Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 667

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 667-5

§ 667-5

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §667-5  REPEALED.  L 2012, c 182, §50.

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 73 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Hungate v. Law Office of David B. Rosen
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hungate v. Law Office of David B. Rosen (2017) haw · cites it 91× “10 The court ruled that (1) Rosen complied with HRS §§ 667-5 and 667-7 as a matter of law; (2) HRS § 667-6(d) and the power of sale clause of the mortgage did not inquire publication of the postponement of the non-judicial foreclosure sale; (3) Hungate lacked standing to assert…”
Santiago v. Tanaka (2016) haw · cites it 73× “In a subsequent letter dated April 3, 2008, Tanaka clarified that she intended to foreclose under power of sale pursuant to HRS § 667-5 through 667-10 15 at a public auction on May 9, 2008.”
Mount v. Apao. (2016) haw · cites it 94× “With respect to the issues we address on certiorari, the circuit court ruled that a nonjudicial foreclosure conducted pursuant to HRS § 667-5 is a “proceeding to enforce a mortgage” under HRS § 560:3—803(d)(1), exempt from the time limits for presentation of claims against a…”
Kondaur Capital Corporation v. Matsuyoshi. (2015) haw · cites it 65× “Matsuyoshi acknowledged that she “fell behind on her mortgage payments,” but she maintained that technical violations of HRS § 667-5 voided the foreclosure sale. Matsu-yoshi argued “that all notices and acts required by the power contained in the [M]ort-gage shall be complied…”
Lee v. HSBC BANK USA (2009) haw · cites it 41× “Section 667-5 reads in relevant part: Foreclosure under power of sale; notice; affidavit after sale, (a) When a power of sale is contained in a mortgage, and where the mortgagee, the mortgagee’s successor in interest, or any person authorized by the power to act in the premises,…”
Sakal v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Hawaiian Monarch (2018) hawapp · cites it 30× “" Within the "old" Part I, HRS § 667-5 (repealed in 2012 ) provided a procedure through which a mortgagee could foreclose upon a property, without filing suit, in conjunction with the exercise of a power of sale provision contained in a mortgage.”
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Omiya. (2018) haw · cites it 6× “' " 34 Wells Fargo argued that Omiya did not present a certificate of title meeting the definition of RLC Rule 52.”
Bank of America, N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo. (2018) haw · cites it 4× “3d at 14 (holding there was no need to create a cause of action against a foreclosing mortgagee's attorney under former HRS § 667-5 concerning non-judicial foreclosures as "the mortgagor can protect its interest through filing a claim against the mortgagee for wrongful…”
Lima v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2013) hid · cites it 17× “Hawaii’s Nonjudicial Foreclosure Law Does Not Bar Quitclaim Deeds or Advertisements Stating That Only Quitclaim Deeds Will Be Provided.”
Lima, Jr. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (2021) haw · cites it 6× “1 However, 1 HRS § 667-5 (Supp. 2008) (repealed 2012) provided in relevant part: Foreclosure under power of sale; notice; affidavit after sale.”
Aames Funding Corp. v. Mores (2005) haw · cites it 6× “”) As to the Moreses’ assertion that Aames was not a “purchaser for value,” this assertion is based on contentions that (1) Aames declared default, scheduled and auctioned off the property, filed a HRS § 667-5 affidavit, 9 and transferred title to itself without the Moreses’…”
Dias v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n (2013) hid · cites it 12× “Plaintiffs Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) violation of HRS Chapter 667 based on lack of standing to foreclose against BAC, BANA, and Fannie Mae; (2) violation of HRS § 667-5 for failure to provide public announcement of continued date of foreclosure and to…”
Show all 73 citing cases →
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 667-5(a) — 5 cases
Hungate v. Law Office of David B. Rosen (2017) haw “10 The court ruled that (1) Rosen complied with HRS §§ 667-5 and 667-7 as a matter of law; (2) HRS § 667-6(d) and the power of sale clause of the mortgage did not inquire publication of the postponement of the non-judicial foreclosure sale; (3) Hungate lacked standing to assert…”
Santiago v. Tanaka (2016) haw “In a subsequent letter dated April 3, 2008, Tanaka clarified that she intended to foreclose under power of sale pursuant to HRS § 667-5 through 667-10 15 at a public auction on May 9, 2008.”
McCullough v. Bank of America, N.A. (2025) haw
Malabe v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Executive Ctr. (2018) hawapp
Santiago v. Tanaka. (2015) haw
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 667-5(a)(1) — 2 cases
Llanes v. Bank of America, N.A. (2024) haw
Llanes v. Bank of America, N.A. (2024) haw
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 667-5(a)(2) — 1 case
