[§667-102]
Recordation of affidavit, conveyance document; effect. (a) The affidavit
required under section 667-101 and the conveyance document shall be recorded no
earlier than ten days after the public sale is held but not later than
forty-five days after the public sale is held. The affidavit and the
conveyance document may be recorded separately and on different days. After
the recordation, the association shall mail or deliver a recorded copy to those
persons entitled to receive the public notice of the public sale under section 667-96(c).
(b) When both the affidavit and the conveyance
document are recorded:
(1) The sale of the unit is considered
completed;
(2) All persons claiming by, through, or
under the unit owner and all other persons having
liens on the unit junior to the lien of the association shall be forever barred
of and from any and all right, title, interest, and claims at law or in equity
in and to the unit and every part of the unit, except as otherwise provided by
law;
(3) The lien of the association and all
liens junior in priority to the lien of an association
shall be automatically extinguished from the unit; and
(4) The purchaser shall be entitled to
immediate and exclusive possession of the unit.
(c) The unit owner and any person claiming by,
through, or under the unit owner and who is remaining in possession of the unit
after the recordation of the affidavit and the conveyance document shall be
considered a tenant at sufferance subject to eviction or ejectment. The
purchaser may bring an action in the nature of summary possession under chapter
666, ejectment, or trespass or may bring any other appropriate action in a
court where the unit is located to obtain a writ of possession, a writ of assistance,
or any other relief. In any such action, the court shall award the prevailing
party its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and all other reasonable fees
and costs, all of which are to be paid for by the non-prevailing party. [L
2012, c 182, pt of §3(2)]
Case Notes
Subsection (b)(2) did not bar respondent's challenge to
association of apartment owners' nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings because
respondent's affidavit alleged that she was currently under a payment plan with
the association of apartment owners as of the foreclosure date. The
respondent's claims therefore fell under the subsection (b)(2) "otherwise
provided by law" exception. 139 H. 278, 389 P.3d 115 (2016).
Notes of Decisions
Sakal v. Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Hawaiian Monarch, 426 P.3d 443 (Haw. App. 2018).
· cites it 24× “Even if the nonjudicial power of sale foreclosure had been conducted pursuant to Part II, the recordation referenced in HRS § 667-33 -which is the exact parallel provision in Part II of HRS chapter 667 that HRS § 667-102 was modeled after-had not yet occurred.”
Sakal v. Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Hawaiian Monarch. (Haw. 2020).
· cites it 31× “7 The ICA held that Sakal’s wrongful foreclosure claim was not barred by HRS § 667-102 because the statute only bars claims “in and to the unit” and not all claims arising out of wrongful and unlawful nonjudicial foreclosures, such as claims for money damages.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 667-102(a) — 2 cases
Sakal v. Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Hawaiian Monarch, 426 P.3d 443 (Haw. App. 2018).
“Even if the nonjudicial power of sale foreclosure had been conducted pursuant to Part II, the recordation referenced in HRS § 667-33 -which is the exact parallel provision in Part II of HRS chapter 667 that HRS § 667-102 was modeled after-had not yet occurred.”
Sakal v. Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Hawaiian Monarch. (Haw. 2020).
“7 The ICA held that Sakal’s wrongful foreclosure claim was not barred by HRS § 667-102 because the statute only bars claims “in and to the unit” and not all claims arising out of wrongful and unlawful nonjudicial foreclosures, such as claims for money damages.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 667-102(b) — 3 cases
Sakal v. Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Hawaiian Monarch, 426 P.3d 443 (Haw. App. 2018).
“Even if the nonjudicial power of sale foreclosure had been conducted pursuant to Part II, the recordation referenced in HRS § 667-33 -which is the exact parallel provision in Part II of HRS chapter 667 that HRS § 667-102 was modeled after-had not yet occurred.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 667-102(b)(2) — 3 cases
Sakal v. Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Hawaiian Monarch, 426 P.3d 443 (Haw. App. 2018).
“Even if the nonjudicial power of sale foreclosure had been conducted pursuant to Part II, the recordation referenced in HRS § 667-33 -which is the exact parallel provision in Part II of HRS chapter 667 that HRS § 667-102 was modeled after-had not yet occurred.”
Sakal v. Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Hawaiian Monarch. (Haw. 2020).
“7 The ICA held that Sakal’s wrongful foreclosure claim was not barred by HRS § 667-102 because the statute only bars claims “in and to the unit” and not all claims arising out of wrongful and unlawful nonjudicial foreclosures, such as claims for money damages.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 667-102(b)(3) — 4 cases
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 667-102(b)(4) — 5 cases
Sakal v. Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Hawaiian Monarch, 426 P.3d 443 (Haw. App. 2018).
“Even if the nonjudicial power of sale foreclosure had been conducted pursuant to Part II, the recordation referenced in HRS § 667-33 -which is the exact parallel provision in Part II of HRS chapter 667 that HRS § 667-102 was modeled after-had not yet occurred.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 667-102(c) — 1 case
Sakal v. Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Hawaiian Monarch. (Haw. 2020).
“7 The ICA held that Sakal’s wrongful foreclosure claim was not barred by HRS § 667-102 because the statute only bars claims “in and to the unit” and not all claims arising out of wrongful and unlawful nonjudicial foreclosures, such as claims for money damages.”
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.