Skip to Content

Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court –No. SCWC-16-0000319

No. SCWC-16-0000319, Thursday, January 17, 2019, 8:45 a.m.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DANIEL KALEOALOHA KANAHELE, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant, and THE ESTATE OF MARCUS C. KANAHELE, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, STATE OF HAWAI I, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FIA CARD SERVICES, N.A., GLORIA KANAHELE, Personal Representative of the Estate of Marcus C. Kanahele, Respondent/Defendants-Appellees.

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

Supreme Court Courtroom 
Aliiolani Hale, 2nd Floor 
417 South King Street 
Honolulu, HI 96813

Attorneys for Petitioner Daniel Kanahele:

Bianca K. Isaki; Lance D. Collins of the Law Office of Lance D. Collins

Attorneys for Respondent Nationstar Mortgage:

David A. Nakashima, Jade Lynne Ching, and Kanoelani S. Kane of Nakashima Ching LLC, Attorneys at Law

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 12/14/18.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.

[  Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format  ]

Brief Description:

In 2006, Defendant-Appellant Daniel Kaleoaloha Kanahele (“Daniel”) executed a promissory note (“Note”) to Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB for $625,000 plus interest at an annual rate of 6.500%. The Note was secured by a mortgage, executed by Daniel and his brother, Marcus, that encumbered their family home. Marcus died in 2013, having never signed the Note. As such, Daniel was the Note’s sole borrower. Daniel defaulted on the Note in 2008, which led to the foreclosure action at issue.

The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (“circuit court”) granted Plaintiff-Appellee Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s (“Nationstar”) Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Decree of Foreclosure, finding that Nationstar had adequately demonstrated its ability to enforce the Note. Daniel subsequently appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”).

Although the ICA vacated the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, Daniel asks this court to address several issues that he contends were either resolved incorrectly or left unresolved by the ICA. Daniel’s application for writ of certiorari thus asks:

(1) Whether summary judgment is precluded where contradictory declarations by the representatives of a foreclosing party undercut the trustworthiness of its offered business records;

(2) Whether a foreclosing plaintiff, who is not a holder in due course, is subject to a defendant’s affirmative defenses; and
(3) Whether the trial court abuses its discretion by denying a defendant’s motion to compel discovery when a foreclosing party refuses to answer interrogatories and respond to requests for admissions.