Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 667
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 667-17 (2026)

§ 667-17

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

     §667-17  Attorney affirmation in judicial foreclosure.  Any attorney who files on behalf of a mortgagee seeking to foreclose on a residential property under this part shall sign and submit an affirmation that the attorney has verified the accuracy of the documents submitted, under penalty of perjury and subject to applicable rules of professional conduct.  The affirmation shall be filed with the court at the time that the action is commenced and shall be in substantially the following form:

 

"_____CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

 

_______________________________________________

 

Plaintiff,

AFFIRMATION

v.

 

Defendant(s)

 

Mortgaged Premises:

_____________________

______________________________________________

 

Note:   During and after August 2010, numerous and widespread insufficiencies

in foreclosure filings in various courts around the nation were reported by major

mortgage lenders and other authorities, including failure to review documents

and files to establish standing and other foreclosure requisites; filing of notarized

affidavits that falsely attest to such review and to other critical facts in the

foreclosure process; and “robosignature” of documents.

 

* * *

 

[____________], Esq., pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §667-17 and under the penalties of perjury, affirms as follows:

 

1.    I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice in the State of Hawaii and am affiliated with the Law Firm of __________________, the attorneys of record for Plaintiff in the above-captioned mortgage foreclosure action. As such, I am fully aware of the underlying action, as well as the proceedings had herein.

 

2.    On [date], I communicated with the following representative or representatives of Plaintiff, who informed me that he/she/they (a) personally reviewed plaintiff's documents and records relating to this case for factual accuracy; and (b) confirmed the factual accuracy of the allegations set forth in the Complaint and any supporting affidavits or affirmations filed with the Court, as well as the accuracy of the notarizations contained in the supporting documents filed therewith.

 

Name                          Title

______________________________     ________________________

______________________________     ________________________

______________________________     ________________________

 

3.    Based upon my communication with [persons specified in item 2], as well as upon my own inspection and other reasonable inquiry under the circumstances, I affirm that, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the Summons, Complaint, and other papers filed or submitted to the Court in this matter contain no false statements of fact or law and that plaintiff has legal standing to bring this foreclosure action.  I understand my continuing obligation to amend this Affirmation in light of newly discovered material facts following its filing.

 

4.    I am aware of my obligations under Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct.

 

____________________________________

DATED:

 

N.B.: Counsel may augment this affirmation to provide explanatory details,

and may file supplemental affirmations or affidavits for the same purpose."

 

[L 2012, c 182, pt of §3(3), §69(1); am L 2014, c 37, §1]

 

Note

 

  Repeal on July 1, 2017, by L 2012, c 182, §69(1)(A), as shown in the main volume, deleted by L 2017, c 158, §1.

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2018–2025 · leading case: Domingo v. James B. Nutter & Co.. Consol. with CAAP-17-0000859. ICA Order Granting the January 8, 2019 Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, filed 01/25/2019 [ada]., 543 P.3d 1 (Haw. App. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Domingo v. James B. Nutter & Co.. Consol. with CAAP-17-0000859. ICA Order Granting the January 8, 2019 Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, filed 01/25/2019 [ada]., 543 P.3d 1 (Haw. App. 2023). · cites it 85× “4 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER deficient, inaccurate and incomplete, materially false and misleading HRS § 667-17 affirmation, with respect to a foreclosure on a reverse mortgage, is hereby recognized; (3) a wrongful foreclosure claim per se is…”
James B. Nutter & Co. v. Namahoe, Sr., 528 P.3d 222 (Haw. 2023). · cites it 32× “14 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** failing to include pertinent facts and disclosures in its attorney affirmations as required by HRS § 667-17. Specifically, Namahoe alleged that Clay Chapman failed to disclose the aforementioned instances…”
Wells Fargo Bank v. Fong., 488 P.3d 1228 (Haw. 2021). · cites it 3× “, an HRS § 667-17 Affirmation, the Note, the Mortgage, the mortgage assignment from MortgageIt, Inc.”
HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n v. Moore, 434 P.3d 1244 (Haw. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Also on March 18, 2015, HSBC Bank filed an Affirmation of Attorney pursuant to HRS § 667-17 wherein Tellio affirmed that, inter alia , none of HSBC Bank's filings "contain any false statements of fact or law" and that "[HSBC Bank] has legal standing to bring this foreclosure…”
McCullough v. Bank of Am., N.A. (Haw. 2025). · cites it 16× “HRS § 667-17 was enacted in 2012 after the foreclosure sales at issue.”
HSBC Bank United States, Nat'l Ass'n v. Moore, 418 P.3d 1200 (Haw. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Also on March 18, 2015, HSBC Bank filed an Affirmation of Attorney pursuant to HRS § 667-17 wherein Tellio affirmed that, inter alia , none of HSBC Bank's filings "contain any false statements of fact or law" and that "[HSBC Bank] has legal standing to bring this foreclosure…”
HSBC Bank USA v. Gillespie, Jr., 492 P.3d 1077 (Haw. App. 2021). · cites it 5× “4 HRS § 667-17 (1993) provides, in relevant part: § 667-17 Attorney affirmation in judicial foreclosure.”
Bank of New York Melon v. Bautista (Haw. App. 2023). · cites it 4× “The Stone Declaration also attached an Attorney Affirmation pursuant to HRS § 667-17 (2012)9 that was filed with the July 28, 2015 Complaint, and identified the Bailee Letter and Attorney Affirmation as records "kept in the course of the law firm's regularly conducted law…”
1900 Capital Trust III by U.S. Bank Trust Nat'l Ass'n v. Garcia (D. Haw. 2025). · cites it 3× “Section 667-17); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 667-17 (requiring an attorney affirmation in judicial foreclosure proceedings).”
Robertson v. Watson (D. Haw. 2020). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs are the holders of the Note, as properly certified by their attorney under Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 667-17 . (Decl. of Dana A.”
U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Morton (Haw. App. 2024). “" Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 667-17 (2016). The statute includes a form with which the affirmation must substantially comply.”
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.