Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Aiwohi

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 27, 2026
• Docket: CAAP-24-0000046
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 27-APR-2026 07:54 AM Dkt. 52 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT RELATING TO IMPAC SECURED ASSETS CORP., MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-2, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LORRIN J. AIWOHI, Defendant-Appellant, and ASSOCIATION OF UNIT OWNERS OF ARRUDA ESTATES I, Defendant-Appellee, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendant

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT (CIVIL NO. 5CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.) Defendant-Appellant Lorrin J. Aiwohi (Aiwohi) appeals

from the January 5, 2024 Judgment entered against Aiwohi and in

favor of Plaintiff-Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company,

as Trustee under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement Relating to

Impac Secured Assets Corp., Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,

Series 2007-2 (Deutsche Bank), by the Circuit Court of the Fifth

Circuit (Circuit Court).1 Aiwohi also challenges the Circuit

Court's January 5, 2024 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law;

Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and for

Interlocutory Decree of Foreclosure (Foreclosure Decree).

1 The Honorable Randal G.B. Valenciano presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Aiwohi raises two points of error on appeal, contending

that the Circuit Court erred in entering the Foreclosure Decree

because: (1) foreclosure was precluded by the six-year statute

of limitations set forth in Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)

§ 490:3-118(a) (2008); and (2) there was a genuine issue of

material fact with respect to whether the subject mortgage

(Mortgage) encumbered Aiwohi's Kawaihau Road property in Kapa a

(Subject Property).

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve Aiwohi's

points of error as follows:

(1) Aiwohi argues that the statute of limitations

applicable to mortgage foreclosure actions is six years and that

case law to the contrary should be overturned. The Hawai i

Supreme Court recently rejected this argument in Bank of New York

Mellon v. White, 156 Hawai i 246, 573 P.3d 629 (2025). In White,

the supreme court held that "the statute of limitations for

mortgage foreclosure actions is twenty years per HRS § 657-31."

Id. at 250, 573 P.3d at 633. Thus, we conclude that Aiwohi's

first point of error is without merit.

(2) Aiwohi argues that there is a genuine issue of

material fact concerning whether the foreclosed Mortgage was

secured by the Subject Property because the Mortgage includes

reference to a street address that is different than the current

address of the Property. However, with its motion for summary

judgment, Deutsche Bank offered evidence that the subject note

signed by Aiwohi was secured by the Mortgage, which encumbered

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

the Subject Property by reference to the Legal Description

attached to the Mortgage as Exhibit A, as well as by reference to

a tax map key (TMK) number, albeit with added language "which

currently [(in 2007)] has the address of" a Kawaihau Road street

number that was different than Aiwohi's Kawaihau Road street

number at the time of foreclosure. In addition, Deutsche Bank

submitted a 2012 Loan Modification Agreement signed by Aiwohi,

which amended and supplemented the original note and Mortgage,

and which referenced the correct address of the Subject Property.

In response to the summary judgment motion, Aiwohi

submitted no evidence tending to show that the Mortgage was not

intended to encumber the Subject Property. Aiwohi did not

dispute that the referenced TMK number corresponds to the Subject

Property or that the legal description was controlling. Nor does

Aiwohi argue on appeal that the Mortgage was not intended to

encumber the Subject Property. Rather, Aiwohi argues that

Deutsche Bank failed to meet its prima facie burden of accurately

identifying the Subject Property as the property secured by the

Mortgage.

We conclude that this argument is without merit. See

Nozawa v. Operating Eng'rs Local Union No. 3, 142 Hawai i 331, 342, 418 P.3d 1187, 1198 (2018) ("Once a summary judgment movant

has satisfied its initial burden of producing support for its

claim that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the party

opposing summary judgment must 'demonstrate specific facts, as

opposed to general allegations, that present a genuine issue

worthy of trial.'" (brackets omitted) (quoting Lales v. Wholesale

Motors Co., 133 Hawai i 332, 359, 328 P.3d 341, 368 (2014))).

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

Deutsche Bank met its initial burden here. Aiwohi did not

demonstrate specific facts, as opposed to mere allegations, that

presented a genuine issue worthy of trial. Accord E*Trade Bank

v. Gibson, CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX & CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2022 WL 17850138,

*8 (Haw. App. Dec. 22, 2022) (mem. op.) (rejecting a similar

argument based on a discrepancy in the foreclosed property's

street address).

For these reasons, the Circuit Court's January 5, 2024

Foreclosure Decree and Judgment are affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, April 27, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Presiding Judge Frederick J. Arensmeyer, (Law Office of Frederick J. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Arensmeyer, LLLC), Associate Judge for Defendant-Appellant /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Patricia J. McHenry, Associate Judge Lisa K. Swartzfager, (Cades Schutte, a Limited Liability Law Partnership), for Plaintiff-Appellee