NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-20-0000170

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI 

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, 

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, 

v. 

GUIA FERRER-GUERRERO, 

Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant, 

and 

PARRISH PERFECTO GUERRERO; NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; and

EWA BY GENTRY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION; Defendants-Appellees,

and 

JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; 

DOE ENTITIES 1-10; and DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-10, Defendants 

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CASE NO. 1CC141001061)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

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

Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant Guia FerrerGuerrero (Ferrer) appeals from the March 2, 2020 Findings of 

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-20-0000170

03-OCT-2024

10:47 AM

Dkt. 108 SO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

2

Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order (FOF/COL), and July 9, 

2024 Amended Final Judgment (Amended Judgment) entered by the 

Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court).1 After a 

bench trial, the Amended Judgment found Ferrer liable to 

Plaintiff/Counterclaimant-Appellee Nationstar Mortgage LLC 

(Nationstar) in the amount of $962,598.79 on a 2007 adjustable 

rate promissory note (Note) and Mortgage.2

On appeal, Ferrer raises seven points of error, 

contending that the circuit court erred in: (1) "denying 

Ferrer's motion to file a new amended counterclaim"; (2) 

"rejecting Ferrer's undisputed evidence of forgery of her 

signature on the Promissory Note and mortgage"; (3) entering 

"FOF Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 18, 19, 20, 44, and 45"; (4) rejecting 

Ferrer's proposed FOF/COL; (5) entering "COL Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 

11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, and 31"; 

(6) "granting judgment to Nationstar in the sum of $962,598.79 

on the first amended complaint and also on the original 

complaint"; and (7) entering judgment.

Upon careful review of the record and relevant legal 

authorities, and having given due consideration to the arguments 

1 The Honorable John M. Tonaki presided.

2 The Note was executed in July 2007, in favor of American Home 

Mortgage Acceptance, Inc. (AHMA). The Mortgage, for the Ewa Beach property 

owned by Ferrer and her husband, Parrish Perfecto Guerrero, was executed in 

connection with the Note in favor of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems

as nominee for AHMA; the Mortgage was unrecorded. Ferrer alleged below that 

her signatures on the Note and Mortgage were forged.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

3

advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve 

Ferrer's points of error as follows:

(1) We review Ferrer's contention that the circuit 

court erred in denying her leave to file an amended counterclaim 

for abuse of discretion. Century Campus Hous. Mgmt., L.P. v. 

Elda Hana, LLC, Nos. CAAP-15-0000020 and CAAP-15-0000470, 2018 

WL 637373, at *9 (Haw. App. Jan. 31, 2018) (mem. op.) (citing 

Gonsalves v. Nissan Motor Corp. in Haw., Ltd., 100 Hawaiʻi 149, 

158, 58 P.3d 1196, 1205 (2002)). Contrary to Ferrer's 

contention, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion.

Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 13(f) 

states that "[w]hen a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim 

through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when 

justice requires, the pleader may by leave of court set up the 

counterclaim by amendment." In seeking leave to file a new

counterclaim,3 Ferrer's counsel attested that he had just entered 

his appearance, and as a result of a meeting with Ferrer and her 

initial counsel, "it became apparent" the counterclaim, which 

sought relief based on allegations that Ferrer's signature on 

the Note and Mortgage was forged, "was omitted unintentionally." 

Ferrer filed a motion for leave to file a new 

counterclaim on July 25, 2018; the motion was heard on 

3 In June 2015, Ferrer filed a seven-count counterclaim. Ferrer 

stipulated to dismiss her 2015 counterclaim with prejudice in April 2017.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

4

August 29, 2018. The discovery deadline was August 15, 2018, 

which was prior to the hearing. The record reflects that the 

allegedly forged signature was known to Ferrer from the time she 

examined the original 2007 Note and Mortgage at Nationstar 

counsel's office on July 28, 2015. Ferrer's December 24, 2015 

pretrial statement gave notice that she would present her 

testimony and expert witness testimony that "the signatures on 

the Note and the Unrecorded Mortgage are not her signatures." 

And Ferrer's answer to Nationstar's First Amended Complaint 

denied allegations that she had signed the 2007 Note and 

Mortgage, and affirmatively alleged that she did not execute 

them.

We cannot conclude, on this record, that the circuit 

court abused its discretion in denying Ferrer's 2018 motion to 

file a new counterclaim. See Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. 

Kozma, 140 Hawaiʻi 494, 498, 403 P.3d 271, 275 (2017) ("An abuse 

of discretion occurs where the court has clearly exceeded the 

bounds of reason or disregarded rules or principles of law or 

practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant.") 

(cleaned up).

