NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 01-JUL-2026 08:01 AM Dkt. 68 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR ARGENT SECURITIES INC. ASSET-BACK PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-M1, UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED JUNE 1, 2006, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOREEN DIRECTO TROXEL; Defendant-Appellant, and MORTGAGE ENTERPRISE INVESTMENTS, Defendant-Appellee; and JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES 1-10 and DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-10, Defendants.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 1CC171001941)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Loreen Directo Troxel appeals from
the Circuit Court of the First Circuit's May 14, 2024 "Findings
of Fact [(FOF)], Conclusions of Law [(COL)] and Order Granting
[Plaintiff-Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as
Trustee for Argent Securities Inc. 2006-M1, Asset-Back Pass-
Through Certificates, Series 2006-M1, Under the Pooling and NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Servicing Agreement Dated June 1, 2006]'s Motion for Default
Judgment and Summary Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure Against
All Defendants on Complaint Filed November 28, 2017" (Summary
Judgment Order) and Judgment. 1 (Formatting altered.)
On appeal, Troxel challenges the granting of summary
judgment and, to that end, FOF 10 and 11 and COL 2 and 3.
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.
(1) Troxel contends the circuit court erred by
granting summary judgment, because "Deutsche Bank failed to
prove . . . that it had standing by proving, through documentary
evidence, that it had possession of the Note on the date it
filed the Complaint." (Formatting altered.)
We review the grant or denial of summary judgment de
novo. Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Kanahele, 144 Hawaiʻi 394, 401,
443 P.3d 86, 93 (2019).
To establish standing to foreclose, a plaintiff must
demonstrate "entitlement to enforce the note at the time the
action was commenced." Bank of America, N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo,
139 Hawaiʻi 361, 368, 390 P.3d 1248, 1255 (2017). When a note is
1The Honorable James H. Ashford entered the May 14, 2024 Summary Judgment Order and Judgment. The Honorable Jeannette H. Castagnetti presided over the hearing on Deutsche Bank's Motion for Default Judgment and Summary Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure.
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
indorsed in blank, it "becomes payable to the bearer and may be
negotiated by transfer or possession alone." Id. at 370, 390
P.3d at 1257 (citing Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 490:3-205(b)
(2008)). Thus, a plaintiff seeking to foreclose on a mortgage
secured by a blank-indorsed note must establish it held the note
at the time it filed the complaint. Id.
Here, Deutsche Bank provided business records from
Clay Iwamura Pulice & Nervell (Clay Iwamura), which was in
possession of the Note as Deutsche Bank's bailee. The business
records included a copy of Clay Iwamura's "Special Courier
Services Form" purporting to show that the Note was received by
Clay Iwamura on February 13, 2017, and screenshots of the firm's
Perfect Practice software purporting to confirm that date.
Deutsche Bank also provided a declaration of Sarah
Aila, a paralegal of ten years at Clay Iwamura. Aila declared
that, based on her review of and familiarity with Clay Iwamura's
records and record-keeping practices, Clay Iwamura received the
collateral file containing the original wet-ink Note on
February 13, 2017. Aila also stated that she personally logged
and confirmed the Note was placed in Clay Iwamura's vault the
following day, which was about nine months before the Complaint
was filed. The receipt of the Note was corroborated by the
"Special Courier Services Form" and Perfect Practice screenshots
showing possession of the Note from February 13, 2017.
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Aila further declared that the Note never left Clay
Iwamura's possession and that she personally inspected the Note
on November 9, 2023, which was about five years after the
Complaint was filed. Aila stated that the "original Note
matches exactly the copy of the Note filed as Exhibit 2 attached
to" Deutsche Bank's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Thus, Aila showed that she had direct, personal
knowledge that the original Note was in Clay Iwamura's
possession when the Complaint was filed. See Reyes-Toledo, 139
Hawaiʻi at 370, 390 P.3d at 1257.
Troxel further argues that an alleged inconsistency in
dates supports her contention that Deutsche Bank cannot prove
possession of the Note at the time of the filing of the
Complaint. Troxel asserts that the "Special Courier Services
Form" indicated that the package containing the original wet-ink
Note was logged on February 16, 2017, three days after it was
logged in the electronic system as received on February 13,
2017. 2
Troxel's argument is unavailing, because review of the
"Special Courier Services Form" shows that the package, UPS
No. 1Z 38E 65Y 02 9783 5153, was received on February 13, 2017.
