust’s governing instrument where the note was transferred, and the first and second assignments occurred, after the cut-off date for transfers into the trust, and (3) were not properly authenticated with a supporting declaration by the loan servicer’s employee admissible under HRE 803(b)(3), where the declarant had no personal knowledge of the accuracy of the documents nor of the business procedures of its predecessors.