NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-20-0000450

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS SUCCESSOR 

TRUSTEE TO BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., AS SUCCESSOR TO 

LASALLE BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF 

THE STRUCTURED ASSET INVESTMENT LOAN TRUST, MORTGAGE 

PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2003-BC2, 

A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v.

KARL KAZUO SAIKI; KARL KAZUO SAIKI, AS TRUSTEE 

OF THE RACHEL K. SAIKI IRREVOCABLE TRUST UNDER AN UNRECORDED 

TRUST INSTRUMENT DATED MAY 10, 1989, Defendants-Appellants,

and

FIRST HAWAIIAN BANK, SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO FIRST INTERSTATE 

BANK OF HAWAII FKA AMERICAN SECURITY BANK, A HAWAII CORPORATION, 

Defendants-Appellees,

and

DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT 

(CASE NO. 1CC191000474)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and Guidry, JJ.)

This is a judicial foreclosure case. DefendantsAppellants Karl Kazuo Saiki, Karl Kazuo Saiki, as Trustee of the 

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-20-0000450

20-JUN-2024

11:08 AM

Dkt. 58 SO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

2

Rachel K. Saiki Irrevocable Trust Under an Unrecorded Trust 

Instrument Dated May 10, 1989 (Saiki), appeal from (1) the 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; Order Granting 

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and for Interlocutory 

Decree of Foreclosure Filed August 12, 2019, and (2) the

Judgment, both entered on June 12, 2020 by the Circuit Court of 

the First Circuit (circuit court).1 

Saiki owned real estate in Honolulu (the Property). 

In November 2002, Saiki executed a $308,000 promissory note 

(Note) in favor of BNC Mortgage, Inc. (BNC). The Note is 

indorsed in blank. Saiki secured the Note with a mortgage on 

the Property (the Mortgage). The Mortgage identified Mortgage 

Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), solely as nominee 

for BNC, as mortgagee. The Mortgage was assigned by MERS to 

LaSalle Bank National Association as Trustee for Structured 

Asset Investment Loan Trust Series 2003-BC2. 

The Mortgage was then subsequently assigned to U.S. 

Bank, National Association, as Successor Trustee to Bank of 

America, N.A., as Successor to LaSalle Bank, N.A., as Trustee 

for the Holders of the Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust 

Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-BC-2 (U.S. Bank)

1 The Honorable Jeannette H. Castagnetti presided. 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

3

by assignment of mortgage recorded on October 23, 2013. 

Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper (Nationstar) serviced 

the loan. 

Saiki defaulted on the loan in September 2012. 

Nationstar sent Saiki notice of the default and acceleration of 

the loan (Notice) in February 2018. The Notice provided Saiki 

thirty-five days to cure the default. Saiki did not timely cure 

the default, and U.S. Bank filed a complaint for judicial 

foreclosure in the circuit court on March 25, 2019. Saiki 

failed to respond to the complaint, and the circuit court 

entered an order declaring Saiki to be in default in July 2019. 

U.S. Bank moved for summary judgment and interlocutory 

decree of foreclosure in August 2019. Saiki moved to dismiss 

and/or for summary judgment, and to set aside defaults. The 

circuit court set aside the defaults entered against Saiki, but 

otherwise denied Saiki's motion. The circuit court granted 

summary judgment and an interlocutory decree of foreclosure in 

favor of U.S. Bank, and entered the Judgment. Saiki appealed.

On appeal, Saiki contends that "the Circuit Court 

abused its discretion by concluding that [U.S. Bank] 

established": (1) "standing at the time the action commenced in 

the absence of admissible evidence supporting such a 

conclusion"; and (2) "that it provided [Saiki] with adequate 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

4

notice of default in the absence of sufficient admissible 

supporting evidence." 

Upon careful review of the record and relevant legal 

authorities, and having given due consideration to the arguments 

advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve 

Saiki's points of error as follows:

(1) Saiki contends that the circuit court erred in 

granting summary judgment because U.S. Bank lacks standing to 

bring its foreclosure claim. We review the circuit court's 

grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the following 

standard,

[S]ummary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, 

depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on 

file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there 

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the 

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A 

fact is material if proof of that fact would have the 

effect of establishing or refuting one of the essential 

elements of a cause of action or defense asserted by the 

parties. The evidence must be viewed in the light most 

favorable to the non-moving party. In other words, we must 

view all of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom in 

the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. 

Ralston v. Yim, 129 Hawaiʻi 46, 55-56, 292 P.3d 1276, 1285-86 

(2013) (citations omitted).

U.S. Bank, as the foreclosing party, "must also [inter 

alia] prove its entitlement to enforce the note and mortgage." 

Bank of America, N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo, 139 Hawaiʻi 361, 367, 

390 P.3d 1248, 1254 (2017). In Reyes-Toledo, the Hawaiʻi Supreme 

Court held that,
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

5

A foreclosing plaintiff's burden to prove entitlement to 

enforce the note overlaps with the requirements of standing 

in foreclosure actions as standing is concerned with 

whether the parties have the right to bring suit. 

