quiet title claim in Hawaii

2025Id. at 101, 497 P.3d at 116. “[I]f the purchasers were innocent purchasers for value” then the Borrowers would have “failed to establish that their title is superior” to the defendant currently holding title, which is “required for a quiet title claim to succeed[.]” Id. at 100, 497 P.3d at 115 (quotations and brackets omitted).

2025Id. at 101, 497 P.3d at 116. “[I]f the purchasers were innocent purchasers for value” then the Borrowers would have “failed to establish that their title is superior” to the defendant currently holding title, which is “required for a quiet title claim to succeed[.]” Id. at 100, 497 P.3d at 115 (quotations and brackets omitted).

2024Matsuyoshi's counterclaim asserted that: "Matsuyoshi's claim to title is superior to that of Kondaur due to defects in Kondaur's title, including, but not limited to, . . . defects in the non-judicial foreclosure sale conducted by Resmae." The minimum elements of a quiet title claim are: the plaintiff "has a substantial interest in the property"; and plaintiff's "title is superior to that of the defendants." KaʻUpulehu Land LLC v. Heirs & Assigns of Pahukula, 136 Hawai‘i 123, 137, 358 P.3d 692, 706 (2015) (cleaned up).

2021Accordingly, if the purchasers were innocent purchasers for value, the Delapinias have failed to establish “that [their] title is superior to that of [MERS],” Ibbetson, 143 Hawaiʻi at 17, 422 P.3d at 17 (2018), as required for a quiet title claim to succeed; innocent purchasers for value would enjoy superior title to the Delapinias if the sale is not void ab initio. 92A C.J.S.

2021The Delapinias do not need to plead tender to establish superior title to MERS, even assuming they would in a wrongful foreclosure action against the Nationstar defendants, because the Delapinias claim MERS acquired its interest via a non-innocent third-party purchaser, who knowingly purchased the property from a wrongful foreclosure. 12 Cf. Carpenter v. PNC Bank, N.A., 386 F. Supp. 3d 1339, 1347 (D.

2021In California, for instance, the requirement of tender is an element of a wrongful foreclosure claim, but California courts recognize several exceptions: 9 The ICA seemed to conclude that the only exception to the tender rule lies “where the borrower brings a quiet title claim against a party who, according to the allegations in the Complaint (which the court accepts as true), is not a mortgagee and who otherwise has no interest in the property whatsoever.” Delapinia, 146 Hawaiʻi at 228, 458 P.3d at 939 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Klohs, 901 F. Supp. 2d at 1263 n.6).

2020The tender rule is based on the principle that a plaintiff seeking to quiet title "must at least prove that he has a substantial interest in the property and that his title is superior to that of the defendants." Maui Land & Pineapple Co., 76 Haw. at 408, 879 P.2d at 513.

2020The tender rule is based on the principle that a plaintiff seeking to quiet title "must at least prove that he has a substantial interest in the property and that his title is superior to that of the defendants." Maui Land & Pineapple Co., 76 Haw. at 408, 879 P.2d at 513.