UMB Bank, N.A. v. Tupulua - Mortgage Foreclosure Appeal

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

Filed March 19th, 2026

Detected March 20th, 2026

Summary

The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed a foreclosure judgment for UMB Bank, N.A. The court found that the predecessor in interest, Wells Fargo Bank, had provided the Tupuluas with notice of default and an opportunity to cure before filing the foreclosure action. The Tupuluas' appeal argued that UMB failed to prove possession of the Note at the commencement of the proceedings.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

This document is a court opinion from the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals affirming a foreclosure judgment against Sa and Gladys Ulu Tupulua in favor of UMB Bank, N.A. The appellate court addressed the Tupuluas' argument that UMB failed to demonstrate its predecessor in interest, Wells Fargo Bank, possessed the Note at the time the foreclosure complaint was filed. The court affirmed the lower court's findings that notice of default and opportunity to cure were provided.

This ruling is binding on the parties involved in this specific mortgage foreclosure case. For regulated entities, particularly those involved in mortgage lending and foreclosure, this case reinforces the importance of establishing standing and demonstrating proper notice procedures at the commencement of legal proceedings. While this is a specific case outcome, it highlights the ongoing scrutiny of standing and procedural requirements in foreclosure actions.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 19, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

UMB Bank, N.A. v. Tupulua

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

Citations: None known
Docket Number: CAAP-24-0000333
Opinion
Authorities (1)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
19-MAR-2026
07:48 AM
Dkt. 78 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

UMB BANK, N.A., NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY,
BUT SOLELY AS LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE FOR LVS TITLE TRUST XIII,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SA TUPULUA; GLADYS ULU TUPULUA, Defendants-Appellants,
and CITI BANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A.; NOHOKAI AT SEA COUNTRY,
Defendants-Appellees,
and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CC151000083)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)

This mortgage foreclosure case went to trial. The
Circuit Court of the First Circuit entered findings of fact,
conclusions of law, a foreclosure decree, and the Judgment for
UMB Bank, N.A., on March 28, 2024.1 Sa Tupulua and Gladys Ulu
Tupulua appeal. We affirm.
UMB's predecessor in interest, Wells Fargo Bank, sued
the Tupuluas and others to foreclose a Mortgage on Property in

1
The Honorable James H. Ashford presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Wai#anae, O#ahu. UMB unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment
five times. Its "Fourth Renewed" motion was denied after the
Circuit Court ruled there was a genuine issue about whether the
Tupuluas were provided with notice of, and an opportunity to
cure, their default.
After a jury-waived trial on partially stipulated
facts, the Circuit Court found that Wells Fargo notified the
Tupuluas of their default and opportunity to cure by letter, and
the Tupuluas received the letter, before the foreclosure action
was filed.
The Tupuluas do not claim trial error; they argue only
that UMB failed to show Wells Fargo had possession of the Note
when the foreclosure complaint was filed. "[A] foreclosing
plaintiff must establish its standing to bring a lawsuit at the
commencement of the proceeding[.]" Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co.
v. Yata, 152 Hawai#i 322, 335, 526 P.3d 299, 312 (2023) (quoting
U.S. Bank Tr., N.A. v. Verhagen, 149 Hawai#i 315, 327, 489 P.3d
419, 431 (2021)).
The day before trial, the parties signed and submitted
a Joint Stipulation as to Facts for Trial. The Circuit Court
accepted "the same as if the Court had made express findings of
fact as to the same." The stipulation stated:

Prior to the commencement of this foreclosure action, the Note was indorsed "in blank" and the original of the Note (with the indorsement "in blank") was delivered to and held by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., which was the Plaintiff at the time this foreclosure action was commenced. [UMB] is the current holder of the Note, which is secured by the Mortgage.

Six days after the trial, the parties signed and
submitted an Amended Joint Stipulation as to Facts for Trial.
Paragraph no. 6 of the amended stipulation was the same as the

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

original. The Circuit Court accepted the amended stipulated
facts "as if the Court had made express findings of fact as to
the same."
"In an equitable foreclosure proceeding, a trial court
should enforce the terms of a stipulation unless doing so would
be inequitable." Provident Funding Assocs. v. Gardner, 149
Hawai#i 288, 300, 488 P.3d 1267, 1279 (2021). Without the
stipulation, UMB would have to call a qualified witness to
testify that Wells Fargo had possession of the original indorsed-
in-blank note when its complaint was filed. It would be
inequitable to not enforce the stipulation.
The March 28, 2024 Judgment is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 19, 2026.

On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Keith M. Kiuchi, Chief Judge
for Defendants-Appellants
Sa Tupulua and /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Gladys Ulu Tupulua. Associate Judge

Matthew P. Holm, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
for Plaintiff-Appellee Associate Judge
UMB Bank, N.A., not in
its individual capacity,
but solely as legal title
trustee for LVS TITLE
TRUST XIII.