9 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2024 3 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lee v. HSBC BANK USAgreen2 sentences2016See Lee v. HSBC Bank USA, 121 Hawai'i 287, 289 , 218 P.3d 775, 777 (2009) (explaining that HRS § 667-5 “authorizes *176 nonjudieial foreclosure under a power of sale clause contained in a mortgage”); Santiago, 137 Hawai'i at 155 , 366 P.3d at 630 (“HRS § 667-5 does not provide the nonjudieial power of foreclosure but only allows its creation, if the parties choose to do so, within the four corners of a contract.”) (citations omitted). 2016See Lee v. HSBC Bank USA, 121 Hawai'i 287, 289 , 218 P.3d 775, 777 (2009) (explaining that HRS § 667-5 “authorizes *176 nonjudieial foreclosure under a power of sale clause contained in a mortgage”); Santiago, 137 Hawai'i at 155 , 366 P.3d at 630 (“HRS § 667-5 does not provide the nonjudieial power of foreclosure but only allows its creation, if the parties choose to do so, within the four corners of a contract.”) (citations omitted). | 3 | 4 |
Santiago v. Tanakagreen2 sentences2023First, in 28 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER *** Santiago, we held that a mortgagee’s nonjudicial foreclosure upon mortgagors’ property was unlawful because it did not proceed pursuant to a power of sale (the mortgage document had omitted a power of sale clause, which was required by law). 137 Hawaiʻi at 156, 366 P.3d at 631 . 2016See Lee v. HSBC Bank USA, 121 Hawai'i 287, 289 , 218 P.3d 775, 777 (2009) (explaining that HRS § 667-5 “authorizes *176 nonjudieial foreclosure under a power of sale clause contained in a mortgage”); Santiago, 137 Hawai'i at 155 , 366 P.3d at 630 (“HRS § 667-5 does not provide the nonjudieial power of foreclosure but only allows its creation, if the parties choose to do so, within the four corners of a contract.”) (citations omitted). | 1 | 3 |
Hungate v. Law Office of David B. Rosengreen1 sentence2024See Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(7). 3 In Hungate, which also involved a nonjudicial foreclosure as here, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court held that because the power of sale clause in the mortgage required the bank to publish postponements of the foreclosure sale, the circuit court erroneously dismissed the plaintiff's claims that the foreclosure was wrongful for failure to publish postponements of the sale through a new notice. 139 Hawai‘i at 403-04, 391 P.3d at 10-11 . 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER On April 3, 2014, the Curriers appe | 1 | 1 |
State Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Kauaian Development Co.green2 sentences2017Co., 62 Haw. 188, 198 , 613 P.2d 1315, 1322 (1980), or in other words, “against the party who supplies the words[.]” Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 206 (Am. 2017Co., 62 Haw. 188, 198 , 613 P.2d 1315, 1322 (1980), or in other words, “against the party who supplies the words[.]” Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 206 (Am. | 1 | 1 |
Lima v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.green2 sentences2017Because the notice of sale expressly states that the sale “may be postponed from time to time by public announcement made by Mortgagee or someone acting on Mortgagee’s behalf,” Deutsche Bank and Rosen assert that oral postponement complied with the “terms specified in the notice of sale.” According to Deutsche Bank’s and Rosen’s analysis of the power of sale clause, only a single notice must be published, and not “a notice of sale for each postponed date.” (Emphasis added) (citing Lima v. Deutsche Bank Nat’I Trust Co., 943 F.Supp.2d 1093, 1101 (D. 2017Because the notice of sale expressly states that the sale “may be postponed from time to time by public announcement made by Mortgagee or someone acting on Mortgagee’s behalf,” Deutsche Bank and Rosen assert that oral postponement complied with the “terms specified in the notice of sale.” According to Deutsche Bank’s and Rosen’s analysis of the power of sale clause, only a single notice must be published, and not “a notice of sale for each postponed date.” (Emphasis added) (citing Lima v. Deutsche Bank Nat’I Trust Co., 943 F.Supp.2d 1093, 1101 (D. | 1 | 1 |
Hawaiian Association of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Wong.green1 sentence2017See Wong, 130 Hawai'i at 45 , 305 P.3d at 461 (explaining a contract is ambiguous “when its terms are reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Silva v. Lopez
green
1 sentence2021On the other hand, Silva “is on point and is ultimately controlling here.” Per the plaintiffs, that case stands for the principle that “if the power of sale was violated by improper publication of notice of the sale, the sale is ‘void and not merely voidable,’” quoting Silva, 5 Haw. at 271 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Whitey's Boat Cruises, Inc. v. Napali-Kauai Boat Charters, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017In determining whether a private cause of action should be recognized based on statutory requirements, we consider the following factors: (1) whether the plaintiff is “one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted”; (2) whether there is “any indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or to deny one”; and (3) whether a private cause of action would be “consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the plaintiff.” Whitey’s Boat Cruises, 110 Hawai'i at 312 , 132 P.3d at 1223 . 2017In determining whether a private cause of action should be recognized based on statutory requirements, we consider the following factors: (1) whether the plaintiff is “one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted”; (2) whether there is “any indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or to deny one”; and (3) whether a private cause of action would be “consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the plaintiff.” Whitey’s Boat Cruises, 110 Hawai'i at 312 , 132 P.3d at 1223 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Basiliko v. Pargo Corp.
green
1 sentence2009The court held that it could “find no justification in law or policy for such exceptional treatment in the case of a foreclosure sale.” Id. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.