|
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
1. Takushi v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 634, 135 S. Ct. 1152, 190 L. Ed. 2d 909 (in the United States Supreme Court, reversing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in favor of our client, granted certiorari and held, resolving a conflict among Circuits in a Hawaii case, that a Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) cancellation notice was effective if sent within three years, whether suit was brought within three years or not).
NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
2. Lee v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (In re Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS)), 555 Fed. Appx. 661, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2019, 2014 WL 351358 (2014) (in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, in favor of our client, held that summary judgment was improper where MERS’ assignment occurred while lender was in bankruptcy).
HAWAII SUPREME COURT
3. Wells Fargo Bank M.A. v. Behrendt, 142 Haw. 37, 414 P.3d 89 (2018) (in the Hawaii Supreme Court, reversing the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, in favor of our client, granted certiorari and held, in favor of our client, that a subsequent purchaser not a party to a mortgage loan may nevertheless challenge the lender’s standing and qualifications of the lender’s witnesses as to the evidentiary foundation of its business records).
4. U.S. Bank v. Mattos, 140 Haw. 26, 398 P.3d 615 (2017) (in the Hawaii Supreme Court, reversing the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, in favor of our clients, granted certiorari and held, that the loan servicer’s employee was not a qualified witness, nor was there admissible evidence lender was holder of the note or in possession of the original note at the time the foreclosure complaint was filed, reversing summary judgment).
5. Association of Apartment Owners of Century Center v. Young Ja An, 139 Haw. 278, 389 P.3d 115 (2016) (in the Hawaii Supreme Court, affirming upon certiorari, in favor of our clients, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, held that the Honolulu District Court lacked jurisdiction to enforce a nonjudicial foreclosure with title in dispute).
6. Mount v. Apao, 139 Haw. 167, 384 P.3d 1268 (2016) (in the Hawaii Supreme Court, reversing the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, in favor of our clients, granted certiorari and held, in three consolidated appeals, summary judgment by the First Circuit Court enforcing a nonjudicial foreclosure was improper where lender failed to file a probate claim or provide requested reinstatement figures to the personal representative).
7. Santiago v. Tanaka, 137 Haw. 137, 366 P.3d 612 (2015) (Hawaii Supreme Court, reversing the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, in favor of our clients, granted certiorari and held that summary judgment enforcing a nonjudicial foreclosure was improper by the First Circuit Court where lender failed to provide a right to cure notice and our clients had cured prior to receiving a default notice, the Hawaii Supreme Court further awarding our clients $1,412,790.79, plus their attorneys’ fees and costs).
8. Krog v. Koahou, 133 Haw. 186, 324 P.3d 996 (2014) (in the Hawaii Supreme Court, reversing in part the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, in favor of our clients, granted certiorari and held that award of attorney’s fees and costs against our clients by the First Circuit Court was improper).
9. Scroggin v. Mandarin Oriental Management (USA), 129 Haw. 106, 294 P.3d 1092 (2013) (in the Hawaii Supreme Court, reversing the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, in favor of our clients, held that the jury instructions by the First Circuit Court (Honolulu) in a personal injury case against a restaurant based on food poisoning in which our clients at trial appeared pro se were erroneous, failing to provide instructions as to strict liability).
10. Bank of Hawaii v. Shinn, 120 Haw. 1, 200 P.3d 370 (2008) (in the Hawaii Supreme Court, affirming by a 3 to 2 split decision, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals which had unanimously ruled against our clients, granted certiorari and held that the extension of judgment without notice by the First Circuit Court was improper and that the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals affirming the First Circuit Court’s extension of judgment without notice was also improper, but affirmed nevertheless, finding harmless error; however the Hawaii State Legislature disagreed and immediately changed the law to conform to our appellate advocacy).
11. Moyle v. Y & Y Hyup Shin Corporation, 118 Haw. 385, 191 P. 3d 1062, amended 2008 Haw. LEXIS 205 (2008) (in the Hawaii Supreme Court, reversing the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, in favor of our client, granted certiorari and held that the jury instructions by the First Circuit Court in a personal injury case were erroneous, failing to articulate the scope of a nightclub’s duty to a patron as a business visitor, and also for having included a nonparty for contribution as a joint tortfeasor in the special verdict form).