(2) Ferrer contends that the circuit court erred by 

rejecting "undisputed evidence" that her signature on the Note 

and Mortgage was forged. Ferrer further contends that, because 

the signature on the Note and Mortgage was forged, the Note and 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

5

Mortgage were void and unenforceable. We review the circuit 

court's evidentiary ruling for abuse of discretion. Kamaka v. 

Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 117 Hawaiʻi 92, 104, 176 P.3d 

91, 103 (2008).

The circuit court did not abuse its discretion

because, even if we assume Ferrer's signature was unauthorized, 

the circuit court made specific findings that support its 

conclusion that Ferrer ratified the signature on the Note and 

Mortgage.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 490:3-401(a) (2008) 

provides that "[a] person is not liable on an instrument unless 

(i) the person signed the instrument." However, HRS § 490:3-

403(a) (2008) further provides that "[a]n unauthorized signature 

may be ratified for all purposes of this article." Id.

(emphasis added).

Comment 3 to the Uniform Commercial Code section 3-403 

provides:

The last sentence of subsection (a) allows an unauthorized 

signature to be ratified. Ratification is a retroactive 

adoption of the unauthorized signature by the person whose 

name is signed and may be found from conduct as well as 

from express statements. For example, it may be found from 

the retention of benefits received in the transaction with 

knowledge of the unauthorized signature. Although the 

forger is not an agent, ratification is governed by the 

rules and principles applicable to ratification of

unauthorized acts of an agent.

Id. (emphasis added).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

6

The circuit court concluded that Ferrer ratified the 

signature on the Note:

17. All of Defendant Ferrer's actions with respect to the 

2007 Note, including her retention of the funds 

conveyed to her by AHMA, her initial monthly payments 

on the loan and her numerous letters to the 

subsequent holder of the note, Bank of America N.A., 

prove by a preponderance of the evidence an 

acceptance of the terms of the contract and a 

ratification of the signature on the 2007 Note. 

The circuit court's conclusions regarding ratification are 

supported by the following findings, all of which Ferrer 

effectively concedes:4

6. On July 9, 2007, Defendant Ferrer received the sum of 

the loan proceeds from AHMA through escrow in the 

amount of $577,500.00 for her use.

7. Defendant Ferrer knew and understood she was required 

to repay the amounts she received from AHMA.

. . . .

13. Defendant Ferrer used approximately $98,000 in 

proceeds from the 2007 loan from AHMA to pay Parrish 

Perfecto Guerrero for his interest in 91-218 Pihapono 

Place.

. . . .

21. From the closing of the Loan until approximately 

January 2010, Defendant Ferrer made monthly payments 

toward the Loan and 2007 Note.

22. Defendant Ferrer began facing financial difficulties 

as evidenced by letters sent by Defendant Ferrer to 

the servicer of the Loan.

4 FOFs 13, 21, 22, and 23 are unchallenged. Okada Trucking Co. v. 

Bd. of Water Supply, 97 Hawaiʻi 450, 458, 40 P.3d 73, 81 (2002) ("Findings of 

fact, however, that are not challenged on appeal are binding on the appellate 

court."). FOFs 6 and 7, which are challenged by Ferrer on appeal, are 

identical or nearly identical to undisputed facts 5 and 6 that the parties 

stipulated to in the December 30, 2019 joint statement of undisputed facts. 

"[F]acts within a stipulation are taken to be conclusive and binding upon the 

parties, the trial judge and the appellate court." Dera Dev., LLC v. 

Mitchell, No. CAAP-12-0000493, 2013 WL 5385123, at *3 (Haw. App. Sept. 16, 

2013) (mem. op.) (citation omitted). 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

7

23. Defendant Ferrer sent a letter, dated July 8, 2009, 

requesting a loan modification and stating that she 

was worried about "paying [her] adjustable rate 

mortgage payments since [her] divorce and [her] exhusband quit helping in paying" the mortgage.

A party ratifies a debt by signing a request for loan 

modification. Bank of New York Mellon v. Spielman, No. CAAP-15-

0000648, 2020 WL 588139, at *3 (Haw. App. Feb. 6, 2020) (SDO). 

Furthermore, "affirmance of an unauthorized transaction may be 

inferred from a failure to repudiate it." Maui Fin. Co. v. Han, 

34 Haw. 226, 230 (Haw. Terr. 1937) (concluding that the 

defendant ratified his wife's signature on his behalf by not 

objecting to it).

