NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-19-0000398

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR MORGAN

STANLEY ABS CAPITAL I INC. TRUST 2006-HE3, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MAPUANA FANGA MA#ILEI; FILIPE ULOI MA#ILEI, Defendants-Appellants;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; EM ASSOCIATES INC., DBA STATE WIDE

COLLECTIONS, Defendants-Appellees,

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

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CASE NO. 1CC071001214)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

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

Mapuana Fanga Ma#ile#i and Filipe Uloi Ma#ile#i (the

Ma#ile#is), representing themselves, appeal from the "Order

Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Reissuance of Writ of Possession"

and the "Reissued Writ of Possession," both entered by the

Circuit Court of the First Circuit on May 22, 2019.1

 We affirm.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company filed a complaint

for foreclosure against the Ma#ile#is on July 2, 2007. A

Foreclosure Judgment was entered on January 21, 2010. The

Ma#ile#is didn't appeal. The property was sold at public auction. 

1 The Honorable Jeannette H. Castagnetti presided.

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-19-0000398

17-MAY-2024

07:54 AM

Dkt. 54 SO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

A Judgment Confirming Sale was entered on July 26, 2011. The

Ma#ile#is didn't appeal. Deutsche Bank moved for reissuance of a

writ of possession on March 4, 2019. The Order and the Reissued

Writ were entered on May 22, 2019. This appeal followed.2

We must first address Deutsche Bank's contention that

we lack jurisdiction because the Order is not a final order and

wasn't certified for interlocutory appeal. The Order was entered

after the circuit court entered the Judgment Confirming Sale; it

was a post-judgment order. A post-judgment order is appealable

under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 641-1(a) if the order ends

the post-judgment proceeding, leaving nothing further to be done. 

Ditto v. McCurdy, 103 Hawai#i 153, 157, 80 P.3d 974, 978 (2003). 

The Order and Reissued Writ meet these criteria. We have

appellate jurisdiction.

(1) The Ma#ile#is argue that the circuit court erred by

reissuing the writ of possession because they were never served

with Deutsche Bank's foreclosure complaint. The record shows

that substitute service on the Ma#ile#is was effected on

October 30, 2007, through Pipiena Maka, who signed both

acknowledgments of service. See Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure

(HRCP) Rule 4(d)(1)(A). The Ma#ile#is did not move to vacate the

Foreclosure Judgment under HRCP Rule 60(b). See Beneficial Haw.,

Inc. v. Casey, 98 Hawai#i 159, 45 P.3d 359 (2002) (analyzing HRCP

Rule 60(b) motion filed eleven months after foreclosure decree

entered). Issues about service of the foreclosure complaint are

not properly before us in this appeal from the Reissued Writ. 

See Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Wise, 130 Hawai#i 11,

304 P.3d 1192 (2013) (mortgagors who didn't appeal from

foreclosure judgment couldn't challenge mortgagee's standing to

foreclose in appeal from order confirming sale).

2 The Ma#ile#is' opening brief does not comply with Rule 28 of the

Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure. However, self-represented litigants who

fail to comply with court rules are not foreclosed from appellate review if we

can discern their arguments. See Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai#i 368, 380-81, 465

P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020).

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

(2) The Ma#ile#is argue that Deutsche Bank lacked

standing to foreclose. They did not raise this issue in an

appeal from the Foreclosure Judgment. They cannot raise the

issue in this appeal. Wise, 130 Hawai#i at 19, 304 P.3d at 1200.

(3) The Ma#ile#is argue that the circuit court erred by

reissuing an expired writ. The circuit court's July 26, 2011

order granting Deutsche Bank's motion to confirm the foreclosure

sale directed issuance of a writ of possession. The Ma#ile#is

cite no authority showing that the circuit court lacked

jurisdiction or authority to enforce its order confirming the

sale. There was no error. See HRS §§ 603-21.5(a)(3), 603-

21.9(6).

For these reasons, the "Order Granting Plaintiff's

Motion for Reissuance of Writ of Possession" and the "Reissued

Writ of Possession[,]" both entered on May 22, 2019, are

affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 17, 2024.

On the briefs:

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard

Mapuana Fanga Ma#ile#i, Acting Chief Judge

Filipe Uloi Ma#ile#i,

Self-represented /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Defendants-Appellants. Associate Judge

Jesse W. Schiel, /s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Nicholas R. Monlux, Associate Judge

Jesse D. Franklin-Murdock,

for Plaintiff-Appellee.

3