NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 27-NOV-2024 08:24 AM Dkt. 213 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE OF RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURITIZATION TRUST 2006-A8, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-H UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED JUNE 1, 2006, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL C. GREENSPON, Defendant-Appellant, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.
MICHAEL C. GREENSPON, Counterclaim and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE OF RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURITIZATION TRUST 2006-A8, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-H UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED JUNE 1, 2006, Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, and OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC; DAVID B. ROSEN, ESQ.; THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID B. ROSEN, ALC, Third-Party Defendants-Appellees.
MICHAEL C. GREENSPON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ONEWEST BANK, N.A.; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY; DAVID B. ROSEN, ESQ.; THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID B. ROSEN, ALC, Defendants-Appellees, and DOES 10-50, Defendants.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT (CASE NOS. 2CC141000395(2) AND 2CC141000560(2)) NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.)
Self-represented Plaintiff/Defendant/Counterclaimant/
Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant Michael C. Greenspon appeals
from the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit's 1 June 10, 2020
Final Judgment, July 7, 2020 order denying Greenspon's motion
for partial reconsideration, and 35 other circuit court
decisions.
In March 2003, Greenspon obtained a $650,000.00
mortgage loan for a property in Ha‘ikū, Maui (the Ha‘ikū
Property). In May 2006, Greenspon modified the loan, increasing
the principal amount to $800,000.00. In November 2008,
Greenspon was sent a notice stating that his loan was "in
serious default" and that he must pay $27,664.44 on or before
December 6, 2008 to cure the default.
In February 2010, the Ha‘ikū Property was sold at a
public non-judicial foreclosure auction to Defendant/Plaintiff/
Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company, as Trustee. 2
1 The Honorable Peter T. Cahill presided.
2 Greenspon participated in various other trial and appellate cases in state and federal court against other parties involved in the non-judicial foreclosure of the Ha‘ikū Property. These cases include, without limitation: 1CC111000194 (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX); 2CC171000090 (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX & CAAP-20- 0000442); 2CC141000379 (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX); 2CC191000092 (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX); and Civil No. 19-00516 JAO-KJM.
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
After years of litigation, in October 2019, the
circuit court compelled discovery, ordering Greenspon to allow
the parties to inspect the Ha‘ikū Property and submit to a
deposition. The circuit court also verbally admonished
Greenspon for his behavior. The following month, the circuit
court compelled Greenspon to respond to discovery requests,
which focused on Greenspon's use of the Ha‘ikū Property as a
short-term vacation rental through Airbnb.
In March 2020, the circuit court approved and entered
a stipulated order dismissing all claims by and against
Greenspon, Deutsche Bank, and Third-Party Defendant-Appellee
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC following Hawai‘i Rules of Civil
Procedure (HRCP) Rule 41(a)(1)(B).
In May 2020, as a sanction for discovery violations
under HRCP Rule 37, the circuit court dismissed with prejudice
"all of Mr. Greenspon's allegations and claims brought in these
consolidated actions against" Defendants/Third-Party Defendants-
Appellees David B. Rosen, Esq. and The Law Office of David B.
Rosen (together, Rosen Parties) and Defendant-Appellee CIT Bank
N.A., f.k.a. Onewest Bank N.A., f.k.a. Onewest Bank, FSB.
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
On appeal in this case, Greenspon raises six points of
error 3 challenging the circuit court's dismissal of the
underlying case(s) and various decisions related to motions for
summary judgment.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve this
appeal as discussed below, and affirm.
3 In his points of error (POE), Greenspon contends the circuit court erred:
1. "in its failure to grant [his] MPSJ finding that the September, 2011 settlement agreement with the FDIC is a valid contract and to hold CIT and Rosen liable for tortious interference";
2. "in its failure to grant [his] MPSJ and to find that CIT and Rosen's 2010 auction sale on an admittedly unpublished date was unlawful";
3. in "its failure to grant summary judgment for [him] as to any elements of his claims of Appellees' 1) FDCPA and 2) HRS § 480D violations, and 3) abuse of process";
4. "by granting [Deutsche Bank and Ocwen's] MSJ and dismissing [his] claims of forgery, fraud, and intentional/reckless misrepresentation";
5. "by granting [Deutsche Bank and Ocwen's] MSJ and dismissing [his] claims of conversion"; and
6. "by capriciously dismissing [his] whole case on the eve of trial as to Appellees Rosen and CIT as a disproportional and unjustified Rule 37 sanction based on fallacious made-up and conclusory findings and erroneous and prejudicial conclusions, and by failing to reconsider its erroneous dismissal order and vacate its unjust award of fees."
