1 Oak Ventures Step Fund LLC v. Christiansen

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 16, 2025
• Docket: CAAP-22-0000347
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 16-MAY-2025 08:03 AM Dkt. 48 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

1 OAK VENTURES STEP FUND LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRETT CHRISTIANSEN, Defendant-Appellant, ARGENT MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC; U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CMLTI ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-AMC3; DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION–STATE OF HAWAIʻI; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA–DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY– INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendants-Appellees, JOHN DOES 1-20; JANE DOES 1-20; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-20; DOE ENTITIES 1-20; AND DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-20, Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 2CCV-20-000090)

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

Defendant-Appellant Brett Christiansen appeals from

the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit's April 19, 2022

"Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Granting

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Against All Defendants

and for Interlocutory Decree of Foreclosure" (Order) and

April 19, 2022 Judgment. 1

1 The Honorable Peter T. Cahill presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Christiansen challenges the circuit court's grant of

summary judgment allowing Plaintiff-Appellee 1 Oak Ventures Step

Fund LLC to foreclose on a mortgage (Mortgage) made by original

lender Argent Mortgage Company. 2

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

2 Christiansen also challenges Finding of Fact (FOF) 13 and Conclusions of Law (COL) 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10:

[FOF] 13. By reason of said default, Plaintiff is entitled to foreclose upon the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions provided in the Loan Documents.

. . . .

[COL] 4. Plaintiff is the holder of the Note and is entitled to enforce the Note. Plaintiff qualifies as the Note holder as it has possession of the Note, indorsed in blank, converting the Note to a bearer instrument.

[COL] 5. Plaintiff is currently in rightful possession of the indorsed Note and has standing to prosecute the instant action.

[COL] 7. An assignment of the Note itself operates as a matter of law as an assignment of the mortgage and of the mortgagee's powers under it. . . .

[COL] 8. Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the Mortgage as the Mortgage follows the Note. . . .

[COL] 10. Plaintiff is entitled to the entry of summary judgment and an interlocutory decree of foreclosure against all Defendants in the foreclosure action, on the grounds that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment and an interlocutory decree of foreclosure as a matter of law.

These challenges are premised on the arguments Christiansen advances below. Thus, for the reasons discussed below, FOF 13 was not clearly erroneous and the challenged COL were not wrong. 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve the

points of error as discussed below and affirm.

(1) Christiansen contends the circuit court erred in

granting summary judgment because 1 Oak failed to establish

standing to foreclose as it had "not shown how and when it

acquired the mortgage[.]"

Appellee 1 Oak did not dispute that it lacked a valid

assignment of the Mortgage. Instead, it claimed standing to

foreclose based on possession of the Note indorsed in blank.

When indorsed in blank, a note becomes payable to the

bearer and may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone.

Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 490:3-205(b) (2008). Appellee 1 Oak

was not required to show a valid assignment of the Mortgage

because once it established possession of the Note, the Mortgage

automatically transferred with the debt it secured. See Bank of

Am., N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo, 139 Hawai‘i 361, 371 n.17, 390 P.3d

1248, 1258 n.17 (2017) (recognizing "the security follows the

debt," but "the debt does not automatically follow the

security").

Appellee 1 Oak was not required to show when it

acquired the Note because to have standing to foreclose, 1 Oak

needed to establish possession of the Note at the time of filing

of the complaint, which it did. See id. at 370–71, 390 P.3d at

1257–58 (explaining that foreclosing lender who established

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

possession of blank indorsed Note at time of moving for summary

judgment but not at time of filing complaint was not entitled to

summary judgment). Sean M. Lloyd of FCI Lender Services, Inc.

(FCI), servicer for 1 Oak, attested counsel had possession of

the Note as of March 31, 2020, the date the complaint was filed,

and its Bailee Letter showed that counsel's office received the

original Note sent by FCI on January 7, 2020. Appellee 1 Oak

attached a copy of the Note and the Bailee Letter to its summary

judgment motion.

Because 1 Oak established it had possession of the

Note at the time the complaint was filed, it had standing to

foreclose.

(2) Christiansen also contends the circuit court

erred in granting summary judgment because the Note and Mortgage

were inadmissible evidence.

The original Note and Mortgage are self-authenticating

documents and not hearsay. See Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence

Rule 902(2), (9); U.S. Bank Tr., N.A. as Tr. for LSF9 Master

Participation Tr. v. Verhagen, 149 Hawai‘i 315, 323, 489 P.3d

419, 427 (2021). Copies of the Note and Mortgage were

admissible if they were properly authenticated by extrinsic

evidence. See Verhagen, 149 Hawai‘i at 325, 489 P.3d at 429.

Appellee 1 Oak properly authenticated the copies of

the Note and Mortgage submitted with its motion for summary

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

judgment. Robin Miller, counsel for 1 Oak, attested a true and

correct copy of the original Note TMLF Hawaii LLLC possessed was

attached to the motion for summary judgment. Miller also

attested a certified copy of the Mortgage recorded in the Bureau

of Conveyances of the State of Hawai‘i was attached to the

motion. In addition, Lloyd attested the copy of the Note

attached to the motion for summary judgment was a true and

correct copy of the original Note FCI sent to counsel.

Christiansen introduced no evidence to suggest the

copies of the Note and Mortgage submitted with the motion for

summary judgment were not accurate duplicates of the original

Note held by counsel and the original Mortgage recorded in the

Bureau of Conveyances.

Thus, the copies of the Note and Mortgage were

admissible as evidence.

Based on the forgoing, we affirm the circuit court's

April 19, 2022 Order and Judgment.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, May 16, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Presiding Judge Keith M. Kiuchi, for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge Charles R. Prather, for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Associate Judge