Skip to Main Nav Skip to Main Content Skip to Footer Content

Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court–No. SCWC-16-0000807

No. SCWC-16-0000807, Friday, January 11, 2019, 11:15 a.m.

HAWAII USA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JONNAVEN JO MONALIM; MISTY MARIE MONALIM, Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants, and ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF BEACH VILLAS AT KO OLINA, by its Board of Directors; KO OLINA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., a Hawai i nonprofit corporation, Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.

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

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali iolani Hale
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

Attorney for Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants:

Gary Victor Dubin and Frederick John Arensmeyer

 Attorneys for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee:

Jonathan W.Y. Lai, Thomas J. Berger, and Tracey L. Ohta

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 11/14/18.


Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format  ]

Brief Description:

Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants Jonnaven Jo Monalim and Misty Marie Monalim (the Monalims) appeal the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ (ICA) affirmation of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit’s (circuit court) deficiency judgment against the Monalims in favor of HawaiiUSA Federal Credit Union (HawaiiUSA).

In 2010, HawaiiUSA filed a foreclosure complaint against the Monalims after they defaulted on two loans from HawaiiUSA totaling over one million dollars. At a foreclosure sale, a third party bidder purchased the property for less than the Monalims owed to HawaiiUSA. The circuit court issued an order granting confirmation of the sale in 2011.

In 2016, HawaiiUSA filed a Motion for Deficiency Judgment to the circuit court, seeking the remainder of the money the Monalims owed. After a hearing, the circuit court granted the Motion for Deficiency Judgment.

The Monalims appealed to the ICA, which affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, rejecting the Monalims’ arguments that the circuit court violated the law of laches and violated their right to an evidentiary hearing on prejudice.

The Monalims applied for writ of certiorari, arguing that the language of the circuit court’s conclusion of law in the 2011 foreclosure judgment barred a 2016 Motion for Deficiency Judgment, and that the ICA erred by upholding the circuit court’s judgment without conducting an evidentiary hearing on delay prejudice and the value of the property at the time of sale confirmation. The Monalims also raise the following six arguments:

 (1) the deficiency judgment violated the law of the case,
 (2) the deficiency judgment violated the law of waiver,
 (3) the deficiency judgment violated the law of laches,
 (4) the deficiency judgment violated the law of estoppel,
 (5) the deficiency judgment violated the rules of evidence, and(6) the deficiency judgment violated due process of law.