(Formatting altered.)
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Our review of Greenspon's challenge to the circuit
court's dismissal of these consolidated cases is dispositive. 4
Greenspon argues there was no prejudice regarding the inspection
of the Ha‘ikū Property and discovery requests, and appears to
minimize his behavior throughout the proceedings.
Under HRCP Rule 37(b)(2), if "a party fails to obey an
order to provide or permit discovery" the circuit court may make
orders "as are just" including "dismissing the action[.]" HRCP
Rule 37(b)(2)(C). We review an HRCP Rule 37(b)(2) dismissal for
an abuse of discretion. Aloha Unlimited, Inc. v. Coughlin, 79
Hawai‘i 527, 532-33, 904 P.2d 541, 546-47 (App. 1995).
Here, the circuit court made extensive findings
regarding Greenspon's conduct, and Greenspon has not shown those
findings were clearly erroneous. The circuit court's findings
and the record in this case provide sufficient evidence to
support the circuit court's sanction of dismissal. See
Greenspon v. Deutsche Bank, 154 Hawai‘i 292, 550 P.3d 258, CAAP-
XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2024 WL 2874544 at *4, *6-7
(App. June 7, 2024) (SDO) (explaining the "extensive findings
regarding Greenspon's contumacious conduct with respect to,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 27-NOV-2024 08:24 AM Dkt. 213 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE OF RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURITIZATION TRUST 2006-A8, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-H UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED JUNE 1, 2006, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL C. GREENSPON, Defendant-Appellant, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.
MICHAEL C. GREENSPON, Counterclaim and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE OF RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURITIZATION TRUST 2006-A8, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-H UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED JUNE 1, 2006, Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, and OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC; DAVID B. ROSEN, ESQ.; THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID B. ROSEN, ALC, Third-Party Defendants-Appellees.
MICHAEL C. GREENSPON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ONEWEST BANK, N.A.; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY; DAVID B. ROSEN, ESQ.; THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID B. ROSEN, ALC, Defendants-Appellees, and DOES 10-50, Defendants.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT (CASE NOS. 2CC141000395(2) AND 2CC141000560(2)) NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.)
Self-represented Plaintiff/Defendant/Counterclaimant/
Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant Michael C. Greenspon appeals
from the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit's 1 June 10, 2020
Final Judgment, July 7, 2020 order denying Greenspon's motion
for partial reconsideration, and 35 other circuit court
decisions.
In March 2003, Greenspon obtained a $650,000.00
mortgage loan for a property in Ha‘ikū, Maui (the Ha‘ikū
Property). In May 2006, Greenspon modified the loan, increasing
the principal amount to $800,000.00. In November 2008,
Greenspon was sent a notice stating that his loan was "in
serious default" and that he must pay $27,664.44 on or before
December 6, 2008 to cure the default.
In February 2010, the Ha‘ikū Property was sold at a
public non-judicial foreclosure auction to Defendant/Plaintiff/
Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company, as Trustee. 2
1 The Honorable Peter T. Cahill presided.
2 Greenspon participated in various other trial and appellate cases in state and federal court against other parties involved in the non-judicial foreclosure of the Ha‘ikū Property. These cases include, without limitation: 1CC111000194 (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX); 2CC171000090 (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX & CAAP-20- 0000442); 2CC141000379 (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX); 2CC191000092 (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX); and Civil No. 19-00516 JAO-KJM.
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
After years of litigation, in October 2019, the
circuit court compelled discovery, ordering Greenspon to allow
the parties to inspect the Ha‘ikū Property and submit to a
deposition. The circuit court also verbally admonished
Greenspon for his behavior. The following month, the circuit
court compelled Greenspon to respond to discovery requests,
which focused on Greenspon's use of the Ha‘ikū Property as a
short-term vacation rental through Airbnb.
In March 2020, the circuit court approved and entered
a stipulated order dismissing all claims by and against
Greenspon, Deutsche Bank, and Third-Party Defendant-Appellee
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC following Hawai‘i Rules of Civil
Procedure (HRCP) Rule 41(a)(1)(B).
