Background
Pennymac Loan Services, LLC filed a foreclosure complaint against Ronnie Louis Marvel Kahapea and Sunshine Mahana Hatsuko Kahapea in August 2022. After receiving multiple extensions to complete service, Pennymac obtained permission in February 2024 to serve the complaint by certified mail.
While certified-mail service remained pending, the self-represented Kahapeas filed a notice of appearance on March 1, 2024, and several filings, including a counterclaim, on March 6. Those filings listed P.O. Box 875 as their return address. On March 28, Pennymac filed notice that service of the complaint had been completed by certified mail at that address, supported by receipts signed by the Kahapeas.
Pennymac later mailed its summary-judgment motion and hearing notice to the same address. The Kahapeas filed no opposition and did not attend the August 8, 2024 hearing. The circuit court entered summary judgment and an interlocutory foreclosure decree for Pennymac, and the Kahapeas appealed, alleging inadequate notice and lack of standing.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. The record contradicted the Kahapeas’ assertion that Pennymac failed to provide a certificate of service or adequate notice of the summary-judgment hearing. The motion included a hearing notice and certificate stating that the documents were mailed to the P.O. Box address the Kahapeas themselves had used. The record also did not support their claim that the circuit court refused to let them participate.
The court held that the Kahapeas waived their standing argument by failing to raise it in opposition to summary judgment. Even assuming the argument was preserved, Pennymac was not required to prove every transfer in the note’s chain of title. Its evidence included an April 26, 2022 bailee letter showing that Pennymac’s counsel possessed the original note and allonges before the complaint was filed on August 12, 2022, supporting the circuit court’s finding that Pennymac held the note, endorsed in blank, when it commenced the action.
Key Takeaways
- A certificate stating that motion papers and a hearing notice were mailed to the address supplied by self-represented parties supported adequate notice.
- A party that does not oppose summary judgment generally waives legal arguments first raised on appeal.
- Evidence that the foreclosing plaintiff possessed the original note before filing the complaint supported its standing to foreclose.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that foreclosure standing turns on whether the plaintiff was entitled to enforce the note when the action began, not on proof of every transfer in the note’s history. It also illustrates the appellate consequences of failing to respond to a summary-judgment motion.
Although the court liberally construed the self-represented Kahapeas’ notice of appeal and briefing, that flexibility did not overcome a record showing mailed notice or preserve arguments that were not presented to the circuit court.