laches doctrine in Hawaii

2026Credit Union v. Monalim, 147 Hawaiʻi 33, 43, 464 P.3d 821, 831 (2020) (explaining that "based on the circuit court's lack of findings as to the laches defense, [the appellate court is] unable to determine on review whether the circuit court appropriately considered this defense" (cleaned up)).

2026Credit Union v. Monalim, 147 Hawaiʻi 33, 43, 464 P.3d 821, 831 (2020) (explaining that "based on the circuit court's lack of findings as to the laches defense, [the appellate court is] unable to determine on review whether the circuit court appropriately considered this defense" (cleaned up)).

2019See, e.g., Au, 63 Haw. 210 , 626 P.3d 173 (applying HRS § 657-1(4) to plaintiffs’ claims that defendants fraudulently and/or negligently misrepresented to her that the home she bought from them did not have a water leak); Eastman v. McGowan, 86 Hawaiʻi 21, 946 P.2d 1317 (1997) (applying HRS § 657-1(4) to plaintiffs’ claims that defendant fraudulently misrepresented to them that she would reconvey real property to them); cf. Small v. Badenhop, 67 Haw. 626 , 701 P.2d 647 (1985) (engaging in a laches analysis, based upon finding that the analogous statute of limitations would be the six-year stat

2019See, e.g., Au, 63 Haw. 210 , 626 P.3d 173 (applying HRS § 657-1(4) to plaintiffs’ claims that defendants fraudulently and/or negligently misrepresented to her that the home she bought from them did not have a water leak); Eastman v. McGowan, 86 Hawaiʻi 21, 946 P.2d 1317 (1997) (applying HRS § 657-1(4) to plaintiffs’ claims that defendant fraudulently misrepresented to them that she would reconvey real property to them); cf. Small v. Badenhop, 67 Haw. 626 , 701 P.2d 647 (1985) (engaging in a laches analysis, based upon finding that the analogous statute of limitations would be the six-year stat

2016The doctrine of laches requires that there was “a delay by the plaintiff in bringing his claim, and that delay must have been unreasonable under the circumstances.” Adair v. Hustace, 64 Haw. 314, 321 , 640 P.2d 294, 300 (1982) (citing W.

2016The doctrine of laches requires that there was “a delay by the plaintiff in bringing his claim, and that delay must have been unreasonable under the circumstances.” Adair v. Hustace, 64 Haw. 314, 321 , 640 P.2d 294, 300 (1982) (citing W.

2008As stated in Swire Properties (Hawaii), Ltd. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, [73] Haw. 1[, 826 P.2d 876 ] (1992), note 4: "However, we caution future litigants that ‘since proceedings for declaratory relief have much in common with equitable proceedings, the equitable doctrine of laches has been applied in such proceedings.' (citations omitted)(equity aids the vigilant)”[.] This concern, however, relates more to timing than forum selection.

2008As stated in Swire Properties (Hawaii), Ltd. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, [73] Haw. 1[, 826 P.2d 876 ] (1992), note 4: "However, we caution future litigants that `since proceedings for declaratory relief have much in common with equitable proceedings, the equitable doctrine of laches has been applied in such proceedings.' (citations omitted)(equity aids the vigilant)"[.] 4 This concern, however, relates more to timing than forum selection.

2023U.S. Bank failed to establish that the Saplans' claims were precluded under the doctrine of laches The Saplans argue their claims are not precluded under the doctrine of laches because they filed "this lawsuit within months of U.S. Bank's wrongful sale of their home to a third party, and within less than one year after U.S. Bank wrongfully obtained a judgment in" the 2014 case. "[L]aches is a defense in all civil actions." Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Royal Aloha v. Certified Mgmt., Inc., 139 Hawai‘i 229, 235, 386 P.3d 866, 872 (2016).

2022The doctrine of laches is a defense available in all civil actions, which includes both legal and equitable claims. 14 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Royal Aloha v. Certified Mgmt., Inc., 139 Hawai#i 229, 235, 386 P.3d 866, 872 (2016).