12. 808 Development, LLC v. Murakami, 111 Haw. 349 (2006) (in the Hawaii Supreme Court, affirming the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, in favor of our clients, held that the First Circuit Court correctly dismissed developer’s $1,830,500.00 mechanic’s lien application, denying however an award of fees and costs).
13. KNG Corporation v. Kim, 107 Haw. 73, 110 P. 397 (2005) (in the Hawaii Supreme Court, vacating, in favor of our clients, the Honolulu District Court’s judgment for possession and writ of possession, held that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a hearing to justify the imposition of a $20,833.29 tenant rent trust fund as a condition for defending).
14. Hawaii Community Federal Credit Union v. Keka, 94 Haw. 213, 11 P.3d 1 (2000) (in the Hawaii Supreme Court, reversing, in favor of our clients, a foreclosure summary judgment by the Third Circuit Court, held that there remained genuine issues of material fact concerning violations of the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) as well as Hawaii’s deceptive practices act prohibiting “bait and switch” tactics where promises were made at closing to correct mistakes but never were, and specifically finding that a borrower’s declaration stating that two notices of the right to cancel were never delivered prevented summary judgment if the loan had been cancelled within three years, and holding that a foreclosure summary judgment is improper in the absence of a sworn loan general ledger).
15. Associates Financial Services Company of Hawaii v. Mijo, 87 Haw. 19, 950 P.2d 1219 (1998) (in the Hawaii Supreme Court, reversing a unanimous Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals’ decision that had unanimously reversed in favor of our client the enforcement by the First Circuit Court of a settlement agreement against our clients, granted certiorari and held that it was not improper for the judge assigned the trial of a case to also conduct settlement conference discussions and found no implied threats by the trial judge to settle or lose at trial; however the Hawaii Judiciary thereafter immediately abandoned that judicial practice in Hawaii, henceforth separating the role of the trial judge and the settlement judge to conform to our appellate advocacy).
16. Lewis v. Lewis, 69 Haw. 497, 748 P.2d 1362 (1988) (Hawaii Supreme Court, reversing, in favor of our client, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals that had affirmed the First Circuit Court, held that the Family Court had erred in refusing to enforce a premarital agreement as to spousal support and also vacated the Family Court’s order of division of property).
HAWAII INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
17. Bank of New York Mellon v. St John, CAAP-17-0000436 (App. 2018) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the Second Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, setting aside summary judgment and held that there was no admissible evidence of standing that the foreclosing plaintiff was entitled to enforce the note when the action was filed).
18. U.S. Bank Trust v. Schranz, CAAP-17-0000519 (App. 2018) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the Second Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, setting aside summary judgment and held that there was no admissible evidence of standing that the foreclosing plaintiff was entitled to enforce the note when the action was filed).
19. HSBC Bank USA v. Bartolome, 2018 Haw. App. LEXIS 285 (2018) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the First Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, setting aside summary judgment and held that there was no admissible evidence of standing that the foreclosing plaintiff was entitled to enforce the note when the action was filed).
20. U.S. Bank v. Kotak, 2018 Haw. App. 264 (2018) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the First Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, setting aside summary judgment and held that there was no admissible evidence of standing that the foreclosing plaintiff was entitled to enforce the note when the action was filed).
21. Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Riopta, 2018 Haw. App. LEXIS 270, 2018 WL 2928182 (2018) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the Fifth Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, setting aside summary judgment and held that there was no admissible evidence of standing that the foreclosing plaintiff was entitled to enforce the note when the action was filed).
22. U.S. Bank v. Swink, 2018 Haw. App. LEXIS 236, 2018 WL 2714851 (2018) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the Second Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, setting aside summary judgment and held that there was no admissible evidence of standing that the foreclosing plaintiff was entitled to enforce the note when the action was filed).
23. JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Rundgren, 2018 Haw. App. LEXIS 228 (2018) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the First Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, setting aside summary judgment and held that there was no admissible evidence of standing that the foreclosing plaintiff was entitled to enforce the note when the action was filed).
24. MTGLQ Investors v. Brennan, 2018 Haw. App. LEXIS 226, 2018 WL 2439384 (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the Third Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, setting aside summary judgment and held that there was no admissible evidence of standing that the foreclosing plaintiff was entitled to enforce the note as the holder of the original note when the action was filed).
25. Fannie Mae v. Amaral, 2018 Haw. App. LEXIS 224 (2018) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the Third Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, setting aside summary judgment and held that there was no admissible evidence of standing that the foreclosing plaintiff was entitled to enforce the note when the action was filed).
