Bank motion (Hawaii) · Go Syfert
← Hawaii issues

Bank motion in Hawaii

13 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1919–2025 8 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Hawaii courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (7)

CaseFollowedCited
Life of the Land v. Ariyoshigreen
haw · 1976 · cited in 2 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2020–2021
2 sentences

2021In Mattos, we held that the employee of a plaintiff 1 U.S. Bank’s motion for remand came after it had, following a procedure described in Life of the Land v. Ariyoshi, 57 Haw. 249 , 553 P.2d 464 (1976), asked the circuit court to indicate how it was inclined to rule on a motion to ratify the foreclosure judgment.

2021In Mattos, we held that the employee of a plaintiff 1 U.S. Bank’s motion for remand came after it had, following a procedure described in Life of the Land v. Ariyoshi, 57 Haw. 249 , 553 P.2d 464 (1976), asked the circuit court to indicate how it was inclined to rule on a motion to ratify the foreclosure judgment.

22
Bank of Honolulu, NA v. Andersongreen
hawapp · 1982 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025App. 545, 549 , 654 P.2d 1370, 1374 (App. 1982) (determining that Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 667-1.5 (2016) "does not require the determination of a sum certain before foreclosure is decreed 2 U.S. Bank's motion for summary judgment attached the declaration of Alicia Stewart (Stewart), an employee of U.S. Bank's authorized loan servicing agent Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC.

11
Hanalei, BRC Inc. v. Portergreen
hawapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025App. 304, 310 , 760 P.2d 676, 680 (1988) (indicating a mortgagee's premature filing of a complaint may be cured by filing an amended complaint when its cause of action accrues). (2) Hall also contends the six-year statute of limitations barred U.S. Bank's claim.

11
Ralston v. Yim. ICA Opinion, filed 05/31/2012.green
haw · 2013 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023Ralston, 129 Hawai‘i at 60, 292 P.3d at 1290 ("For if no evidence could be mustered to sustain the [non-moving] party's position, a trial would be useless").

11
Citizens for Equitable & Responsible Government v. County of Hawai'igreen
haw · 2005 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER (2) Denise seeks reconsideration of the court's Summary Disposition Order, filed on October 27, 2023; (3) Denise does not present new evidence or arguments that could not have been presented in her June 13, 2023 memorandum in opposition to U.S. Bank's motion to dismiss this appeal, or in the Greenbergs' October 2, 2023 response to this court's September 18, 2023 Order to Show Cause, see Citizens for Equitable & Responsible Gov't v. County of Hawai#i, 108 Hawai#i 318, 335, 120 P.3d 217, 234 (2005); and (4) Denise presents no p

11
Pele Defense Fund v. Patygreen
haw · 1992 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
2 sentences

2021F. Verhagen waived his objections to U.S. Bank’s motion to ratify “Issues not properly raised on appeal will be deemed to be waived.” Pele Defense Fund v. Paty, 73 Haw. 578, 613 , 837 P.2d 1247, 1268 (1992).

2021F. Verhagen waived his objections to U.S. Bank’s motion to ratify “Issues not properly raised on appeal will be deemed to be waived.” Pele Defense Fund v. Paty, 73 Haw. 578, 613 , 837 P.2d 1247, 1268 (1992).

11
Bank of Hawaii v. Shinngreen
haw · 2008 · cited in 1 Hawaii opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008Shinn, because he was not afforded notice of the Bank's motion to extend before it was granted by the circuit court, in contravention of Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) ž 657-5 (Supp.2001). [1] Majority opinion at ___ _ ___, ___ _ ___, ___, 200 P.3d at 372-73, 374-75, 392-93 .

2008Majority opinion at ___ _ ___, 200 P.3d at 390 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Verhagen. ICA s.d.o., filed 07/20/2020, 148 Haw. 44. Motion for Reconsideration, filed 08/07/2020. green
haw · 2021
2 sentences

2023Id.

2023Id.

22023–2023
Kondaur Capital Corporation v. Matsuyoshi. green
haw · 2015
1 sentence

2021Corp. v. Matsuyoshi, 136 Hawai#i 227, 361 P.3d 454 (2015) and Hungate.

12021–2021
Bank of America, N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo. green
haw · 2017
1 sentence

2020He argued that U.S. Bank offered no admissible evidence that it possessed the Note when the Complaint was filed, and thus failed to establish its standing to foreclose under Bank of America, N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo, 139 Hawai#i 361, 390 P.3d 1248 (2017).

12020–2020
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Mattos green
hawapp · 2016
2 sentences

2017The ICA rejected Defendants’ first argument regarding “robo-signing” because their opposition to U.S. Bank’s motion “failed to assert facts or law explaining how the alleged ‘robo-sign-ing' caused them harm or damages.” 137 Hawai'i at 210 , 367 P.3d at 704 .

2017The ICA rejected Defendants’ first argument regarding “robo-signing” because their opposition to U.S. Bank’s motion “failed to assert facts or law explaining how the alleged ‘robo-sign-ing' caused them harm or damages.” 137 Hawai'i at 210 , 367 P.3d at 704 .

12017–2017
Cochran v. Fox Chase Bank green
pa · 1904
1 sentence

1919Held, that the bank took a good title thereto as against the true owner.” Cochran v. Fox Chase Bank, 58 Atl. 117 .

11919–1919

Where else courts name it

TX 114 (1919–2024) CA 72 (1935–2026) NY 67 (1903–2026) IL 62 (1898–2025) FL 45 (1932–2026) GA 38 (1855–2024) PA 33 (1837–2026) MO 30 (1899–2024) IN 24 (1892–2023) OH 20 (1905–2025) MS 17 (1894–2025) MD 17 (1934–2021) OK 16 (1908–2020) ND 16 (1916–2016) LA 15 (1901–2018) WI 14 (1864–2024) AZ 14 (1970–2022) HI 13 (1919–2025) TN 13 (1970–2026) AL 13 (1977–2025) NM 13 (1979–2021) IA 13 (1900–2021) SC 13 (1925–2022) ME 12 (1997–2020) NJ 12 (1955–2026) ID 11 (1921–2024) AR 11 (1913–2019) KS 10 (1915–2020) OR 10 (1891–1995) MT 10 (1971–2021) NE 8 (1903–2025) WA 8 (1899–2023) SD 7 (1964–2015) MA 7 (1973–2017) MN 7 (1910–1989) UT 6 (1998–2022) NC 6 (1979–2016) KY 6 (1919–2026) WY 5 (1926–2025) CO 5 (1979–2011) VA 4 (1929–2025) CT 4 (1988–2022) AK 4 (1980–2022) WV 4 (1925–1996) DC 3 (1988–2021) RI 3 (1994–2016) DE 2 (2014–2020) VT 2 (1966–2002) NH 2 (1987–1998) MI 2 (2000–2014)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check