NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-21-0000084

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE,

SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

AS TRUSTEE, ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF WASHINGTON MUTUAL

ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, WMABS, SERIES 2006-HE1,

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAN MOXLEY, Defendant-Appellant,

and CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A.; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.;

Defendants-Appellees, and DOES 1 through 20,

Inclusive, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 3CC171000292)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Nakasone, JJ.)

Upon consideration of Plaintiff-Appellee U.S. Bank

National Association as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Bank of

America, National Association, as Successor by Merger to LaSalle

Bank National Association, as Trustee, on Behalf of the Holders

of Washington Mutual Asset-Backed Certificates, WMABS, Series

2006-HE1's (U.S. Bank) April 28, 2021 motion to dismiss appeal

for lack of appellate jurisdiction (Motion to Dismiss), selfrepresented Defendant-Appellant Jan Moxley's (Moxley) May 7, 2021

opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, the papers in support, and

the record, it appears that we lack jurisdiction over the instant

appeal.

On February 24, 2021, Moxley filed a notice of appeal

from the following judgment and orders entered by the Circuit

Court of the Third Circuit (circuit court): (1) a September 28,

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-21-0000084

13-MAY-2021

09:06 AM

Dkt. 48 OGMD
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

2020 judgment on a decree of foreclosure (Foreclosure Judgment);

(2) a December 16, 2020 post-judgment order denying Moxley's

October 13, 2020 post-judgment motion for reconsideration of,

inter alia, the Foreclosure Judgment (Order Denying

Reconsideration); and (3) a January 25, 2021 post-judgment order

denying Moxley's December 3, 2020 post-judgment "Renewed NonHearing Motion Demand for Jury Trial" (Order Denying Jury Trial). 

It appears we lack jurisdiction to review the foregoing judgment

and orders.

The Foreclosure Judgment was an appealable final

judgment, see Hawai#i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 667-51(a)(1)

(2016); but Moxley did not file a notice of appeal from the

Foreclosure Judgment within the 30-day time period required by

Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 4(a)(1). 

Moxley's October 13, 2020 and December 3, 2020 post-judgment

motions did not toll or extend the time for Moxley to appeal from

the Foreclosure Judgment. We construe Moxley's October 13, 2020

post-judgment motion as a Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP)

Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment insofar as the

October 13, 2020 post-judgment motion sought relief from the

Foreclosure Judgment and was filed more than 10 days after the

Foreclosure Judgment was entered. This post-judgment HRCP

Rule 60(b) motion does not qualify as a tolling motion under HRAP

Rule 4(a)(3). See Lambert v. Lua, 92 Hawai#i 228, 234, 990 P.2d

126, 132 (App. 1999) ("An HRCP Rule 60(b) motion for relief from

judgment may toll the period for appealing a judgment or order,

but only if the motion is served and filed within ten (10) days

after the judgment is entered."); HRCP Rule 60(b) ("A motion

under this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a

judgment or suspend its operation."). Moxley's December 3, 2020

post-judgment "Renewed Non-Hearing Motion Demand for Jury Trial"

(Motion for Jury Trial) also did not toll or extend the time for

Moxley to appeal from the Foreclosure Judgment because it is not

among the tolling motions specified under HRAP Rule 4(a)(3). 

Accordingly, Moxley's appeal from the Foreclosure Judgment is

untimely.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The circuit court's December 16, 2020 Order Denying

Reconsideration, which disposed of Moxley's post-judgment

October 13, 2020 HRCP Rule 60(b) motion, was an appealable final

order. See Beneficial Hawaii, Inc. v. Casey, 98 Hawai#i 159,

165, 45 P.3d 359, 365 (2002) ("A HRCP Rule 60(b) motion

pertaining exclusively to a foreclosure decree seeks to relieve

the movant of its effect; therefore, we hold that the circuit

court's entry of judgment disposing of such a HRCP Rule 60(b)

motion is a final, appealable order.").1 But Moxley did not file

a notice of appeal from the Order Denying Reconsideration within

the 30-day time period required by HRAP Rule 4(a)(1).