26. Blue Mountain Homes v. Page, 2018 Haw. App. LEXIS 210 (2018) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the Second Circuit Court, in favor of our client, setting aside summary judgment and held that there was no admissible evidence of standing that the foreclosing plaintiff was entitled to enforce the note when the action was filed).
27. HSBC Bank USA v. Moore, 2018 Haw. App. LEXIS 156, 142 Haw. 210, 416 P.3d 931 (2018) (subsequently published) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the Second Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, setting aside summary judgment and held that there was no admissible evidence of standing that the foreclosing plaintiff was entitled to enforce the note when the action was filed).
28. U.S. Bank v. Fergerstrom, 2018 Haw. App. LEXIS 180, 2018 WL 2110079 (2018) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the First Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, setting aside summary judgment and held that there was no admissible evidence of standing that the foreclosing plaintiff held the note and was entitled to enforce the note when the action was filed).
29. Bayview Loan Servicing v. Pierce, 2018 Haw. App. LEXIS 162 (2018) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the Fifth Circuit Court, in favor of our client, setting aside summary judgment and held that there was no admissible evidence of standing that the foreclosing plaintiff was entitled to enforce the note when the action was filed).
30. Bank of Hawaii v. Kimi, CAAP-17-0000712 (2018) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, ruling on the foreclosing plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the denial of their Rule 60(b) Motion in the Third Circuit Court as moot, held in favor of our clients without prejudice, notwithstanding that the real property had been sold in the interim to third parties, based on potential exceptions to the mootness doctrine in Hawaii).
31. HSBC Bank USA v. Yamashita, 2017 Haw. App. LEXIS 482 (2017) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the First Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, setting aside summary judgment and held that there was no admissible evidence of standing that the foreclosing plaintiff was entitled to enforce the note when the action was filed).
32. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Garcia, 2017 Haw. App. LEXIS 322, 2017 WL 2829398 (2017) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the Second Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, setting aside summary judgment and held that as the nonjudicial foreclosing mortgagee, plaintiff Deutsche Bank in its ejectment action had failed to prove that the nonjudicial foreclosure sale was conducted in a manner that was fair, reasonably diligent, in good faith, and would obtain an adequate price for the property, the burden of proof never shifting to the mortgagor).
33. Bank of America v. Yeh, CAAP-16-0000128 (2017) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the First Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, setting aside summary judgment and held that there was no admissible evidence of standing that the foreclosing plaintiff was entitled to enforce the note when the action was filed, and that the loan modification discussions between the Bank of America and Yeh created genuine issues of material fact in dispute whether Yeh was actually in default on the subject note and whether the Bank of America acted in good faith).
34. U.S. Bank v. Wright, 2017 Haw. App. LEXIS 270, 2017 WL 2735634 (2017) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, denying jurisdiction as requested by U.S. Bank with respect to its appellate review of the Second Circuit Court’s Rule 41(b) preliminary rulings in favor of our clients).
35. JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Unga, 2017 Haw. App. LEXIS 198, 2017 WL 2152484 (2017) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the Honolulu District Court, in favor of our clients, setting aside an ejectment judgment and held that the Honolulu District Court lacked jurisdiction to enforce a nonjudicial foreclosure with title in dispute).
36. Bank of America v. Miyake, 2017 Haw. App. LEXIS 126, 2017 WL 1179505 (2017), (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the First Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, setting aside summary judgment and held that there was no admissible evidence of standing that the foreclosing plaintiff was entitled to enforce the note when the action was filed).
37. JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Benner, 2017 Haw. App. LEXIS 54, 2017 WL 464783 (2017) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, remanding Chase’s opposed unjust enrichment and conversion rent-related claims to the First Circuit Court due to the underlying interrelated nonjudicial foreclosure having been vacated in a related appeal that Benner had won).
38. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Moore, 2016 Haw. App. LEXIS 514 (2016) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the First Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, held that summary judgment enforcing a nonjudicial foreclosure was improper where the First Circuit Court failed to allow non-parties to the note and mortgage, who as property owners nonetheless had an interest affected, to defend a subsequent quiet title/ejectment action by asserting that the foreclosure failed to conform to the requirements of the law).
39. First Horizon Home Loans v. Galiza, 138 Haw. 142, 377 P.3d 1060 (App. 2016) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the Second Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, held that summary judgment enforcing a nonjudicial foreclosure was improper where the non-judicial foreclosure was a self-dealing transaction with no evidence presented concerning the adequacy of the purchase price).
