Wells Fargo Bank v. Cordero
| Docket Number | CAAP-20-0000704 |
| Decision Date | 01 August 2023 |
| Parties | WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-BC1, PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-BC1, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID AUREO SALVADOR CORDERO; MARY TAN LLANOS CORDERO, Defendants-Appellants, and WAIALAE GOLF COURSE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee, and JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES 1-10; AND DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-10, Defendants |
| Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NO 1CC141002257)
Keith M. Kiuchi for Defendants-Appellants.
David A. Nakashima for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Defendants-Appellants David Aureo Salvador Cordero and Mary Tan Llanos Cordero (collectively, Corderos) appeal from the October 15, 2020 "Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendants Waialae Golf Course Community Association and Summary Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure Against All Defendants on Complaint Filed October 30, 2014" (Order Granting Motion to Amend Foreclosure Decree),[2] filed and entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court).[3] On appeal, the Corderos contend that the Circuit Court plainly erred in granting Plaintiff-Appellee Wells Fargo Bank National Association, as Trustee for Structured Asset Securities Corporation Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-BC1, Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-BC1's (Wells Fargo) Motion to Amend Foreclosure Decree because the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction to "amend" a judgment by that motion, and the judgment should have instead been vacated and the foreclosure process begun anew.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we affirm.
On January 31, 2020, following the entry of the July 17, 2019 foreclosure decree and judgment, Wells Fargo filed the Motion to Amend Foreclosure Decree as a non-hearing motion under Rules of the Circuit Court of the State of Hawai'i (RCCH) Rule 7.2(c).[4] The Motion to Amend Foreclosure Decree sought to amend the July 17, 2019 foreclosure decree by including a missing exhibit, Exhibit "A", that was referred to in the foreclosure decree but not attached. The Declaration of Counsel attached to the motion stated that the July 17, 2019 foreclosure decree "was missing the property description that was supposed to be attached as Exhibit A[,]" and that "[t]here [we]re no other changes to the Document." The Corderos did not oppose the nonhearing motion. On October 15, 2020, the Circuit Court granted the motion, finding "good cause appearing therefor," stating:
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion shall be and is hereby GRANTED. The Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Granting [Wells Fargo]'s Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendants Waialae Golf Course Community Association and Summary Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure Against All Defendants on Complaint filed October 30, 2014 and Amended Judgment thereon with the property description attached shall be filed following the entry of this Order.
On the same date, the Circuit Court also filed the October 15, 2020 amended foreclosure decree, identical to the previous July 17, 2019 foreclosure decree; but this time, the previously missing two-page exhibit was attached. The Circuit Court also entered the October 15, 2020 amended judgment on the same date.
On appeal, the Corderos urge that their contention of error "should be considered as 'plain error' as at no time was the Motion for Leave to Amend [Foreclosure Decree] objected to." The Corderos argue that the Circuit Court erroneously granted the Motion to Amend Foreclosure Decree because the motion cited inapposite court rules; an Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 60 motion should have instead been filed; and the Circuit Court "did not have jurisdiction to entertain a motion to amend the judgment over six months after it was entered."
"Questions regarding subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of a cause of action." Lingle v. Haw. Gov't Emps. Ass'n, AFSCME, Local 152, AFLO-CIO, 107 Hawai'i 178, 182, 111 P.3d 587, 591 (2005) (quoting Amantiad v. Odum, 90 Hawai'i 152, 159, 977 P.2d 160, 167 (1999)). While the Corderos request plain error review, we can nevertheless consider the Corderos' jurisdictional challenge at any time. See id.
Here, we previously noted in our June 30, 2021 Order of Partial Dismissal that the amendment to the original judgment was based on a clerical mistake under HRCP Rule 60(a),[5] because the only proposed change was to attach the Exhibit "A" that was referred to, but not attached, to the original foreclosure decree. We stated:
The Amended Judgment amended the circuit court's July 17, 2019 "Judgment on [FOF/COL/Order]"[6] (Judgment). The Amended Judgment differs from the Judgment only in that it refers to the Amended FOF/COL/Order rather than the FOF/COL/Order. The Amended FOF/COL/Order differs from the original FOF/COL/Order only in that Exhibit "A" -- a Legal Description of the property referenced in the original FOF/COL/Order -- which was not attached to the original FOF/COL/Order, was attached to the Amended FOF/COL/Order upon Bank's motion under Rule 60(a) of the Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure based on an alleged clerical mistake (Motion to Amend). The original FOF/COL/Order did contain the address and TMK number for the subject property.
(Footnote added.)
Although the Corderos contend that Wells Fargo failed to cite HRCP Rule 60(a) in its Motion to Amend Foreclosure Decree, this court has consistently recognized that "it is the substance of the pleading that controls, not its nomenclature." Anderson v. Oceanic Props., Inc., 3 Haw.App. 350, 355, 650 P.2d 612, 617 (1982) (citing Madden v. Madden, 43 Haw. 148, 149-50 (Haw. Terr. 1959)).
Whether a court has jurisdiction to act is reviewed de novo under the right/wrong standard. See Lester v. Rapp, 85 Hawai'i 238, 241, 942 P.2d 502, 505 (1997). We conclude the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to decide the Motion to Amend Foreclosure Decree. HRCP Rule 60(a) permits the Circuit Court to correct clerical mistakes such as the omission of the exhibit that was referenced in, but missing from, the original foreclosure decree "at any time . . . on the motion of any party" up until an appeal has docketed. At the time the October 15, 2020 Order Granting Motion to Amend Foreclosure Decree was filed, the November 13, 2020 notice of appeal had not yet been filed, and the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to decide the Motion to Amend Foreclosure Decree.
"An appellate court reviews a circuit court's determination of an HRCP Rule 60 motion for an abuse of...
To continue reading
Request your trial