2 Even if there were a dispute as to whether the Note had been received on February 13 or February 16, 2017, the issue would not be material because Troxel points to no fact in evidence that the Note subsequently left the bailee's possession prior to when Deutsche Bank filed its Complaint nine months later.
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
And the screenshots of Clay Iwamura's case management software,
Perfect Practice, show that the package was the "collateral
file," which contained the original wet-ink Note, Mortgage, and
Bailee Letter, as confirmed by Aila's declaration.
Thus, Deutsche Bank carried its burden of showing it
was in possession of the Note at the relevant time. The burden
then shifted to Troxel to point to specific facts in evidence
showing that the challenged fact was material and in genuine
dispute. See U.S. Bank N.A. v. Mattos, 140 Hawaiʻi 26, 30, 398
P.3d 615, 619 (2017) (quoting French v. Hawaii Pizza Hut, Inc.,
105 Hawaiʻi 462, 470, 99 P.3d 1046, 1054 (2004)). Troxel points
to no such facts. See id.
Accordingly, the circuit court did not err by granting
Deutsche Bank's Motion for Summary Judgment.
(2) Troxel also contends the circuit court erred by
granting Deutsche Bank's Motion for Summary Judgment, because
Deutsche Bank could not prove it provided Troxel the Notice of
Default prior to filing its Complaint.
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 01-JUL-2026 08:01 AM Dkt. 68 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR ARGENT SECURITIES INC. ASSET-BACK PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-M1, UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED JUNE 1, 2006, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOREEN DIRECTO TROXEL; Defendant-Appellant, and MORTGAGE ENTERPRISE INVESTMENTS, Defendant-Appellee; and JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES 1-10 and DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-10, Defendants.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 1CC171001941)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Loreen Directo Troxel appeals from
the Circuit Court of the First Circuit's May 14, 2024 "Findings
of Fact [(FOF)], Conclusions of Law [(COL)] and Order Granting
[Plaintiff-Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as
Trustee for Argent Securities Inc. 2006-M1, Asset-Back Pass-
Through Certificates, Series 2006-M1, Under the Pooling and NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Servicing Agreement Dated June 1, 2006]'s Motion for Default
Judgment and Summary Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure Against
All Defendants on Complaint Filed November 28, 2017" (Summary
Judgment Order) and Judgment. 1 (Formatting altered.)
On appeal, Troxel challenges the granting of summary
judgment and, to that end, FOF 10 and 11 and COL 2 and 3.
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.
(1) Troxel contends the circuit court erred by
granting summary judgment, because "Deutsche Bank failed to
prove . . . that it had standing by proving, through documentary
evidence, that it had possession of the Note on the date it
filed the Complaint." (Formatting altered.)
We review the grant or denial of summary judgment de
novo. Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Kanahele, 144 Hawaiʻi 394, 401,
443 P.3d 86, 93 (2019).
To establish standing to foreclose, a plaintiff must
demonstrate "entitlement to enforce the note at the time the
action was commenced." Bank of America, N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo,
139 Hawaiʻi 361, 368, 390 P.3d 1248, 1255 (2017). When a note is
1The Honorable James H. Ashford entered the May 14, 2024 Summary Judgment Order and Judgment. The Honorable Jeannette H. Castagnetti presided over the hearing on Deutsche Bank's Motion for Default Judgment and Summary Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure.
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
indorsed in blank, it "becomes payable to the bearer and may be
negotiated by transfer or possession alone." Id. at 370, 390
P.3d at 1257 (citing Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 490:3-205(b)
(2008)). Thus, a plaintiff seeking to foreclose on a mortgage
secured by a blank-indorsed note must establish it held the note
at the time it filed the complaint. Id.