Typically, a plaintiff does not have standing to invoke the 

jurisdiction of the court unless the plaintiff has suffered 

an injury in fact. A mortgage is a conveyance of an 

interest in real property that is given as security for the 

payment of the note. A foreclosure action is a legal 

proceeding to gain title or force a sale of the property 

for satisfaction of a note that is in default and secured 

by a lien on the subject property. Thus, the underlying 

"injury in fact" to a foreclosing plaintiff is the 

mortgagee's failure to satisfy its obligation to pay the 

debt obligation to the note holder. Accordingly, in 

establishing standing, a foreclosing plaintiff must 

necessarily prove its entitlement to enforce the note as it 

is the default on the note that gives rise to the action.

Id. at 367-68, 390 P.3d at 1254-55 (cleaned up).

Here, the summary judgment record reflects that U.S. 

Bank attached, to its foreclosure complaint: (1) the Declaration 

of Possession of Original Promissory Note by attorney Zachary K. 

Kondo (Kondo), who declared under penalty of perjury that he had 

personally reviewed the wet-ink Note on March 21, 2019, and that 

the original Note was stored at Aldridge Pite's2 Honolulu law 

office; (2) a copy of the Note and the Bailee Letter to Aldridge 

Pite, authenticated by Kondo; and (3) the March 1, 2019 

Verification to Foreclosure Complaint of Tina Marie Braune, a

Document Execution Associate for Nationstar, who declared under 

penalty of perjury that she was authorized to provide 

verification, "[has] access to and [is] familiar with 

2 Aldridge Pite, LLP serves as legal counsel for U.S. Bank in this 

matter.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

6

Nationstar's books and records regarding the Loan," "[is] 

familiar with the manner in which Nationstar maintains its books 

and records," "personally reviewed the documents and records 

relating to this case for factual accuracy[,]" and confirmed 

U.S. Bank's possession of the Note. On this record, we conclude 

that U.S. Bank satisfied its initial burden on summary judgment. 

See U.S. Bank Tr., N.A. as Tr. for LSF9 Master Participation 

Tr. v. Verhagen, 149 Hawaiʻi 315, 327-28, 489 P.3d 419, 431-32

(2021) (holding that "there is admissible documentary evidence 

showing that U.S. Bank possessed the Note both a mere six weeks 

before the filing of the complaint and at the time of summary 

judgment. Collectively, the evidence presented by U.S. Bank 

thus establishes the bank's possession of the Note on the day 

the complaint was filed.").

The burden then shifted to Saiki, and Saiki did not 

meet his burden of establishing that there is a genuine question 

of material fact for trial. Id. at 328, 489 P.3d at 432 ("[A]

defendant may counter this inference of possession at the time 

of filing with evidence setting forth 'specific facts showing 

that there is a genuine issue' as to whether the plaintiff 

actually possessed the subject note at the time it filed suit.") 

(citing to Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56(e)). Saiki

offered no evidence that U.S. Bank, through its counsel, did not 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

7

possess the Note at the time U.S. Bank's foreclosure complaint 

was filed. There is no merit to Saiki's argument that U.S. Bank 

lacks standing due to a "break in the chain of ownership of the 

Mortgage." Hawaii Revised Statutes § 490:3-301 (2008), which 

defines "'[p]erson entitled to enforce' an instrument" as, inter 

alia, "the holder of the instrument," provides that "[a] person 

may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though 

the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful 

possession of the instrument." Thus, U.S. Bank, which 

established that it was the "holder of the instrument," was 

entitled to enforce the Note irrespective of an alleged "break 

in the chain of ownership of the Mortgage." 

On this record, we conclude that U.S. Bank had 

standing to bring its foreclosure action, and the circuit court 

did not err in granting summary judgment.

(2) Saiki contends that the circuit court erred in 

granting summary judgment because U.S. Bank failed to provide 

adequate notice of default. Saiki's contention lacks merit.

U.S. Bank presented documentation showing that 

Nationstar mailed the Notice to Saiki via first class mail, 

return receipt requested. The Mortgage itself provides that 

notice of default is "deemed to have been given to Borrower" if 

mailed via first class mail. Saiki has not produced evidence to 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

8

rebut the presumption that U.S. Bank's Notice was mailed via 

first class mail, and does not dispute receipt of the Notice. 

On this record, we conclude that Saiki did not raise a 

genuine issue of material fact regarding the notice of default 

and acceleration of the loan, and the circuit court did not err 

in granting summary judgment.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit 

court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; Order Granting 

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and for Interlocutory 

Decree of Foreclosure Filed August 12, 2019, and the Judgment, 

both entered on June 12, 2020.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, June 20, 2024. 

On the briefs:

Matthew K. Yoshida,

for Defendants-Appellants.

Nainoa J. Watson,

for Plaintiff-Appellee.

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Presiding Judge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Associate Judge

/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry

Associate Judge