40. Bank of Hawaii v. Mostoufi, 138 Haw. 141, 377 P.3d 1059 (App. 2016) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the First Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, held that a foreclosure summary judgment was improper where there were genuine issues of material fact concerning alleged misrepresentations made to the borrowers about no negative credit reporting, inducing them to accept a loan modification offer to make reduced payments, only to be denied the modification while having their credit ruined, injuring their business, when absent those misrepresentations they would have paid off the mortgage and not been subject to foreclosure).
41. Association of Apartment Owners of Century Center v. Nomura, 138 Haw. 141, 377 P.3d 1059 (App. 2016) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the Honolulu District Court, in favor of our clients, held that summary judgment enforcing a nonjudicial foreclosure was improper where the Honolulu District Court had no jurisdiction since title was at issue as borrowers sufficiently set forth the scope, nature, and extent of their claim to superior title in a manner that was not speculative, but clearly stated).
42. Association of Apartment Owners of Century Center v. Thai Hawaiian Massage, Inc., 138 Haw. 140, 377 P.3d 1058 (App. 2016) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the Honolulu District Court, in favor of our clients, held in two consolidated appeals that summary judgment enforcing a nonjudicial foreclosure was improper where the Honolulu District Court had no jurisdiction since title was at issue).
43. Bank of New York Mellon v. Lizarraga, 138 Haw. 51, 375 P.3d 1289 (App. 2016) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the Fifth Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, held that summary judgment enforcing a nonjudicial foreclosure was improper where the nonjudicial foreclosure was a self-dealing transaction with no evidence presented that the sale was conducted in a manner that was fair, reasonably diligent, and in good faith and that the purchase price was adequate).
44. Association of Apartment Owners of Century Center Inc. v. Nomura, 138 Haw. 51, 375 P.3d 1289 (App. 2016) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the Honolulu District Court, in favor of our clients, held that summary judgment enforcing a nonjudicial foreclosure was improper where the Honolulu District Court had no jurisdiction since title was at issue as borrowers sufficiently set forth the scope, nature, and extent of their claim to superior title in a manner that was not speculative, but clearly stated).
45. JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Benner, 137 Haw. 326, 372 P.3d 358 (App. 2016) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the First Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, held that summary judgment enforcing a nonjudicial foreclosure was improper where the nonjudicial foreclosure was a self-dealing transaction with no evidence presented that the sale was conducted in a manner that was fair, reasonably diligent, and in good faith and that the purchase price was adequate).
46. Association of Apartment Owners of Century Center Inc. v. Young Jin An, 137 Haw. 204, 366 P.3d 1083 (App. 2016) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the Honolulu District Court, in favor of our clients, held in two consolidated appeals that summary judgment enforcing a nonjudicial foreclosure was improper where the Honolulu District Court had no jurisdiction since title was at issue as borrowers sufficiently set forth the scope, nature, and extent of their claim to superior title in a manner that was not speculative, but clearly stated).
47. U.S. Bank v. Smith, 2015 Haw. App. LEXIS 617 (2016) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the First Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, held that a foreclosure summary judgment was improper because the borrowers gave notice of a Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) rescission within three years of loan consummation and did not have to sue within that time, and because they had standing to claim rescission also based upon unfair and deceptive trade practices (UDAP) rendering the note and mortgage void and unenforceable even if nothing showed the current holder of the note and mortgage committed unfair and deceptive trade practices).
48. Mount v. Apao, 136 Haw. 365, 361 P.3d 1268 (App. 2015) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the First Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, held that a Circuit Court is prohibited from ordering garnishment of a probate estate’s funds to satisfy a judgment against a decedent or personal representative of a probate estate).
49. Hawaii National Bank v. Chirayunon, 136 Haw. 372, 362 P.3d 805 (App. 2015) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the First Circuit Court, in favor of our client, held that the statute of frauds did not apply to a purported agreement regarding a cooperative unit converted from an apartment because the owner’s substantial improvements constituted partial performance, rendering summary judgment reversible because the agreement’s existence depended upon the owner’s credibility and that there remained a genuine issue of material fact whether the owner signed a subsequent cancellation agreement under duress).
