NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-18-0000761

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR 

STRUCTURED ASSET INVESTMENT LOAN TRUST MORTGAGE 

PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-4, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v.

MILAGROS LEANO CASTRO; BENNY F. CASTRO,

Defendants-Appellants,

and 

OWANA HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION; CACH, LLC; 

ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF VALLEYVIEW 

MELEMANU WOODLANDS; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 

Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 14-1-0808-03)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

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

Self-represented Defendants-Appellants Milagros Leano

Castro and Benny F. Castro (the Castros) appeal from the

following post-judgment orders entered by the Circuit Court of

the First Circuit (Circuit Court): (1) the June 28, 2018 "Order

Denying [the Castros'] Renewed Motion for Relief from Judgment

Filed May 3, 2018" (Order Denying Motion for Relief from

Judgment); and (2) the September 4, 2018 "Order Denying [the

Castros'] Motion for Reconsideration Filed on June 18, 2018"

(Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration) (collectively, the

Post-Judgment Orders).1/ For the reasons explained below, we

affirm.

1/ The Honorable Jeanette H. Castignetti presided.

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000761

21-NOV-2022

07:55 AM

Dkt. 126 SO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

On March 31, 2014, Plaintiff-Appellee U.S. Bank

National Association, as Trustee for Structured Asset Investment

Loan Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-04

(U.S. Bank), filed a complaint for declaratory relief and

mortgage foreclosure against the Castros and others. The Castros

filed a response to the complaint, alleging that the purported

assignments of the subject mortgage and promissory note were

fraudulent and that U.S. Bank lacked standing to foreclose. 

On August 22, 2014, U.S. Bank filed a motion for

summary judgment and for interlocutory decree of foreclosure. 

The Castros did not file an opposition. The motion was heard on

December 24, 2014. The Castros did not appear at the hearing. 

The record on appeal does not contain a transcript of the

hearing, but the Circuit Court minutes indicate that the motion

was orally granted at that time. On January 29, 2015, the

Circuit Court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and

an order granting U.S. Bank's motion for summary judgment and for

interlocutory decree of foreclosure (Foreclosure Decree). The

Judgment in favor of U.S. Bank and against all defendants was

entered the same day.2/ The Judgment was appealable under Hawaii

Revised Statutes § 667-51(a)(1) (2016). 

The Castros did not appeal from the Judgment.

On May 3, 2018, the Castros filed a "Renewed Motion for

Relief from Judgment" (Motion for Relief from Judgment),3/

purportedly brought under a variety of authorities, including

Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 60(b)(3) and (4).4/

The Castros' argument is difficult to discern, but it appears

2/ The Honorable Bert I. Ayabe entered the Foreclosure Decree and the 

Judgment.

3/ The Castros' April 5, 2018 motion for relief from judgment was

stricken for failure to comply with court rules regarding service and notice

of the motion.

4/ Although the Castros listed various statutes, court rules, and a

constitutional provision (the Fourteenth Amendment) in their motion, the only

listed authority that could properly serve as a procedural vehicle for the

motion was HRCP Rule 60(b)(3) and (4). The rule states, in relevant part: 

"On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party

. . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

. . . (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic),

misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; [and] (4) the

judgment is void[.]"

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

they claimed the Judgment was void under HRCP Rule 60(b)(4)

because the Circuit Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. 

Relatedly, the Castros appear to have argued that the promissory

note was fraudulently endorsed; U.S. Bank did not own or control

the note at the commencement of the foreclosure action; and U.S.

Bank thus failed to establish its standing. The Castros also

argued that indispensable parties had not been joined in the

litigation. 

On June 4, 2018, the Circuit Court denied the Castros'

Motion for Relief from Judgment by minute order, and on June 28,

2018, the Circuit Court entered the Order Denying Motion for

Relief from Judgment. On June 18, 2018, the Castros filed a

motion for reconsideration. The Circuit Court denied the motion

for reconsideration in a July 27, 2018 minute order, which stated

in relevant part:

[The Castros] have not presented new evidence or arguments

that could not have been presented during the adjudicated

motion, e.g., [U.S. Bank's] motion for summary judgment,

filed on August 22, 2014, to which [the Castros] did not

file an opposition . . . .

(Letter case altered.) On September 4, 2018, the Circuit Court

entered the Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration. 

