Oral Arguments Schedule

Argument DetailCourt

No. SCWC-12-0000867, Tuesday, July 7, 8:45 a.m.

KONDAUR CAPITAL CORPORATION, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LEIGH MATSUYOSHI, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

Attorneys for Petitioner:

James J. Bickerton, Bridget G. Morgan, and Joe Moss

Attorney for Respondent:

Jonathan W. Y. Lai, Michael C. Bird, and Thomas J. Berger

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/18/15.

COURT: MER, CJ; PAN, SSM, RWP, and MDW, JJ.

Brief Description:

Leigh Matsuyoshi purchased a residential property located in Li`hue, Kaua`i (Property) that she financed with a $500,000 loan, secured by a mortgage on the Property from Resmae Mortgage Corporation (Resmae). The mortgage included an acceleration and power of sale clause. When Matsuyoshi defaulted on the loan, Resmae commenced non-judicial foreclosure proceedings under the power of sale in the mortgage. Resmae later assigned the mortgage to Resmae Liquidation Properties (RLP). Thereafter, RLP bought the Property at a foreclosure auction sale in Honolulu. RLP then conveyed the Property by a quitclaim deed to Kondaur Capital Corporation (Kondaur).

Kondaur commenced an ejectment action against Matsuyoshi on June 5, 2012. On June 27, 2012, Kondaur moved for summary judgment, which Matsuyoshi opposed on several grounds. The circuit court granted the motion and Matsuyoshi appealed. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), following a remand from the supreme court, affirmed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Kondaur. On April 6, 2015, Matsuyoshi filed her Application seeking review of the ICA’s judgment.

Matsuyoshi argues that under Ulrich v. Security Investment Company, 35 Haw. 158 (Haw. Terr. 1939), mortgagees are bound to exercise the foreclosure power with fairness and diligence, especially when the mortgagee is self-dealing in a manner that creates an inherent conflict of interest. Matsuyoshi contends that Kondaur, in order to prevail on summary judgment, was required to establish in its moving papers that RLP’s foreclosure sale of the Property was properly and fairly conducted and that the price was adequate--requirements that RLP failed to establish, particularly because RLP sold the Property on O`ahu rather than on Kaua`i. In her Application, Matsuyoshi identifies a split among local federal courts as to whether Ulrich remains good law. Additionally, Matsuyoshi asserts that Kondaur is not a bona fide purchaser because Kondaur was on notice of her claim to the Property by virtue of the quitclaim deed that it received from RLP.

In response, Kondaur argues that Matsuyoshi’s “reasonable diligence” argument was not preserved for this court’s review and was therefore waived. Additionally, Kondaur contends that even if this argument was properly preserved, requiring a third-party successor-in-interest such as Kondaur to establish a predecessor-in-interest’s reasonable diligence is tantamount to requiring such a successor-in-interest to disprove every possible defense to an ejectment action, which a summary judgment movant is not required to do. According to Kondaur, Ulrich requires the mortgagor, not the mortgagee, to introduce credible evidence to support a defense that the sale price at auction was fraudulent--a burden that Kondaur argues Matsuyoshi failed to satisfy in this case. Lastly, Kondaur contends that Matsuyoshi’s challenge to the sale of the Property on O`ahu rather than on Kaua`i is without merit because neither the pre-2012 version of the non-judicial foreclosure statute nor the power of sale contained in the parties’ mortgage required the sale to be conducted in the same county as where the Property is located.

Supreme
Court

No. SCWC-13-0000118, Thursday, August 20, 2015, 8:45 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAI`I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. WILLIAM E. BARRIOS, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

Attorney for Petitioner:

Benjamin E. Lowenthal

Attorney for Respondent:

Artemio C. Baxa, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/19/15.

COURT: MER, CJ; PAN, SSM, RWP, and MDW, JJ.

Brief Description:

Petitioner-Appellant William E. Barrios (Barrios) applied for writ of certiorari from the judgment of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), entered pursuant to its published opinion.

This case arises out of the alleged sexual assault of two minors -- Barrios's girlfriend's daughter (MD), and son (MS) -- from 2004 to 2009. Respondent-Appellee State of Hawai`i (State) charged Barrios with 200 felonies, which included various counts of sexual assault in the first degree, sexual assault in the third degree, and kidnapping.