50. Pappas v. Duran, 134 Haw. 179, 339 P.3d 533 (App. 2014) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the First Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, held it was error for the First Circuit Court to have granted summary judgment, enforcing a promissory note where genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the lender had waived his rights and as to whether the lender had offered to settle the note and accepted consideration with regard to the borrowers’ accord and satisfaction defense).
51. Tanaka v. Santiago, 133 Haw. 510, 331 P.3d 488 (App. 2014) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the Lihue District Court, in favor of our clients, held that our clients were entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs as the prevailing parties below).
52. American Savings Bank v. Riddel, 134 Haw. 114; 334 P.3d 777 (App. 2014) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the Fifth Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, held that a foreclosure summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the lender had switched the maturity date at closing and as to whether an unknown “gift” of $60,000.00 was used to qualify him for the loan, each potentially constituting an unfair and deceptive trade practices (UDAP) rendering the note and mortgage void and unenforceable).
53. Federal National Mortgage Association v. Brown, 133 Haw. 452, 330 P.3d 390 (App. 2014) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the Maui District Court, in favor of our client, held that summary judgment enforcing a nonjudicial foreclosure was improper where the Maui District Court had no jurisdiction since title was at issue as the borrower sufficiently set forth the scope, nature, and extent of his claim to superior title based upon a breach of contract claim, having fulfilled all of his obligations under a loan modification offer which terms included a promise not to pursue foreclosure if in full compliance as he was, yet his loan servicer failed to provide him with a permanent loan modification).
54. Karpeles Manuscript Library v. Duarte, 129 Haw. 90, 294 P.3d 1076 (App. 2013) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the Fifth Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, held that summary judgment enforcing a nonjudicial foreclosure was improper where the borrowers allegedly had timely rescinded the loan based on a Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) rescission, not having been given two accurate notices of the right to cancel, but where the Fifth Circuit Court nevertheless concluded that the borrowers could not repay the reduced TILA principal balance of the loan even though the amount required for repayment had not yet been determined, with therefore a genuine issue of material fact deemed remaining as to their ability to repay the loan by whatever means, ordered to be determined only after the amount required for repayment becomes known upon being awarded a conditional TILA rescission).
55. Isobe v. Sakatani, 2012 Haw. App. LEXIS 587, 2012 WL 1951332 (2012) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the First Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, setting aside summary judgment in part and held that the judgment in favor of the opposing attorney on our client’s malicious prosecution claim was vacated to the extent the claim arose from allegations relation to an underlying mechanic’s lien action against our clients).
56. Wells Fargo Bank v. Markley, 126 Haw. 265, 269 P.3d 800 (App. 2012) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the First Circuit Court, in favor of our client, held that a foreclosure summary judgment was improper because the borrower filed a declaration attesting to having given notice of a Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) rescission within three years of loan consummation based upon not having received two copies of the required notice of right to cancel, raising genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment).
57. Low v. Minichino, 126 Haw. 99, 267 P.3d 683 (App. 2011) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the Second Circuit Court, in favor of our client, held that the confirmation of an arbitration award by the Second Circuit Court was improper and thereby vacated with instructions to the Second Circuit Court to hold an evidentiary hearing due to uncontroverted evidence of fraud on the part of the seller of real property telling an arbitrator that the buyer had not given notice of her inability to secure financing).
58. U.S. Bank v. Salvacion, 2011 Haw. App. LEXIS 387 (2011) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the Fifth Circuit Court, in favor of our client, held that a foreclosure summary judgment was improper, vacating and ordering further proceedings by the Fifth Circuit Court to determine whether Rule 60(b)(6) “exceptional circumstances” existed because the homeowner’s prior counsel committed gross negligence in not properly defending against the foreclosure lawsuit).
59. State v. Bereday, 2009 Haw. App. LEXIS 246 (2009) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing in part the First Circuit Court, in favor of our client, remanding for resentencing and held that the State District Court by law was authorized only to impose either a term of probation or imprisonment, but not both).
60. Doe v. Doe, 120 Haw. 149, 202 P.3d 610 (App. 2009) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the Second Circuit Court, in favor of our client, held that the Family Court had erred awarding custody and relocation, depriving the mother of custody without the required procedural due process protections, and that it abused its discretion in granting without limitation the Guardian ad Litem’s request to preclude production of her documents and the Family Court’s approval of his fees, further holding that the mother was entitled to requested discovery of the therapist’s opinions, ordering the restoration of her custody and visitation rights, the appointment of a new Guardian Ad Litem, a detailed parenting plan, and adjustment of child support).