On appeal, the Castros raise eleven points of error,

many of which are difficult to discern and appear to overlap, and

all of which appear to challenge the foreclosure, as if the

Castros had appealed from the Judgment. See Nationstar Mortgage

LLC v. Akepa Properties LLC, No. CAAP-15-0000407, 2017 WL

1401468, at *2 (Haw. App. Apr. 19, 2017) (SDO) ("[Appellant]

makes little effort to address the requirements under [HRCP] Rule

60(b), but instead argues as if it had appealed from the

Foreclosure Judgment."). The Castros' sole discernible

contention related to the Post-Judgment Orders appears to be that

U.S. Bank lacked standing to bring the foreclosure action, which

the Castros assert deprived the Circuit Court of subject matter

jurisdiction. Relying on Bank of Am. N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo, 139

Hawai#i 361, 370, 390 P.3d 1248, 1257 (2017), the Castros

seemingly argue that U.S. Bank failed to show it had standing to

enforce the note and mortgage at the commencement of the

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

foreclosure action, and the Judgment was therefore "void." The

Castros do not specifically invoke HRCP Rule 60(b)(4) in making

this argument, but that appears to have been the basis for their

related argument in the Circuit Court.5/ 

We review a circuit court's decision on an HRCP Rule

60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. PennyMac Corp. v. Godinez,

148 Hawai#i 323, 327, 474 P.3d 264, 268 (2020). However, "[t]he

determination of whether a judgment is void [under HRCP Rule

60(b)(4)] is not a discretionary issue. It has been noted that a

judgment is void only if the court that rendered it lacked

jurisdiction of either the subject matter or the parties or

otherwise acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of

law." In re Hawaiian Elec. Co., 149 Hawai#i 343, 362, 489 P.3d

1255, 1274 (2021) (quoting International Sav. & Loan Ass'n v.

Carbonel, 93 Hawai#i 464, 473, 5 P.3d 454, 463 (App. 2000)).

The Circuit Court did not err in denying the Castros'

Motion for Relief from Judgment. Under Hawai#i law, standing is

not an issue of subject matter jurisdiction. Tax Found. of

Hawai#i v. State, 144 Hawai#i 175, 192, 439 P.3d 127, 144 (2019). 

The Castros make no other discernible argument challenging the

Circuit Court's subject matter jurisdiction, and they do not

contend that the Circuit Court lacked personal jurisdiction over

them. Similarly, the Castros make no discernible argument that

the Circuit Court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process

of law.6/ Accordingly, the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to

enter the Judgment, and it was not void under HRCP Rule

5/ Although the Motion for Relief from Judgment also cited HRCP Rule

60(b)(3), this ground was precluded by the rule itself, because the motion was

brought "more than one year after the [J]udgment . . . was entered . . . ." 

HRCP Rule 60(b).

6/ The Castros assert generally that U.S. Bank "[took] action in

violation of due process," but made no discernible argument below and offer

none on appeal as to how they were deprived of due process. See Citicorp

Mortgage Inc. v. Bartolome, 94 Hawai#i 422, 433, 16 P.3d 827, 838 (App. 2000)

("An appellate court does not have to address matters for which the appellant

has failed to present discernible argument."); Hawai#i Rules of Appellate

Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(7); see also Ito v. Investors Equity Life Holding

Co., 135 Hawai#i 49, 74, 346 P.3d 118, 143 (2015) ("Where an appellant makes

general assertions of a due process violation, without further elaboration or

citation to authority, the court cannot reach a reasoned conclusion, and the

due process argument is deemed waived." (citing Cty. of Hawaii v. C & J Coupe

Family Ltd. P'ship, 119 Hawai#i 352, 373, 198 P.3d 615, 636 (2008))).

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

60(b)(4).7/ Because the Judgment was not void, the Circuit Court

did not err in denying the Castros' motion to set it aside.

The Castros do not argue any error unique to the Order

Denying Motion for Reconsideration.

For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the

following orders entered by the Circuit Court of the First

Circuit: (1) the June 28, 2018 "Order Denying [the Castros']

Renewed Motion for Relief from Judgment Filed May 3, 2018"; and

(2) the September 4, 2018 "Order Denying [the Castros'] Motion

for Reconsideration Filed on June 18, 2018."

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 21, 2022.

On the briefs:

Milagros Leano Castro and

Benny F. Castro,

Self-represented DefendantsAppellants.

Edmund K. Saffery and

Deirdre Marie-Iha

(Goodsill Anderson Quinn &

Stifel)

for Plaintiff-Appellee.

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Presiding Judge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Associate Judge

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen

Associate Judge

7/ The Castros did not argue below — or on appeal — that relief was

warranted under HRCP Rule 60(b)(6). The issue is thus deemed waived. See

Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Wailea Elua v. Wailea Resort Co., Ltd, 100

Hawai#i 97, 107, 58 P.3d 608, 618 (2002) (arguments not raised in the trial

court are ordinarily deemed waived on appeal); HRAP Rule 28(b)(7).

5