2024See Sugarman v. Kapu, 104 Hawai‘i 119, 124, 85 P.3d 644, 649 (2004) ("[T]he circuit court's authority to confirm a judicial sale is a matter of equitable discretion." (cleaned up)). (3) Bristol argues that the doctrine of laches should apply because U.S. Bank "waited FIVE years" after the foreclosure decree and judgment, and "FOUR YEARS from the date of the last hearing" in 2017, to file the Declaration in support of the Second Motion to Confirm. 6 5 U.S. Bank points out in its Answering Brief that "[t]here is no dispute, however, that [Bristol] received the January 31, 2019 denial letter." Br

2020Cf. Herrmann, 138 Hawai‘i at 153-54, 378 P.3d at 869-70 (noting that the plaintiff did not proffer a satisfactory excuse for the almost seven-year delay in bringing suit); see also In re Kawai, 36 Haw. 533, 536 (Haw. Terr. 1943) (observing that a party who waited nearly five years after the final order of distribution before commencing an action to revoke a will did not provide a “satisfactory excuse”).

2020That is to say, 23 ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** based on the circuit court’s lack of findings as to the laches defense, we are unable to determine on review whether the circuit court appropriately considered this defense presented by the Monalims.12 See 138 Hawai‘i at 155, 378 P.3d at 871 .

2020As to the second prong, that the delay must have resulted in prejudice to the defendant, we have stated, “What qualifies as prejudice for purposes of the laches doctrine 20 ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** invariably depends on the facts and circumstances of a particular case, but it is ordinarily understood as anything that places the defendant ‘in a less favorable position.’” Herrmann, 138 Hawai‘i at 154, 378 P.3d at 870 (citing 27A Am.Jur.2d Equity § 143 (2008)).

2019See, e.g., Au, 63 Haw. 210 , 626 P.3d 173 (applying HRS § 657-1(4) to plaintiffs’ claims that defendants fraudulently and/or negligently misrepresented to her that the home she bought from them did not have a water leak); Eastman v. McGowan, 86 Hawaiʻi 21, 946 P.2d 1317 (1997) (applying HRS § 657-1(4) to plaintiffs’ claims that defendant fraudulently misrepresented to them that she would reconvey real property to them); cf. Small v. Badenhop, 67 Haw. 626 , 701 P.2d 647 (1985) (engaging in a laches analysis, based upon finding that the analogous statute of limitations would be the six-year stat

2016However, “the mere prospect that a defendant might lose a case does not suffice to warrant the imposition of laches as a barrier to a plaintiffs action,” since “that sort of prejudice could be claimed by all defendants all of the time.” Wauchope v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 985 F.2d 1407, 1412 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting TransWorld Airlines, Inc. v. Am.

2016Dec. 784 , 812 N.E.2d at 612 (“While we agree that traditionally, statutes of limitations were generally applied to legal actions and the laches doctrine was applied to those actions based in equity, such ‘mechanical’ applications ai-e no longer followed”) (citation omitted); Dep’t of Banking and Finance v. Wilken, 217 Neb. 796 , 352 N.W.2d 145 , 149 (1984) (holding that the defense of laches was applicable in a contract action as follows: “The common-law rule is that equitable defenses cannot be used to defeat an action at law based on contract; however, we have not accepted that position, bu

2016Dec. 784 , 812 N.E.2d at 612 (“While we agree that traditionally, statutes of limitations were generally applied to legal actions and the laches doctrine was applied to those actions based in equity, such ‘mechanical’ applications ai-e no longer followed”) (citation omitted); Dep’t of Banking and Finance v. Wilken, 217 Neb. 796 , 352 N.W.2d 145 , 149 (1984) (holding that the defense of laches was applicable in a contract action as follows: “The common-law rule is that equitable defenses cannot be used to defeat an action at law based on contract; however, we have not accepted that position, bu

2016Dec. 784 , 812 N.E.2d at 612 (“While we agree that traditionally, statutes of limitations were generally applied to legal actions and the laches doctrine was applied to those actions based in equity, such ‘mechanical’ applications ai-e no longer followed”) (citation omitted); Dep’t of Banking and Finance v. Wilken, 217 Neb. 796 , 352 N.W.2d 145 , 149 (1984) (holding that the defense of laches was applicable in a contract action as follows: “The common-law rule is that equitable defenses cannot be used to defeat an action at law based on contract; however, we have not accepted that position, bu

2016See Chirco v. Crosswinds Communities, Inc., 474 F.3d 227, 230 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[W]hen a reviewing court is presented with a threshold question of law as to whether the laches doctrine is even applicable in a particular situation, ... [its] review is de novo.”); Ditto v. McCurdy, 90 Hawai'i 345, 351 , 978 P.2d 783, 789 (1999) (noting questions of law are reviewable de novo, under the right/wrong standard).