Here, Deutsche Bank provided business records from
Clay Iwamura Pulice & Nervell (Clay Iwamura), which was in
possession of the Note as Deutsche Bank's bailee. The business
records included a copy of Clay Iwamura's "Special Courier
Services Form" purporting to show that the Note was received by
Clay Iwamura on February 13, 2017, and screenshots of the firm's
Perfect Practice software purporting to confirm that date.
Deutsche Bank also provided a declaration of Sarah
Aila, a paralegal of ten years at Clay Iwamura. Aila declared
that, based on her review of and familiarity with Clay Iwamura's
records and record-keeping practices, Clay Iwamura received the
collateral file containing the original wet-ink Note on
February 13, 2017. Aila also stated that she personally logged
and confirmed the Note was placed in Clay Iwamura's vault the
following day, which was about nine months before the Complaint
was filed. The receipt of the Note was corroborated by the
"Special Courier Services Form" and Perfect Practice screenshots
showing possession of the Note from February 13, 2017.
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Aila further declared that the Note never left Clay
Iwamura's possession and that she personally inspected the Note
on November 9, 2023, which was about five years after the
Complaint was filed. Aila stated that the "original Note
matches exactly the copy of the Note filed as Exhibit 2 attached
to" Deutsche Bank's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Thus, Aila showed that she had direct, personal
knowledge that the original Note was in Clay Iwamura's
possession when the Complaint was filed. See Reyes-Toledo, 139
Hawaiʻi at 370, 390 P.3d at 1257.
Troxel further argues that an alleged inconsistency in
dates supports her contention that Deutsche Bank cannot prove
possession of the Note at the time of the filing of the
Complaint. Troxel asserts that the "Special Courier Services
Form" indicated that the package containing the original wet-ink
Note was logged on February 16, 2017, three days after it was
logged in the electronic system as received on February 13,
2017. 2
Troxel's argument is unavailing, because review of the
"Special Courier Services Form" shows that the package, UPS
No. 1Z 38E 65Y 02 9783 5153, was received on February 13, 2017.
2 Even if there were a dispute as to whether the Note had been received on February 13 or February 16, 2017, the issue would not be material because Troxel points to no fact in evidence that the Note subsequently left the bailee's possession prior to when Deutsche Bank filed its Complaint nine months later.
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
And the screenshots of Clay Iwamura's case management software,
Perfect Practice, show that the package was the "collateral
file," which contained the original wet-ink Note, Mortgage, and
Bailee Letter, as confirmed by Aila's declaration.
Thus, Deutsche Bank carried its burden of showing it
was in possession of the Note at the relevant time. The burden
then shifted to Troxel to point to specific facts in evidence
showing that the challenged fact was material and in genuine
dispute. See U.S. Bank N.A. v. Mattos, 140 Hawaiʻi 26, 30, 398
P.3d 615, 619 (2017) (quoting French v. Hawaii Pizza Hut, Inc.,
105 Hawaiʻi 462, 470, 99 P.3d 1046, 1054 (2004)). Troxel points
to no such facts. See id.
Accordingly, the circuit court did not err by granting
Deutsche Bank's Motion for Summary Judgment.
(2) Troxel also contends the circuit court erred by
granting Deutsche Bank's Motion for Summary Judgment, because
Deutsche Bank could not prove it provided Troxel the Notice of
Default prior to filing its Complaint.
To establish entitlement to foreclose, the foreclosing
party must demonstrate (1) the existence of the agreement,
(2) the terms of the agreement, (3) default under the terms of
the agreement, and (4) the giving of requisite notice. Bank of
Honolulu, N.A. v. Anderson, 3 Haw. App. 545, 551, 654 P.2d 1370
1375 (App. 1982).
5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Here, Deutsche Bank supported its Motion for Summary
Judgment with, among other things, a declaration of Juliana
Thurab, Contract Management Coordinator and custodian of records
for PHH Mortgage Corporation, which services Deutsche Bank's
loans, and former custodian of records at Ocwen Loan Servicing
Corporation, Deutsche Bank's prior loan servicer. Deutsche Bank
also provided PHH and Ocwen's records, including a copy of the
Notice of Default, purporting to show that Ocwen sent it to
Troxel on or around October 4, 2016, and screenshots of Ocwen's
comment log and third-party vendor Covius's system-generated
TrackRight log, purporting to confirm mailing on October 5,
2016.