After a jury trial on 180 of the counts, the jury returned guilty verdicts on 146 counts, all of which were charges pertaining to MD. The jury acquitted Barrios of all charges pertaining to MS.

At Barrios's sentencing hearing, the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (circuit court) allowed MD's grandmother to make a statement to the court, and allowed a letter written by MS to be read to the court. The circuit court imposed consecutive prison sentences on several of the counts of which Barrios was convicted, which totaled 100 years imprisonment.

Barrios appealed to the ICA and argued his convictions and sentence should be vacated. The ICA affirmed Barrios's convictions and sentence.

In his application, Barrios presents the following three questions:

1. Did the ICA gravely err when it ignored nearly thirty years of precedent and allowed the prosecutor to compare jurors to doctors and priests who care for and comfort children, and ask them to give the child witnesses "justice" by finding Mr. Barrios guilty?

2. Did the ICA gravely err in upholding the [sic] Judge Loo's use of non-victim statements at the sentencing hearing?

3. Was the imposition of 100 years of imprisonment with the hope that Mr. Barrios dies in prison an abuse of discretion that the ICA should have readily identified and remedied?

 

 

No. SCAP-14-0000873, Thursday, August 27, 2015 , 8:45 a.m.

MAUNA KEA ANAINA HOU, CLARENCE KUKAUAKAHI CHING, FLORES-CASE `OHANA, DEBORAH J. WARD, PAUL K. NEVES, and KAHEA: THE HAWAIIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE, a domestic non profit corporation, Petitioners/Appellants Appellants, vs. BOARD OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF HAWAI`I, DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF HAWAI`I, SUZANNE CASE, in her official capacity as Chair of the Board of Land and Natural Resources and Director of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, and UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI`I AT HILO, Respondents/Appellees Appellees.

The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

Attorney for Petitioner:

Richard Naiwieha Wurdeman

Attorneys for Respondent UH at Hilo:

Ian L. Sandison, Jay S. Handlin, Tim Lui-Kwan, and Arsima A. Muller

Attorneys for Respondent BLNR, et al.:

William J. Wynhoff and Julie H. China, Deputy Attorneys General

NOTE: Order granting Application for Transfer, filed 06/05/15.

COURT: MER, CJ; PAN, SSM, RWP, and MDW, JJ.

Brief Description:

This case involves Appellee University of Hawai`i at Hilo's (UHH) conservation district use application (CDUA) for the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) at the Mauna Kea Science Reserve, on the island of Hawai`i. Appellee Board of Land & Natural Resources (BLNR) granted a conservation district use permit (CDUP), subject to conditions. Appellants Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, Clarence Kukauakahi Ching, Flores-Case `Ohana, Deborah J. Ward, Paul K. Neves, and KAHEA: the Hawaiian Environmental Alliance, a domestic non-profit corporation, appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court affirmed BLNR's decision.

Appellants appealed the circuit court's decision to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), arguing as follows:

(1) the trial court was wrong and reversibly erred when it found that the BLNR's approval of CDUP HA-3568 prior to the contested case hearing did not warrant reversal;

(2) the circuit court was wrong and reversibly erred by affirming the BLNR's approval of UHH's CDUA and the reliable, probative and substantial evidence failed to support the findings and conclusions that the eight criteria of HAR [Hawai`i Administrative Rules] ' 13-5-30(c) were met and such conclusions were wrong;

(3) the circuit court was wrong and reversibly erred when it found that the CDUP was subject to a sufficient management plan; and

(4) the circuit court was wrong and the Board of Land and Natural Resources failed to meet its legal and constitutional obligations in properly identifying and determining the scope of the valued, cultural, historical and natural resources in the petition area; in determining the impact on these resources by the proposed land use in the conservation district; and in failing to take feasible actions to protect such resources by improperly delegating its duties and obligations.

Before the ICA issued an opinion, Appellants applied for transfer of this case to this court, and this court accepted.

Supreme
Court
Increase text sizeDecrease text sizePrint this page

© 2008 Hawaii State Judiciary. All rights reserved.

Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Accessibility Information

HIC logo