61. Western Financial Bank v. Raras, 2008 Haw. App. LEXIS 313 (2008) (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the First Circuit Court, in favor of our client, held in two consolidated appeals that in confirming a foreclosure sale the First Circuit Court erred in awarding attorneys’ fees and costs for work allegedly done prior to the foreclosing mortgagee’s receipt of its assignment of the note and mortgage in one case and erred in awarding it alleged attorneys’ fees and costs in the other case in which it was a defendant only, and vacated the cost award to it below due to lacking detail and including unrecoverable charges).
62. Mohr v. Ing, 2006 Haw. App. LEXIS 180 (2006) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the First Circuit Court, in favor of our client, setting aside ancillary relief awarded to defendants and held that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to consider and decide defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal which the lower court did, however denied, yet improperly granted defendants ancillary relief).
63. Dunster v. Dunster, 2003 Haw. App. LEXIS 46 (2003) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, affirming the First Circuit Court, in favor of our client, held that the Family Court properly determined pursuant to the terms of the Divorce Decree that the wife’s subsequent actions without Family Court permission terminated the husband’s obligation to repay any loans he made to her and caused her to repay any amounts he loaned to her, remanding for a final determination of minor offsets).
64. Mellon Mortgage Company v. Bumanglag, 2002 Haw. App. LEXIS 21 (2002) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, denying reconsideration having reversed the First Circuit Court, in favor of our client, held that a foreclosure summary judgment was improper because a dismissal of the case although approved by minute order had not been set aside by written order and that it therefore could not reconsider its reversal).
65. Associates Financial Services Company of Hawaii v. Richardson, 99 Haw. 446, 56 P.3d 748 (App. 2002) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the First Circuit Court, in favor of our client, held that there were genuine issues of material fact in dispute as to whether the loan was for personal or business purposes, since the borrower gave notice of a Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) rescission within three years of loan consummation).
66. Norwest Mortgage v. De Rego, 2002 Haw. App. LEXIS 9 (2002) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the Second Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, held that a foreclosure summary judgment was improper because the borrowers gave notice of a Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) rescission within three years of loan consummation and submitted a declaration stating that they had not received two notices of the right to cancel as well as having received incorrect material payment disclosures).
67. GE Capital Hawai’i v. Yonenaka, 96 Haw. 32, 25 P.3d 807 (App. 2001) (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the First Circuit Court, in favor of our client, held that a foreclosure summary judgment was improper where the lender had submitted a hearsay declaration regarding the borrower’s payment history (loan general ledger) without submitting the loan general ledger itself, and that the failure of the borrower to object to the absence of the loan general ledger below was not a waiver).
68. GE Capital Hawai’i v. Barlan, 2000 Haw. App. LEXIS 113 (2000) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the First Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, held that a foreclosure summary judgment was improper where the lender had submitted a hearsay declaration regarding the borrowers’ payment history (loan general ledger) without submitting the loan general ledger itself, and where there was no evidence that a summary sufficed because the records were too voluminous).
69. GE Capital Hawai’i v. Miguel, 92 Haw. 236, 990 P.2d 134 (App. 1999) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the First Circuit Court, in favor of our clients, held that a foreclosure summary judgment was improper where the lender had submitted a hearsay declaration regarding the borrowers’ payment history (loan general ledger) without submitting the loan general ledger itself, rendering the loan officer’s testimony that the borrowers were in default inadmissible hearsay).
70. Rapp v. Dubin, 825 P.2d 73 (App. 1992) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, affirming the First Circuit Court, in favor of our client, held that the First Circuit Court properly granted summary judgment in the absence of any evidence supporting the allegations in the complaint).
71. Wong v. Frank, 9 Haw. App. 249, 833 P.2d 85 (1992) (in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, reversing the First Circuit Court, in favor of our client attorney, held that the First Circuit Court improperly sanctioned client attorney, ordering the return of his fine monies ($500.00), based on an absence of any evidence of alleged tardiness of attendance at trial proceedings within a few minutes of the return of the jury’s verdict, the First Circuit Court having failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing; the case was remanded to the First Circuit Court, which took no further action).
(AS OF JUNE 30, 2018; THE ABOVE APPELLATE LIST WILL BE PERIODICALLY SUPPLEMENTED BELOW UNTIL REVISED)
|
