Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 501
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 501-118 (2026)

  Foreclosure

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §501-118  Foreclosure.  [(a)]  Mortgages of registered land may be foreclosed like mortgages of unregistered land.

     [(b)]  In case of foreclosure by action, a certified copy of the final judgment of the court confirming the sale may be filed or recorded with the assistant registrar or the deputy after the time for appealing therefrom has expired and the purchaser shall thereupon be entitled to the entry of a new certificate.

     [(c)]  In case of foreclosure by exercising the power of sale without a previous judgment, the affidavit required by chapter 667 shall be recorded with the assistant registrar.  The purchaser or the purchaser's assigns at the foreclosure sale may thereupon at any time present the deed under the power of sale to the assistant registrar for recording and obtain a new certificate.  Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the mortgagor or other person in interest from directly impeaching by action or otherwise, any foreclosure proceedings affecting registered land, prior to the entry of a new certificate of title.

     [(d)]  After a new certificate of title has been entered, no judgment recovered on the mortgage note for any balance due thereon shall operate to open the foreclosure or affect the title to registered land. [L 1903, c 56, §63; am L 1913, c 21, §1; RL 1925, §3252; RL 1935, §5062; RL 1945, §12662; am L 1951, c 142, §3; RL 1955, §342-62; HRS §501-118; am L 1972, c 91, §1(v); gen ch 1985; am L 1986, c 246, §10; am L 1988, c 346, §12; am L 1998, c 122, §3]

 

Rules of Court

 

  Certificates of title, see Rules of the Land Court, part II.

 

Case Notes

 

  Even assuming arguendo that plaintiffs had valid defenses to the propriety of the non-judicial foreclosure sale of the property, the defenses were time-barred because plaintiff failed to raise them before a new certificate of title was issued; defendant's motion to dismiss granted.  795 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (2011).

  Although plaintiffs-mortgagors sought a putative class action for wrongful foreclosure of mortgages against defendant-mortgagee and claimed that under section 501-212, plaintiffs-mortgagors could not be deprived of a tort claim,  plaintiffs-mortgagors failed to file their claims prior to the land court's entry of new transfers of certificate of title, as required under this section.  342 F. Supp. 3d 1029 (2018).

  Where plaintiff-mortgagors sought putative class action for wrongful foreclosure of mortgages against defendant-mortgagee and sought monetary damages in lieu of a return of title and possession, the court found that plaintiffs-mortgagors, under this section, could not impeach the foreclosure proceedings after the land court's entry of new transfers of certificates of title.  Thus, plaintiffs-mortgagors' wrongful foreclosure, unfair and deceptive practices, and unfair methods of competition claims were barred, regardless of how the remedy was styled.  342 F. Supp. 3d 1029 (2018).

  A mortgagor's right to "impeach any foreclosure proceeding" is expressly limited to the period before entry of a new certificate of title.  107 H. 95, 110 P.3d 1042 (2005).

  This section provides a nonexclusive means for a purchaser of a property at a foreclosure sale to obtain a certificate of title, i.e., by filing a certified copy of the final judgment after the thirty day period allowed to file a notice of appeal has elapsed; this section does not preclude good faith purchasers at a foreclosure sale from obtaining a certificate of title by other statutory procedures, such as those provided in §501-155.  140 H. 358, 400 P.3d 559 (2017).

  Discussed:  814 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (2011).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2005–2024 · leading case: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Omiya., 420 P.3d 370 (Haw. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Omiya., 420 P.3d 370 (Haw. 2018). · cites it 54× “The ICA then pointed to HRS § 501-118 (2006), which precludes a mortgagor or other person in interest from impeaching foreclosure proceedings after the entry of a new certificate of title.”
The Bank of New York Mellon v. R. Onaga, Inc., 400 P.3d 559 (Haw. 2017). · cites it 40× “” The application of HRS § 501-118 in judicial foreclosures is a question of first impression before this court.”
Aames Funding Corp. v. Mores, 110 P.3d 1042 (Haw. 2005). · cites it 26× “Relying on HRS § 501-118 (Supp. 2001), Aames asserts that the Moreses “did not have the right or power .”
Fergerstrom v. PNC Bank, N.A., 342 F. Supp. 3d 1029 (D. Haw. 2018). · cites it 40× “Further, because the prospective class representatives have no remaining claims, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, as detailed below. BACKGROUND I. Factual Background A.”
Takushi v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 814 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (D. Haw. 2011). · cites it 22× “Haw.Rev.Stat. § 501-118 (emphasis added).”
Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Century Ctr., Inc. ex rel. Bd. of Directors v. Young Jin An, 389 P.3d 115 (Haw. 2016). · cites it 6× “HRS § 501-118 provides, “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the mortgagor or other person in interest from directly impeaching by action or otherwise, any foreclosure proceedings affecting registered land, prior to the entry of a new certificate of title.”
Sakal v. Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Hawaiian Monarch, 426 P.3d 443 (Haw. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “Having failed to challenge the nonjudicial power of sale foreclosure of the Property prior to the recordation of the Affidavit and the Quitclaim Deed, Sakai is now barred by HRS § 667-102(b)(2) from any claim to the Property itself.”
Caraang v. PNC Mortg., 795 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (D. Haw. 2011). · cites it 2× “Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiffs had valid defenses to the propriety of the non-judicial foreclosure sale, the defenses are time-barred because Plaintiffs failed to raise them before the new certificate of title was issued.”
Yanagi v. Bank of Am.. (Haw. 2023). · cites it 118× “Discussion The first certified question centers upon the interpretation of HRS § 501-118 (the “Foreclosure” section of our Land Court statutes found in HRS chapter 501).”
Manuel v. Bank of Am., N.A. (Bankr. D. Haw. 2023). · cites it 115× “Discussion The first certified question centers upon the interpretation of HRS § 501-118 (the “Foreclosure” section of our Land Court statutes found in HRS chapter 501).”
Scholes v. Kiyoshi Kawaguchi, 419 P.3d 1029 (Haw. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “3d at 1049-50 ; HRS § 501-118 (2006). Important to this case, Aames also addressed the fraud exception noted in In re Bishop Tr.”
Panuelos v. Bank of Am., N.A., 556 P.3d 1275 (Haw. App. 2024). · cites it 10× “In these appeals: (a) Panuelos and the Hillingers contend the circuit court erroneously concluded their claims were barred by HRS § 501-118; (b) Panuelos, the Hillingers, and Bui contend the court erroneously concluded that their claims for restitution or rescissory damages, and…”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 501-118(c) — 3 cases
Yanagi v. Bank of Am.. (Haw. 2023). “Discussion The first certified question centers upon the interpretation of HRS § 501-118 (the “Foreclosure” section of our Land Court statutes found in HRS chapter 501).”
Manuel v. Bank of Am., N.A. (Bankr. D. Haw. 2023). “Discussion The first certified question centers upon the interpretation of HRS § 501-118 (the “Foreclosure” section of our Land Court statutes found in HRS chapter 501).”
Panuelos v. Bank of Am., N.A., 556 P.3d 1275 (Haw. App. 2024). “In these appeals: (a) Panuelos and the Hillingers contend the circuit court erroneously concluded their claims were barred by HRS § 501-118; (b) Panuelos, the Hillingers, and Bui contend the court erroneously concluded that their claims for restitution or rescissory damages, and…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.