NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I
REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
NO. 28482
IN THE
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF HAWAI‘I
COUNTRYWIDE
HOME LOANS, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant/Appellee,
v.
CHURCH
OF HAWAII NEI,
Defendant/Cross-Claim Defendant/Appellant,
and
CITY
AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU,
Defendant/Counterclaimant/Cross-Claimant/Cross-Claim
Defendant/Appellee,
and
WALTER
ROBERT SCHOETTLE,
Defendant/Cross-Claimant/Cross-Claim 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-Appellees,
and
LAURA
T. TAKAHASHI AND SUNSET BEACH PROPERTIES, LLC,
Real Parties in Interest/Appellees
APPEAL
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CIVIL NO. 06-1-0308)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Foley, Presiding Judge, Nakamura and Fujise, JJ.)
Defendant/Cross-Claim Defendant/Appellant Church of Hawaii Nei
(CHN) appeals from the "Judgment on 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 February 22, 2006, Filed September 25, 2006" (Judgment)
filed on January 30, 2007 in the Circuit
Court of the First Circuit (circuit court). (1)
The circuit court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff/Counterclaim
Defendant/Appellee Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Countrywide) and
against CHN, Defendant/Counterclaimant/Cross-Claimant/Cross-Claim
Defendant/Appellee City and County of Honolulu (the City), and
Defendant/Cross-Claimant/Cross-Claim Defendant/Appellee Robert
Schoettle (Schoettle).
On appeal, CHN contends (1)
the circuit court erred by granting Countrywide's September 25, 2006
"Motion for Summary Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure Against All
Defendants on
Complaint Filed February 2[2], 2006" where CHN was not in arrears on
its mortgage payments; (2) the circuit court erred by denying CHN's
"Motion for New Trial and or Reconsideration
and Recission of Order Granting Plaintiff Countrywide Home Loans,
Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure Against
All Defendants on Complaint Entered January
30, 2007," (2) indicating a bias on the
part of the judge; (3) CHN's right to religious freedom was violated;
(4) CHN is entitled to injunctive relief because Appellees' actions
denied it the
opportunity to continue to practice its religion; (5) Countrywide and
the City violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; and (6) CHN is
entitled to damages for the loss of its land if the
circuit court does not restore the property to CHN. CHN asks this court
to vacate the judgment and remand the case.
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 by the
parties, as well as the
relevant statutory and case law, we resolve CHN's points of error as
follows:
The circuit court was not
wrong in granting summary judgment and a decree of foreclosure. "A
foreclosure decree is only appropriate where all four material facts
have been established: (1)
the existence of the [a]greement, (2) the terms of the [a]greement, (3)
default by [a]ppellants under the terms of the [a]greement, and (4) the
giving of the cancellation notice and recordation
of an affidavit to such effect." IndyMac Bank v. Miguel, 117
Hawai‘i 506, 520, 184 P.3d 821, 835 (App. 2008) (internal quotation
marks, citation, and brackets in original omitted).
In the instant case, the
record establishes that: (1) CHN took title to the property subject to
the Note and Mortgage; (2) pursuant to section 6(C) of the Note and
sections 4, 6, and 17 of the
Mortgage, (3) Countrywide had two
grounds to accelerate and demand full payment of outstanding sums when
(a) Kamuela Price conveyed the property to CHN and Schoettle without
Countrywide's consent and (b) CHN defaulted by risking material
impairment of Countrywide's security interest in the property (4); (3) Countrywide properly notified
CHN of the loan
acceleration and provided CHN thirty days to pay the outstanding sum;
and (4) CHN failed to pay the outstanding sum by the deadline as well
as by the time of the filing of Countrywide's
Complaint. CHN, therefore, defaulted on its Mortgage.
(5)
Where no genuine issues of
material fact exist with respect to CHN's default claim, the circuit
court properly granted Countrywide's motion for summary judgment and
decree of foreclosure
and did not deny CHN its right to a fair and full trial.
As to CHN's remaining claims,
CHN's brief fails to provide any discernible argument and, therefore,
fails to comply with Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule
28(b)(7). Accordingly, we deem the issues waived. HRAP Rule 28(b)(7); Taomae v. Lingle, 108
Hawai‘i 245, 257, 118 P.3d 1188, 1200 (2005) (observing that appellate
court may disregard a
particular contention if appellant makes no discernible argument in
support of that position).
