*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

---oOo---

________________________________________________________________

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,

a National Banking Association, as Trustee of the IndyMac INDX 

Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR12, Mortgage Pass-Through 

Certificates Series 2006-AR12, Under the Pooling and Servicing 

Agreement Dated July 1, 2006, 

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

RONALD PAJELA AMASOL and JEAN LOUISE MORALES AMASOL,

Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants.

________________________________________________________________

SCWC-13-0000040

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-13-0000040; CIV. NO. 11-1-2129)

APRIL 14, 2015

McKENNA AND POLLACK, JJ., WITH RECKTENWALD, C.J., CONCURRING, 

AND NAKAYAMA, J., CONCURRING AND DISSENTING, WITH WHOM CIRCUIT 

JUDGE CHANG, IN PLACE OF ACOBA, J., RECUSED, JOINS

OPINION OF THE COURT BY McKENNA, J.

Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants Ronald Pajela Amasol 

and Jean Louise Morales Amasol (collectively, “the Amasols”) 

seek review of the November 20, 2013 Order Dismissing Appeal for 

Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction” (“Dismissal Order”) issued by 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-13-0000040

14-APR-2015

08:52 AM
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

2

the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”). In light of our 

decision in Association of Condominium Homeowners of Tropics at 

Waikele v. Sakuma, 131 Hawaii 254, 318 P.3d 94 (2013), which was 

issued about one month after the Dismissal Order, we hold that 

the ICA erred in dismissing as untimely the Amasols’ appeal from 

the December 31, 2012 order denying their April 16, 2012 motion 

for reconsideration and the decisions for which reconsideration 

had been sought. Clarifying our opinion in Sakuma, however, we 

also hold that the ICA did not err in dismissing as premature

any attempted appeal of the Amasols’ July 13, 2012 amended 

reconsideration motion, because the circuit court has not 

entered an order disposing of that motion. We therefore vacate 

the ICA’s Dismissal Order in part, and remand to the ICA for 

further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

I. Background

The Amasols fell behind on their mortgage payments,

and their lender, “Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, a 

National Banking Association, as Trustee of the Indymac INDX 

Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR12, Mortgage Pass-Through 

Certificates Series 2006-AR12, Under the Pooling and Servicing 

Agreement Dated July 1, 2006” (“the Bank”) commenced a nonjudicial foreclosure sale of the property. The Bank 

subsequently acquired the property at auction, and filed an 

ejectment action in the district court. The district court 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

3

denied the Bank’s summary judgment motion for lack of 

jurisdiction in light of a title challenge raised by the 

Amasols, and the action was re-filed in the Circuit Court of the 

First Circuit (“circuit court”). 

On April 12, 2012, the circuit court1 entered an order 

granting summary judgment in favor of the Bank, Judgment for 

Possession, and a Writ of Possession (collectively, “the April 

12th orders”). On April 16, 2012, the Amasols, proceeding pro 

se, timely filed a “Motion to Reconsider Ruling” (“Motion to 

Reconsider”). On July 13, 2012, the Amasols, represented by 

counsel, filed their “Defendants’ Amended Rule 60(b) Motion for 

Relief from Judgment; for Evidentiary Hearing and for Leave To 

File Amended Answer” (“Amended Rule 60(b) Motion”). On December 

31, 2012, approximately 260 days after the Motion to Reconsider 

was filed, the circuit court entered an “Order Denying 

Defendant’s [sic] Motion to Reconsider Ruling.” The circuit 

court has not, however, entered any order disposing of the 

Amended Rule 60(b) Motion. 

 On January 23, 2013, the Amasols filed their notice of 

appeal. On November 20, 2013, the ICA filed its Dismissal 

Order. The ICA determined that the appeal from the April 12th 

orders and the Motion to Reconsider was untimely because the 

appeal was not filed within 30 days of the date the motion was 

 

1 The Honorable Patrick W. Border presided.
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

4

deemed denied under Rule 4(a)(3) (2012) of the Hawaii Rules of 

Appellate Procedure (“HRAP”). With respect to the Amended Rule 

60(b) Motion, the ICA ruled that the appeal was premature

because the circuit court had not entered a written order 

denying the motion. 