2016See Chirco v. Crosswinds Communities, Inc., 474 F.3d 227, 230 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[W]hen a reviewing court is presented with a threshold question of law as to whether the laches doctrine is even applicable in a particular situation, ... [its] review is de novo.”); Ditto v. McCurdy, 90 Hawai'i 345, 351 , 978 P.2d 783, 789 (1999) (noting questions of law are reviewable de novo, under the right/wrong standard).

2016Kerrigan, 642 A.2d at 1327 (indicating that the husband’s age and “current financial difficulties should also be weighed in the balance” as part of the laches analysis).

2016See, e.g., Chirco, 474 F.3d at 230 ; Ditto, 90 Hawai'i at 351 , 978 P.2d at 789 (“Questions of law are renewable de novo under the righi/wrong standard.”) The fundamental issue in this case is contained in the fourth question presented: whether the ICA gravely erred in holding that “the defense of laches, as a matter of law, applies only to equitable claims.” In Adair, 64 Haw. at 320-21 , 640 P.2d at 300 , this court summarized the doctrine of laches in Hawaii as follows: The doctrine of laches reflects the equitable maxim that “equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights.”

2016See Chirco v. Crosswinds Communities, Inc., 474 F.3d 227, 230 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[W]hen a reviewing court is presented with a threshold question of law as to whether the laches doctrine is even applicable in a particular situation, ... [its] review is de novo.”); Ditto v. McCurdy, 90 Hawai'i 345, 351 , 978 P.2d 783, 789 (1999) (noting questions of law are reviewable de novo, under the right/wrong standard).

2016Dec. 784 , 812 N.E.2d at 612 (“While we agree that traditionally, statutes of limitations were generally applied to legal actions and the laches doctrine was applied to those actions based in equity, such ‘mechanical’ applications ai-e no longer followed”) (citation omitted); Dep’t of Banking and Finance v. Wilken, 217 Neb. 796 , 352 N.W.2d 145 , 149 (1984) (holding that the defense of laches was applicable in a contract action as follows: “The common-law rule is that equitable defenses cannot be used to defeat an action at law based on contract; however, we have not accepted that position, bu

2016Dec. 784 , 812 N.E.2d at 612 (“While we agree that traditionally, statutes of limitations were generally applied to legal actions and the laches doctrine was applied to those actions based in equity, such ‘mechanical’ applications ai-e no longer followed”) (citation omitted); Dep’t of Banking and Finance v. Wilken, 217 Neb. 796 , 352 N.W.2d 145 , 149 (1984) (holding that the defense of laches was applicable in a contract action as follows: “The common-law rule is that equitable defenses cannot be used to defeat an action at law based on contract; however, we have not accepted that position, bu

2016See Kakinami, 127 Hawai'i at 136 , 276 P.3d at 705 .

2007Here, even assuming arguendo that laches governs the timeliness of the AOAO's assertion of its negligence claims against Liu, see Wellman v. Wellman, 205 Mont. 504 , 668 P.2d 1060, 1062 (1983) (stating that laches is "considered as a bar independent of the statute of limitations"); but see DOIT, Inc. v. Touche, Ross & Co., 926 P.2d 835, 845 (Utah 1996) ("where the plaintiff's claims are based in law, the statute of limitations, not the doctrine of laches, governs the timing surrounding a plaintiff's filing of a complaint") (citation omitted), Liu has failed to present to this court any evidenc

2007Here, even assuming arguendo that laches governs the timeliness of the AOAO's assertion of its negligence claims against Liu, see Wellman v. Wellman, 205 Mont. 504 , 668 P.2d 1060, 1062 (1983) (stating that laches is "considered as a bar independent of the statute of limitations"); but see DOIT, Inc. v. Touche, Ross & Co., 926 P.2d 835, 845 (Utah 1996) ("where the plaintiff's claims are based in law, the statute of limitations, not the doctrine of laches, governs the timing surrounding a plaintiff's filing of a complaint") (citation omitted), Liu has failed to present to this court any evidenc