Here, the undisputed evidence in the record 

demonstrates that Ferrer ratified the allegedly forged 

signature. Ferrer stipulated that she received the benefit of 

the $577,500 loan proceeds from AHMA and understood that she was 

required to repay the amounts. She also requested a loan 

modification. Moreover, she dismissed with prejudice her claim 

for recission. We thus conclude that the circuit court did not 

abuse its discretion in rejecting evidence of Ferrer's allegedly 

forged signatures.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

8

(3) Ferrer challenges the circuit court's FOF/COL, on 

the basis that they are erroneous5 and must be vacated because

Nationstar lacked standing. Specifically, Ferrer contends that 

Nationstar failed to establish that it was in possession of a 

validly signed note when the action commenced, and did not give 

value to acquire the Note. Bank of Am., N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo, 

139 Hawaiʻi 361, 367, 390 P.3d 1248, 1254 (2017) (holding that 

the foreclosing party "must also [inter alia] prove its 

entitlement to enforce the note and mortgage"). However, the 

record reflects that Nationstar possessed the Note, pursuant to 

its servicing agreement with the Note owner, and that the Note 

owner gave value to acquire it. 

The record reflects that Simon Ward Brown (Ward 

Brown), Nationstar's corporate representative/witness6 testified 

that when AHMA filed for bankruptcy, Bank of America became its 

administrative agent, with authority to service and assign its 

residential mortgage loans. In November 2013, Bank of America 

sold a pool of loans to the SRP 2013-9 Funding Trust (the Trust)

5 Ferrer specifically challenges various FOFs and COLs, based on 

her contention that her signature on the Note and Mortgage was forged. For 

the reasons set forth herein, we conclude that error, if any, was harmless. 

6 Ward Brown testified that the role of a corporate 

representative/witness "entails working with [Nationstar's] in-house legal 

department and retained outside counsel in reviewing our business records 

with respect to litigated matters and ultimately appearing at settlement 

conferences, mediations, depositions, and ultimately at trials if required to 

testify."
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

9

for $9,109,756.69. The Trust paid $155,356.68 for the Note and 

Mortgage. 

The servicing agreement between Nationstar and the 

Trust authorizes Nationstar to pursue collection actions on 

behalf of the Trust. Nationstar maintains a collateral file, 

which shows it took possession of the original wet ink signature 

Note on March 10, 2014, and held it in a vault, until sending it 

to counsel's office on July 2, 2014. Nationstar's possession of 

the original Note thus precedes the filing of the Complaint on 

April 24, 2014. 

On July 28, 2015, Ferrer examined the original 2007 

Note at Nationstar's counsel's office. Nationstar's counsel 

also brought the original 2007 Note to the courtroom at the time 

of trial and made it available for inspection.

The Note is endorsed by AHMA in blank. HRS § 490:3-

205(b) (2008) provides that "[w]hen indorsed in blank, an 

instrument becomes payable to bearer and may be negotiated by 

transfer of possession alone until specially indorsed." HRS § 

490:3-301 (2008) provides in part that, "'Person entitled to 

enforce' an instrument means (i) the holder of the instrument." 

On this record, we conclude that Nationstar, the servicing agent 

for the owner Trust, and the entity with possession of the 

ratified Note at the time of the filing of the Complaint, had 

standing to bring this action.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

10

(4) Ferrer contends that the circuit court erred in 

finding that she was unjustly enriched, and awarding Nationstar 

$962,598.79 on that basis. Ferrer specifically asserts that 

"Nationstar never benefitted Ferrer, therefore[,] the unjust 

enrichment decision is reversible error." However, Ferrer's 

contention lacks merit.

Nationstar was the agent of the Trust, and gave value 

to acquire the Note. "An assignment operates to place the 

assignee in the shoes of the assignor, and provides the assignee 

with the same legal rights as the assignor had before the 

assignment." Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. AIG Hawaiʻi Ins. Co., 

109 Hawaiʻi 343, 349, 126 P.3d 386, 392 (2006) (cleaned up). 

Ferrer stipulated that she received the benefit of the AHMA loan 

proceeds. The circuit court did not err in ruling that, if 

Ferrer was not liable for breach of contract, she was unjustly 

enriched.7 

(5) Ferrer contends that the circuit court erred in 

rejecting her proposed FOF/COL, and in entering judgment in 

7 The circuit court ruled that Nationstar should be awarded damages 

based on breach of contract but that, in the alternative, Ferrer has been 

unjustly enriched. See COL 30 ("Plaintiff Nationstar has sustained a loss by 

breach of the 2007 Note by Defendant Ferrer and, in the alternative, 

Defendant Ferrer has been unjustly enriched by benefits conferred upon her 

under that 2007 Note."). On that basis, the circuit court awarded Nationstar 

$962,598.79 in damages for unpaid principal, interest, and escrow advance on 

the Note.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

11

favor of Nationstar. For the reasons set forth supra, we need 

not reach these remaining contentions.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit 

court's March 2, 2020 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 

and Order, and July 9, 2024 Amended Final Judgment.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, October 3, 2024.

On the briefs:

R. Steven Geshell,

for Defendant/

Counterclaimant-Appellant.

Michael L. Lam, 

for Plaintiff/Counterclaim 

Defendant-Appellee. 

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Presiding Judge

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen

Associate Judge

/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry

Associate Judge