First Hawaiian Bank v. Pratt

543 P.3d 1094, 154 Haw. 42

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 28, 2024
• Docket: CAAP-19-0000598
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 28-FEB-2024 11:39 AM Dkt. 54 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

FIRST HAWAIIAN BANK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KIANA TRISTACA PRATT, Defendant-Appellant, and JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES 1-10; DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-10, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 3CC15100018K)

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

In this foreclosure case, Defendant-Appellant Kiana

Tristaca Pratt (Pratt) appeals from the post-judgment Findings

of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Denying Defendant Kiana

Tristaca Pratt's Motion (1) to Set Aside All Orders and

Judgments Pursuant to [Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure]

HRCP Rule 60(b)(4), and (2) to Dismiss Complaint Pursuant to

HRCP Rule 12(h)(3), Filed Herein on March 14, 2019 (Order), NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

entered by the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit (circuit

court) on July 25, 2019.1

Pratt raises a single point of error on appeal. She

contends that the circuit court erred when it entered the Order

"because the cause of action (foreclosure) in this matter was

precluded by res judicata."

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 by the parties, we

affirm.

"Application of res judicata is a question of law.

Questions of law are reviewed de novo under the right/wrong

standard." PennyMac Corp. v. Godinez, 148 Hawaiʻi 323, 327,

474 P.3d 264, 268 (2020) (quoting Eastern Sav. Bank, FSB v.

Esteban, 129 Hawaiʻi 154, 157, 296 P.3d 1062, 1065 (2013).

In 2011, Plaintiff-Appellee First Hawaiian Bank (FHB)

filed a foreclosure action against Pratt, on grounds that Pratt

had not complied with the terms of the original 2008 loan

agreement. In 2013, FHB and Pratt entered into a Loan

Modification Agreement, and agreed to a settlement. The circuit

court dismissed the 2011 foreclosure action.2 The Loan

1 The Honorable Robert D.S. Kim presided.

2 Although the parties agreed that the 2011 action would be dismissed as a result of the Loan Modification Agreement, it appears that the parties did not stipulate or move to dismiss the 2011 action. The 2011

(continued . . .) 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Modification Agreement, among other things, reinstated the 2008

loan, capitalized the past due amounts of over $134,000 as a

deferred principal balance, and changed the maturity date of the

loan to August 1, 2052.

We conclude that the circuit court did not err in

determining that the dismissal of the 2011 action did not have

res judicata effect on the instant 2015 foreclosure action

brought by FHB against Pratt. In order for res judicata to

apply, the 2011 and 2015 actions must share an identical claim.

"A party asserting res judicata has the burden of establishing:

(1) there was a final judgment on the merits, (2) both parties

are the same or in privity with the parties in the original

suit, and (3) the claim decided in the original suit is

identical with the one presented in the action in question."

PennyMac Corp., 148 Hawaiʻi at 327, 474 P.3d at 268 (citing

Bremer v. Weeks, 104 Hawaiʻi 43, 54, 85 P.3d 150, 161 (2004)

(emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The record reflects that the 2011 action which alleged

Pratt's default on the original loan, and the instant action

which alleges Pratt's default on the loan as modified by the

Loan Modification Agreement, do not involve an identical claim.

The Loan Modification Agreement was entered into pursuant to the

2(. . . continued)

action was dismissed for failure to file a pretrial statement, pursuant to Rules of the Circuit Courts of the State of Hawaiʻi Rule 12(q). 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

parties' agreement to settle the 2011 action and substantively

modified the terms of the original loan agreement. FHB's claim

in the instant 2015 foreclosure action alleging Pratt's

noncompliance with the terms of the modified loan agreement

therefore was not (and could not have been) "decided" in the

2011 action.

The circuit court did not err in concluding that res

judicata did not bar the instant action. We affirm the Findings

of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Denying Defendant Kiana

Judgments Pursuant to HRCP Rule 60(b)(4), and (2) to Dismiss

Complaint Pursuant to HRCP Rule 12(h)(3), Filed Herein on

March 14, 2019, entered by the Circuit Court of the Third

Circuit on July 25, 2019.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, February 28, 2024.

On the briefs: /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Matthew P. Holm, Presiding Judge for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Thomas J. Berger, Associate Judge for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Associate Judge