Background
PNC Bank brought a foreclosure action against Herma Barbara Medina Reyna in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit in Wailuku, Maui (Case No. 2CC151000224). Reyna, self-represented, appealed to the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals. On May 26, 2026, the appellate court issued a Summary Disposition Order resolving her appeal.
On June 2, 2026, Reyna filed a Motion to Vacate and Reconsider the Summary Disposition Order, also seeking a stay against further foreclosure actions pending a final ruling. Shortly thereafter, she filed a letter and a document captioned as a “Notice of Termination of Court Case” dated May 31, 2026, asserting that the underlying circuit court case had already been terminated for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and that no further action by the appellate court was therefore necessary.
The Court’s Holding
The court construed Reyna’s letter and notice together as a motion to withdraw her pending Motion for Reconsideration. Granting that motion to withdraw, the court dismissed the Motion for Reconsideration as withdrawn. The order was issued by Presiding Judge Katherine G. Leonard and Associate Judges Clyde J. Wadsworth and Sonja M.P. McCullen.
The order is administrative in nature and does not address the merits of Reyna’s subject-matter-jurisdiction arguments or her earlier challenge to the Summary Disposition Order. The court’s May 26, 2026 Summary Disposition Order remains the operative appellate ruling on the merits of the foreclosure appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A self-represented litigant’s informal letter and notice to the court can be construed as a motion to withdraw a pending motion when the intent to abandon further appellate action is sufficiently clear.
- The withdrawal leaves intact the appellate court’s underlying Summary Disposition Order of May 26, 2026.
- The order does not rule on Reyna’s contention that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying foreclosure case.
Why It Matters
This procedural order illustrates how Hawaii appellate courts handle informal filings by pro se litigants, applying a liberal construction to determine the legal effect of a letter or notice. Practitioners should be aware that informal correspondence filed with an appellate court may be treated as a formal motion, with binding consequences for the litigant’s pending requests.
For lenders and foreclosure counsel, the order signals the conclusion of active appellate litigation in this matter, clearing the way for enforcement of the foreclosure judgment subject to any proceedings that may arise in the circuit court concerning the jurisdiction issue Reyna raised.