Mount v. Apao. (2016) haw “With respect to the issues we address on certiorari, the circuit court ruled that a nonjudicial foreclosure conducted pursuant to HRS § 667-5 is a “proceeding to enforce a mortgage” under HRS § 560:3—803(d)(1), exempt from the time limits for presentation of claims against a…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 667-5(a)(l) — 1 case
Kondaur Capital Corporation v. Matsuyoshi. (2015) haw “Matsuyoshi acknowledged that she “fell behind on her mortgage payments,” but she maintained that technical violations of HRS § 667-5 voided the foreclosure sale. Matsu-yoshi argued “that all notices and acts required by the power contained in the [M]ort-gage shall be complied…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 667-5(c) — 6 cases
Santiago v. Tanaka (2016) haw “In a subsequent letter dated April 3, 2008, Tanaka clarified that she intended to foreclose under power of sale pursuant to HRS § 667-5 through 667-10 15 at a public auction on May 9, 2008.”
Mount v. Apao. (2016) haw “With respect to the issues we address on certiorari, the circuit court ruled that a nonjudicial foreclosure conducted pursuant to HRS § 667-5 is a “proceeding to enforce a mortgage” under HRS § 560:3—803(d)(1), exempt from the time limits for presentation of claims against a…”
Santiago v. Tanaka. (2015) haw
Mount, Jr. v. Apao (2026) hawapp
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Winters (2025) hawapp
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 667-5(c)(1) — 3 cases
Mount v. Apao. (2016) haw “With respect to the issues we address on certiorari, the circuit court ruled that a nonjudicial foreclosure conducted pursuant to HRS § 667-5 is a “proceeding to enforce a mortgage” under HRS § 560:3—803(d)(1), exempt from the time limits for presentation of claims against a…”
Bank of America, N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo. (2018) haw “3d at 14 (holding there was no need to create a cause of action against a foreclosing mortgagee's attorney under former HRS § 667-5 concerning non-judicial foreclosures as "the mortgagor can protect its interest through filing a claim against the mortgagee for wrongful…”
Santiago v. Tanaka. (2015) haw
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 667-5(c)(l) — 2 cases
Mount v. Apao. (2016) haw “With respect to the issues we address on certiorari, the circuit court ruled that a nonjudicial foreclosure conducted pursuant to HRS § 667-5 is a “proceeding to enforce a mortgage” under HRS § 560:3—803(d)(1), exempt from the time limits for presentation of claims against a…”
Santiago v. Tanaka (2016) haw “In a subsequent letter dated April 3, 2008, Tanaka clarified that she intended to foreclose under power of sale pursuant to HRS § 667-5 through 667-10 15 at a public auction on May 9, 2008.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 667-5(d) — 7 cases
Hungate v. Law Office of David B. Rosen (2017) haw “10 The court ruled that (1) Rosen complied with HRS §§ 667-5 and 667-7 as a matter of law; (2) HRS § 667-6(d) and the power of sale clause of the mortgage did not inquire publication of the postponement of the non-judicial foreclosure sale; (3) Hungate lacked standing to assert…”
U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Castro (2013) haw
Kondaur Capital Corporation v. Matsuyoshi. (2015) haw “Matsuyoshi acknowledged that she “fell behind on her mortgage payments,” but she maintained that technical violations of HRS § 667-5 voided the foreclosure sale. Matsu-yoshi argued “that all notices and acts required by the power contained in the [M]ort-gage shall be complied…”
Lee v. HSBC BANK USA (2009) haw “Section 667-5 reads in relevant part: Foreclosure under power of sale; notice; affidavit after sale, (a) When a power of sale is contained in a mortgage, and where the mortgagee, the mortgagee’s successor in interest, or any person authorized by the power to act in the premises,…”
Lima v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2013) hid “Hawaii’s Nonjudicial Foreclosure Law Does Not Bar Quitclaim Deeds or Advertisements Stating That Only Quitclaim Deeds Will Be Provided.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 667-5(e) — 2 cases
Santiago v. Tanaka (2016) haw “In a subsequent letter dated April 3, 2008, Tanaka clarified that she intended to foreclose under power of sale pursuant to HRS § 667-5 through 667-10 15 at a public auction on May 9, 2008.”
Mount v. Apao. (2016) haw “With respect to the issues we address on certiorari, the circuit court ruled that a nonjudicial foreclosure conducted pursuant to HRS § 667-5 is a “proceeding to enforce a mortgage” under HRS § 560:3—803(d)(1), exempt from the time limits for presentation of claims against a…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 667-5(e)(l) — 1 case
Mount v. Apao. (2016) haw “With respect to the issues we address on certiorari, the circuit court ruled that a nonjudicial foreclosure conducted pursuant to HRS § 667-5 is a “proceeding to enforce a mortgage” under HRS § 560:3—803(d)(1), exempt from the time limits for presentation of claims against a…”
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.