The failure to file a timely notice of appeal in a

civil matter is a jurisdictional defect that the parties cannot

waive and appellate courts cannot disregard in the exercise of

judicial discretion. Bacon v. Karlin, 68 Haw. 648, 650, 727 P.2d

1127, 1129 (1986); HRAP Rule 26(b) ("[N]o court or judge or

justice is authorized to change the jurisdictional requirements

contained in Rule 4 of [the HRAP]."). Accordingly, we lack

appellate jurisdiction to review the September 28, 2020

Foreclosure Judgment and the December 16, 2020 Order Denying

Reconsideration.

The Order Denying Jury Trial is appealable,2 and

Moxley's appeal from the order is timely. Nonetheless, we lack

jurisdiction to review the Order Denying Jury Trial because the

issue is moot. "Mootness is an issue of subject matter

jurisdiction." Doe v. Doe, 120 Hawai#i 149, 164, 202 P.3d 610,

625 (App. 2009). "As a general rule, a case is moot if the

reviewing court can no longer grant effective relief." In Re

Marn Family, 141 Hawai#i 1, 7, 403 P.3d 621, 627 (2016) (citation

1 Although U.S. Bank argued, inter alia, that the December 16, 2020

Order Denying Reconsideration was not appealable because it was not reduced to

a separate judgment, the separate judgment requirement in Jenkins v. Cades

Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai#i 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994), is

"inapposite in the post-judgment context." Ditto v. McCurdy, 103 Hawai #i 153,

158, 80 P.3d 974, 979 (2003).

2 The Order Denying Jury Trial is appealable because it adjudicated all

the issues in Moxley's December 3, 2020 post-judgment motion and left no

further issues from that post-judgment motion for any further adjudication. 

See Ditto, 103 Hawai#i at 157, 80 P.3d at 978 ("A post-judgment order is an

appealable final order under HRS § 641–1(a) if the order ends the proceedings,

leaving nothing further to be accomplished."). 

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

omitted). "A case is moot if it has lost its character as a

present, live controversy of the kind that must exist if courts

are to avoid advisory opinions on abstract propositions of law." 

Kaho#ohanohano v. State, 114 Hawai#i 302, 332, 162 P.3d 696, 726

(2007) (citations and emphasis omitted). 

Here, Moxley's appeal from the Order Denying Jury Trial

does not present a live issue, and we thus do not have

jurisdiction to review it. Moxley's December 3, 2020 Motion for

Jury Trial pertains to the merits of the underlying foreclosure

case, which the circuit court determined via the Foreclosure

Judgment and Order Denying Reconsideration. As noted, Moxley did

not timely appeal from the Foreclosure Judgment or Order Denying

Reconsideration, and we thus lack jurisdiction to review that

judgment and order, which are final and binding. Because

Moxley's Motion for Jury Trial pertains to the merits of the

foreclosure decree, and this court cannot review the merits of

the foreclosure decree, we cannot provide any effective relief. 

Moxley's appeal from the Order Denying Jury Trial is thus moot. 

In addition, none of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine

apply: public interest, see Doe v. Doe, 116 Hawai#i 323, 327, 172

P.3d 1067, 1071 (2007); "capable of repetition yet evading

review," see State v. Tui, 138 Hawai#i 462, 468, 382 P.3d 274,

280 (2016); or "collateral consequences," see Hamilton ex rel.

Lethem v. Lethem, 119 Hawai#i 1, 7-11, 193 P.3d 839, 845-49

(2008). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the Order

Denying Jury Trial.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to

Dismiss is granted, and appeal number CAAP-21-0000084 is

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions in

appeal number CAAP-21-0000084 are dismissed as moot.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 13, 2021.

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

Chief Judge

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Associate Judge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Associate Judge

4