In May 2020, as a sanction for discovery violations
under HRCP Rule 37, the circuit court dismissed with prejudice
"all of Mr. Greenspon's allegations and claims brought in these
consolidated actions against" Defendants/Third-Party Defendants-
Appellees David B. Rosen, Esq. and The Law Office of David B.
Rosen (together, Rosen Parties) and Defendant-Appellee CIT Bank
N.A., f.k.a. Onewest Bank N.A., f.k.a. Onewest Bank, FSB.
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
On appeal in this case, Greenspon raises six points of
error 3 challenging the circuit court's dismissal of the
underlying case(s) and various decisions related to motions for
summary judgment.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve this
appeal as discussed below, and affirm.
3 In his points of error (POE), Greenspon contends the circuit court erred:
1. "in its failure to grant [his] MPSJ finding that the September, 2011 settlement agreement with the FDIC is a valid contract and to hold CIT and Rosen liable for tortious interference";
2. "in its failure to grant [his] MPSJ and to find that CIT and Rosen's 2010 auction sale on an admittedly unpublished date was unlawful";
3. in "its failure to grant summary judgment for [him] as to any elements of his claims of Appellees' 1) FDCPA and 2) HRS § 480D violations, and 3) abuse of process";
4. "by granting [Deutsche Bank and Ocwen's] MSJ and dismissing [his] claims of forgery, fraud, and intentional/reckless misrepresentation";
5. "by granting [Deutsche Bank and Ocwen's] MSJ and dismissing [his] claims of conversion"; and
6. "by capriciously dismissing [his] whole case on the eve of trial as to Appellees Rosen and CIT as a disproportional and unjustified Rule 37 sanction based on fallacious made-up and conclusory findings and erroneous and prejudicial conclusions, and by failing to reconsider its erroneous dismissal order and vacate its unjust award of fees."
(Formatting altered.)
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Our review of Greenspon's challenge to the circuit
court's dismissal of these consolidated cases is dispositive. 4
Greenspon argues there was no prejudice regarding the inspection
of the Ha‘ikū Property and discovery requests, and appears to
minimize his behavior throughout the proceedings.
Under HRCP Rule 37(b)(2), if "a party fails to obey an
order to provide or permit discovery" the circuit court may make
orders "as are just" including "dismissing the action[.]" HRCP
Rule 37(b)(2)(C). We review an HRCP Rule 37(b)(2) dismissal for
an abuse of discretion. Aloha Unlimited, Inc. v. Coughlin, 79
Hawai‘i 527, 532-33, 904 P.2d 541, 546-47 (App. 1995).
Here, the circuit court made extensive findings
regarding Greenspon's conduct, and Greenspon has not shown those
findings were clearly erroneous. The circuit court's findings
and the record in this case provide sufficient evidence to
support the circuit court's sanction of dismissal. See
Greenspon v. Deutsche Bank, 154 Hawai‘i 292, 550 P.3d 258, CAAP-
XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2024 WL 2874544 at *4, *6-7
(App. June 7, 2024) (SDO) (explaining the "extensive findings
regarding Greenspon's contumacious conduct with respect to,
4 We need not address POE 1-3 regarding denial of Greenspon's partial motions for summary judgment on various claims against CIT and Rosen parties where the sanctions order at issue in POE 6 dismissed all claims.
We also need not address POE 4 and 5 because these claims are not within the scope of this appeal as they were dismissed by stipulation.
5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
inter alia, the site inspection of the Ha‘ikū property, and
opposing counsel's attempts to depose him") (footnote omitted);
Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai‘i 368, 390, 465 P.3d 815, 837 (2020);
W.H. Shipman, Ltd. v. Hawaiian Holiday Macadamia Nut Co., 8 Haw.
App. 354, 362, 802 P.2d 1203, 1207 (1990). As such, the circuit
court did not abuse its discretion.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit
court's June 10, 2020 Final Judgment and July 7, 2020 order
denying Greenspon's motion for partial reconsideration.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, November 27, 2024.
On the briefs: /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Presiding Judge Michael C. Greenspon, Plaintiff/Defendant/ /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Counterclaimant/ Third-Party Associate Judge Plaintiff-Appellant, pro se. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Judy A. Tanaka, Associate Judge Jenny J.N.A. Nakamoto, (Dentons), for Defendant-Appellee.