U.S. National Bank Association v. Galang

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-21-0000544 11-FEB-2022 07:56 AM Dkt. 43 OGMD NO. CAAP-21-0000544 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 TRUSTEE, SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR STRUCTURED ASSET INVESTMENT LOAN TRUST MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-11 Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARTHUR EMIL GALANG; NORIVIC V. GALANG; NORMA PASCUAL RODIL, Defendants-Appellants, and LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR LEHMAN BROTHERSSTRUCTURED ASSET INVESTMENT LOAN TRUST SALE 2004-11, Defendant-Appellee, and JOHN DOES 1-50; JOHN DOES 1-50; JANE DOES 1-50; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-50, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-50; DOE ENTITIES 1-50, AND DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-50, DefendantsAppellees APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CIVIL NO. 1CC151001045) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL Ginoza, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.) Upon consideration of the Motion to Dismiss Appeal (Motion to Dismiss), filed by Plaintiff-Appellee U.S. Bank (By: National Association (Appellee) on December 1, 2021, the papers in support, and the record, it appears that this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal by self-represented DefendantsAppellants Arthur Emil Galang, Norivic V. Galang, and Norma Pascual Rodil (Rodil) (collectively, Appellants) from Civil No. 1CC151001045. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER The Circuit Court of the First Circuit's (circuit court) February 22, 2020 "Judgment on Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Granting [Appellee]'s Motion for Summary Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure Against All [Appellants] on Complaint Filed May 29, 2015 [(Order Granting MSJ)]" (Judgment) is final and appealable. See Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai#i 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994); Ditto v. McCurdy, 103 Hawai#i 153, 157, 80 P.3d 974, 978 (2003); Ueoka v Szymanski, 107 Hawai#i 386, 396, 114 P.3d 892, 902 (2005). However, Appellants failed to file their October 6, 2021 notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the Judgment, as required by Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 4(a)(1). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal from the Judgment. See Grattafiori v. State, 79 Hawai#i 10, 13, 897 P.2d 937, 940 (1995).1 To the extent Appellants appeal from the circuit court's February 22, 2020 Order Granting MSJ, the Order Granting MSJ is not independently appealable under the Forgay doctrine, the collateral-order doctrine, or Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 641-1(b) (2016). See Greer v. Baker, 137 Hawai#i 249, 253, 369 P.3d 832, 836 (2016); HRS § 641-1(b). Further, again, the October 6, 2021 notice of appeal would be untimely even if such order could be appealed. To the extent Appellants appeal from a proposed order or judgment, these are not final and, therefore, not appealable. See HRS § 641-1(a) (2016). Moreover, the appealed September 13, 2021 Amended Certificate of Service for the Order Granting MSJ is not appealable because it is not a final judgment, order, or decree. See HRS § 641-1(a). The appealed January 8, 2020 oral order striking Appellants' opposition to Appellee's motion for summary judgment is not appealable because it is not written. See KNG Corp. v. 1 Appellant Arthur Emil Galang previously appealed from the Judgment in CAAP-20-0000176, but that appeal was dismissed because he failed to file an opening brief. 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Kim, 107 Hawai#i 73, 77, 110 P.3d 397, 401 (2005); HRAP Rule 4(a)(1). And the "Order Denying Motion to Set Aside Default and to Appoint Counsel" is not independently appealable under the Forgay doctrine, the collateral-order doctrine, or HRS § 6411(b). See Greer, 137 Hawai#i at 253, 369 P.3d at 836; HRS § 6411(b). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are dismissed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 11, 2022. /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Associate Judge 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.