II. Standard of Review

“The existence of jurisdiction is a question of law 

that we review de novo under the right/wrong standard.” State 

v. Bohannon, 102 Hawaii 228, 232, 74 P.3d 980, 984 (2003) 

(citations omitted).

III. Discussion

The time for filing a notice of appeal is governed by 

HRAP Rule 4, which provides in relevant part:

Rule 4. APPEALS - WHEN TAKEN.

 (a) Appeals in civil cases.

 (1) TIME AND PLACE OF FILING. When a civil appeal is permitted 

by law, the notice of appeal shall be filed within 30 days after 

entry of the judgment or appealable order. . . .

 (2) PREMATURE FILING OF APPEAL. If a notice of appeal is filed 

after announcement of a decision but before entry of the judgment 

or order, such notice shall be considered as filed immediately 

after the time the judgment or order becomes final for the 

purpose of appeal.

 (3) TIME TO APPEAL AFFECTED BY POST-JUDGMENT MOTIONS. If any party 

files a timely motion for judgment as a matter of law, to amend 

findings or make additional findings, for a new trial, to 

reconsider, alter or amend the judgment or order, or for 

attorney’s fees or costs, the time for filing the notice of 

appeal is extended until 30 days after entry of an order 

disposing of the motion; provided, that the failure to dispose of 

any motion by order entered upon the record within 90 days after 

the date the motion was filed shall constitute a denial of the 

motion.

On December 17, 2013, shortly after the ICA issued its 

Dismissal Order, we announced our opinion in Sakuma, 131 Hawaii 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

5

254, 318 P.3d 94. In Sakuma, we held that when a timely postjudgment tolling motion is deemed denied, the 30-day deadline 

for filing a notice of appeal is not triggered until entry of 

the judgment or appealable order pursuant to HRAP Rule 4(a)(1) 

(2012) and (a)(3). 131 Hawaii at 256, 318 P.3d at 96. 

In the instant case, the written order disposing of 

the Motion to Reconsider was filed on December 31, 2012, and the 

Amasols filed their appeal of that order within 30 days, on 

January 23, 2013. Therefore, pursuant to Sakuma, the ICA had 

appellate jurisdiction over the denial of the Motion to 

Reconsider, as well as of the underlying April 12th orders. We 

therefore vacate that portion of the ICA’s Dismissal Order that 

ruled to the contrary, and remand to the ICA for consideration 

of the relevant issues on appeal. 

There was, however, no order disposing of the Amasols’ 

July 13, 2012 Amended Rule 60(b) Motion. In addition, there was 

no announcement of a decision on that motion that could have 

triggered HRAP Rule 4(a)(2) (2012). Therefore, the ICA properly 

ruled that the notice of appeal was premature with respect to 

the Amended Rule 60(b) Motion. 

We also write to clarify Sakuma to the extent the 

dictum that the “ICA had jurisdiction,” 131 Hawaii at 255, 318 

P.3d at 95, may have caused confusion. In Sakuma, as in this 

case with respect to the Amended Rule 60(b) Motion, the notice 
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

6

of appeal was premature. The ICA therefore properly held that 

it lacked jurisdiction over this portion of the appeal. 

IV. Conclusion

We vacate the portion of the ICA Dismissal Order 

holding that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the appeal of 

the April 12th orders and the Motion to Reconsider. We affirm 

the portion of the ICA Dismissal Order dismissing any appeal of 

the Amended Rule 60(b) Motion, and remand for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

Sandra D. Lynch /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

for petitioner

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

Charles R. Prather and

Sofia Hirosane McGuire

for respondent