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
"Judgment on 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 February 22, 2006, Filed September 25,
2006" filed on January 30, 2007 in the Circuit Court of the First
Circuit is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, June
29, 2009.
On the briefs:
André S. Wooten
for Appellant Church
of Hawaii Nei.
Duane W.H. Pang,
Deputy Corporation Counsel,
City and County of Honolulu,
for Appellee City and
County of Honolulu.
Steven T. Iwamura and
Robert M. Ehrhorn, Jr.
(Clay Chapman Crumpton
Iwamura & Pulice)
for Appellee Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc.
William J. Deeley,
Dennis W. King, and
John Winnicki
(Deeley, King & Pang)
for Appellees Laura T.
Takahashi and Sunset Beach
Properties, LLC
1.
The Honorable Karen N. Blondin presided.
2.
CHN filed this motion twice on February 9, 2007 -- once at 12:40 p.m.
and again at 2:44 p.m. On March 23, 2007, the circuit
court entered an order in which the court denied both motions.
3. Specifically, the Note provided:
6. BORROWER'S FAILURE TO
PAY AS REQUIRED
. . . .
(C)
Notice of Default
If I am in
default, the Note Holder may send me a written notice telling me that
if I do not pay the overdue amount by a certain date, the Note Holder
may require me to pay immediately the
full amount of principal which has not been paid and all the interest
that I owe on that amount. That date must be at least 30 days after the
date on which the notice is delivered or mailed to
me.
The Mortgage
stated:
4.
Charges; Liens. Borrower
shall pay all taxes, assessments, charges, fines and impositions
attributable to the Property which may attain priority over this
Security Instrument . . . . Borrower shall pay these
obligations in the manner provided in paragraph 2., or if not
paid in that manner, Borrower shall pay them on time directly to the
person owed payment. Borrower
shall promptly furnish to Lender all notices of amounts to be paid
under this paragraph. If
Borrower makes these payments directly, Borrower shall promptly furnish
to Lender receipts
evidencing the payments.
Borrower shall promptly
discharge any lien which has priority over this Security Instrument
unless Borrower: (a) agrees in writing to the payment of the obligation
secured by the lien in a
manner acceptable to Lender; (b) contests in good faith the lien by, or
defends against enforcement of the lien in, legal proceedings which in
the Lender's opinion operate to prevent the
enforcement of the lien; or (c) secures from the holder of the lien an
agreement satisfactory to Lender subordinating the lien to this
Security Instrument. If Lender determines that any part of
the Property is subject to a lien which may attain priority over this
Security Instrument, Lender may give Borrower a notice identifying the
lien. Borrower shall satisfy the lien or take one or
more of the actions set forth above within 10 days of the giving of
notice.
. . . .
6.
Occupancy, Preservation, Maintenance and Protection of the Property;
Borrower's Loan Application; Leaseholds. . . . Borrower shall be in default if
any forfeiture action or
proceeding, whether civil or criminal, is begun that in Lender's good
faith judgment could result in forfeiture of the Property or
otherwise materially impair
the lien created by this Security
Instrument or Lender's
security interest.
(Emphases added.) The Mortgage also provided:
17.
Transfer of the Property or a Beneficial Interest in Borrower.
If all or any part of the Property or any interest in it is sold or
transferred (or if a beneficial interest in Borrower is sold
or transferred and Borrower is not a natural person) without Lender's prior written
consent, Lender may, at its option, require immediate payment in full
of all sums secured by this Security
Instrument. However, this option shall not be exercised by
Lender if exercise is prohibited by federal law as of the date of this
Security Instrument.
If Lender exercises this
option, Lender shall give Borrower notice of acceleration. The
notice shall provide a period of not less than 30 days from the date
the notice is delivered or mailed
within which Borrower must pay all sums secured by this Security
Instrument. If Borrower fails to pay these sums prior to the expiration
of this period, Lender may invoke any remedies
permitted by this Security Instrument without further notice or demand
on Borrower.
(Emphases added.)
4. It is undisputed that CHN used the
property in violation of the City's zoning and land use codes,
accumulated $667,100.00 in civil fines and penalties ($436,337.30 of
which the City
attached to the property as a lien), and received notice that the City
would be conducting a tax sale of the property, thereby risking
material impairment to Countrywide's security interest.
5. CHN's contention that it was never
behind on its monthly mortgage payments, even when viewed in the light
most favorable to CHN, does not change the fact that CHN defaulted on
its
Mortgage on two separate grounds.