Troxel argues that Deutsche Bank "cannot prove" that
the Notice of Default was mailed to Troxel prior to the filing
of the Complaint, because the Notice of Default was sent by a
third-party vendor, Covius, and "Deutsche Bank presented no
person with the Covius records that would attest to the default
letter being mailed."
Thurab stated in her declaration that "PHH and Ocwen's
records include and incorporate records from Covius documenting
the creation and mailing of correspondence," which were
generated in the regular course of business.
6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Incorporated records are admissible under [Hawaiʻi Rules of Evidence] Rule 803(b)(6) when a custodian or qualified witness testifies that [1] the documents were incorporated and kept in the normal course of business, [2] that the incorporating business typically relies upon the accuracy of the contents of the documents, and [3] the circumstances otherwise indicate the trustworthiness of the document.
U.S. Bank Tr., N.A., as Tr. for LSF9 Master Participation Tr. v.
Verhagen, 149 Hawaiʻi 315, 325-26, 489 P.3d 419, 429-30 (2021)
(some brackets in original) (quoting Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v.
Behrendt, 142 Hawaiʻi 37, 45, 414 P.3d 89, 97 (2018)). "[A]
person is qualified to authenticate it if the person has 'enough
familiarity with the record-keeping system of the business that
"created" the record,' i.e., the receiving or incorporating
business." Id. at 325, 489 P.3d at 429 (quoting Behrendt, 142
Hawaiʻi at 45, 414 P.3d at 97).
Thurab was qualified to authenticate Covius's
screenshots as a custodian of those records. Thurab stated that
Covius's TrackRight log was system-generated and that PHH
validated Covius's correspondence reports daily and relied upon
the records' accuracy. That these records were system-generated
and contemporaneously validated is indicative of their
trustworthiness. See id. at 325-26, 489 P.3d at 429-30.
Thus, Deutsche Bank carried its burden of showing the
Notice of Default was mailed to Troxel by Covius on behalf of
Ocwen on or around October 5, 2016. The burden then shifted to
Troxel to point to specific facts in evidence to show that the
challenged fact was in genuine dispute. See Mattos, 140 Hawaiʻi
7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
at 30, 398 P.3d at 619 (quoting French, 105 Hawaiʻi at 470, 99
P.3d at 1054). Troxel points to no such facts. See id.
(3) Based on Troxel's contention that the circuit
court erred by granting summary judgment, Troxel challenges the
following FOF and COL:
[FOF] 10. Written notice was given to Defendant LOREEN DIRECTO TROXEL of the default and of Plaintiff's intention to accelerate the loan and foreclose the Mortgage if the default was not cured. However, despite said notice, Defendant LOREEN DIRECTO TROXEL failed, refused and neglected to cure the default. Consequently, Plaintiff exercised its option under the terms and covenants of the Note and Mortgage to accelerate the loan and to declare the entire unpaid principal balance under the Note and Mortgage, together with interest and other charges, immediately due and payable . . . .
[FOF] 11. By reason of the above facts, Plaintiff is entitled to the foreclosure of the Mortgage and to the sale of the property.
. . . .
[COL] 2) Plaintiff has established its standing to enforce the Note as required by the Case [sic] of Bank of America, N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo, 139 [Hawaiʻi] 361, 390 P.3d 1248, (2017), and thereby to prosecute this foreclosure action.
[COL] 3) Plaintiff satisfied all foreclosure elements under Bank of Honolulu[, N.A.] v. Anderson, 3 Haw. App. 545, 654 P.2d 1370 (App. 1982) and is entitled to foreclose on the subject Mortgage.
As discussed above, Deutsche Bank established standing
and entitlement to bring its foreclosure action, and thus, the
8 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
circuit court did not clearly err by making the challenged FOF
and COL.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the circuit court's
May 14, 2024 Summary Judgment Order and Judgment.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, July 1, 2026.
On the briefs: /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Presiding Judge Keith M. Kiuchi, for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Associate Judge Zachary K. Kondo, Mary Martin, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry (Clay Iwamura Pulice & Associate Judge Nervell), for Plaintiff-Appellee.