2001Under the doctrine of laches, “there must have been a[n unreasonable] delay by the plaintiff in bringing his [or her] claim,” Pelosi v. Wailea Ranch Estates, 91 Hawai'i 478, 490 , 985 P.2d 1045, 1057-58 , reconsideration denied, 91 Hawai'i 478 , 985 P.2d 1045 (1999) (citations omitted), and that such “delay must have resulted in prejudice to [the] defendant.” Nishitani v. Baker, 82 Hawai'i 281, 288 , 921 P.2d 1182, 1189 (App.1996).

2001Under the doctrine of laches, “there must have been a[n unreasonable] delay by the plaintiff in bringing his [or her] claim,” Pelosi v. Wailea Ranch Estates, 91 Hawai'i 478, 490 , 985 P.2d 1045, 1057-58 , reconsideration denied, 91 Hawai'i 478 , 985 P.2d 1045 (1999) (citations omitted), and that such “delay must have resulted in prejudice to [the] defendant.” Nishitani v. Baker, 82 Hawai'i 281, 288 , 921 P.2d 1182, 1189 (App.1996).

1983Although “[a] court of equity is not bound by the statute of limitations, ... in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, it will usually grant or withhold relief in analogy to the statute of limitations relating to law actions of like character.” Yokochi v. Yoshimoto, 44 Haw. 297, 300 , 353 P.2d 820, 823 (1960).

1983Although “[a] court of equity is not bound by the statute of limitations, ... in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, it will usually grant or withhold relief in analogy to the statute of limitations relating to law actions of like character.” Yokochi v. Yoshimoto, 44 Haw. 297, 300 , 353 P.2d 820, 823 (1960).

1978The equitable doctrine of laches applies where "long acquiescence in the assertion of adverse rights has occurred", Ishida v. Naumu, 34 Haw. 363, 373 (1937), or when, "during inexcusable delay, the evidence has become obscured and, under the circumstances of the case, it is too late to ascertain the merits of the controversy." Poka v. Holi, 44 Haw. 464, 475 , 357 P.2d 100, 107 (1960); Brown v. Bishop Trust Co., 44 Haw. 385 , 355 P.2d 179 (1960).

1978The equitable doctrine of laches applies where “long acquiescence in the assertion of adverse rights has occurred”, Ishida v. Naumu, 34 Haw. 363, 373 (1937), or when, “during inexcusable delay, the evidence has become obscured and, under the circumstances of the case, it is too late to ascertain the merits of the controversy.” Poka v. Holi, 44 Haw. 464, 475 , 357 P.2d 100 (1960); Brown v. Bishop Trust Co., 44 Haw. 385 , 355 P.2d 179 (1960).

1978The equitable doctrine of laches applies where "long acquiescence in the assertion of adverse rights has occurred", Ishida v. Naumu, 34 Haw. 363, 373 (1937), or when, "during inexcusable delay, the evidence has become obscured and, under the circumstances of the case, it is too late to ascertain the merits of the controversy." Poka v. Holi, 44 Haw. 464, 475 , 357 P.2d 100, 107 (1960); Brown v. Bishop Trust Co., 44 Haw. 385 , 355 P.2d 179 (1960).

1978The equitable doctrine of laches applies where "long acquiescence in the assertion of adverse rights has occurred", Ishida v. Naumu, 34 Haw. 363, 373 (1937), or when, "during inexcusable delay, the evidence has become obscured and, under the circumstances of the case, it is too late to ascertain the merits of the controversy." Poka v. Holi, 44 Haw. 464, 475 , 357 P.2d 100, 107 (1960); Brown v. Bishop Trust Co., 44 Haw. 385 , 355 P.2d 179 (1960).

1978Dalton v. City & County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 400, 407, n. 4 , 462 P.2d 199 , 204 n. 4 (1969).

1978Dalton v. City & County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 400, 407, n. 4 , 462 P.2d 199 , 204 n. 4 (1969).