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

Hawaii Supreme Court, Intermediate Court of Appeals, and Honolulu District Court buildings are closed today due to an area power outage. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court–No. SCWC-17-0000807

No. SCWC-17-0000807, Thursday, June 20, 2019, 10 a.m.

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for the Benefit of the Certificate Holders of NOMURA HOME EQUITY LOAN, in Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-FM2, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARK MARCANTONIO and GWEN MARCANTONIO, Petitioners/Defendants/Cross-Claim Defendants-Appellants, and ALINA NAULT, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant, and MC&A, Inc., Respondent/Defendant/Cross-Claim Plaintiff-Appellee, and STATE OF HAWAII, HAWAII HEALTH SYSTEMS CORPORATION, dba MAUI MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, and DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.

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

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

Attorneys for Petitioners:

Gary Victor Dubin and Frederick J. Arensmeyer of Dubin Law Offices

Attorneys for Respondent HSBC Bank:

David B. Rosen, David E. McAllister, and Justin S. Moyer of Aldridge Pite, LLP

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/06/19.

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

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

This case arises out of foreclosure proceedings initiated against Gwen Marcantonio, Mark Marcantonio, and Alina Nault (collectively, “Petitioners”) by HSBC Bank in June 2013. Petitioners failed to answer HSBC Bank’s foreclosure complaint and the circuit court entered default against them. The circuit court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of HSBC Bank and entered a foreclosure decree.

Thirteen months later, Petitioners sought to set aside the entry of default and the foreclosure decree on the grounds that they had retained counsel in August 2013, who failed to represent them in the matter, resulting in their default and the judgment against them. Petitioners later filed another motion to set aside the foreclosure decree based on intervening authority. The circuit court denied Petitioners’ motions and entered an order confirming the foreclosure sale of the property.

Petitioners appealed the order confirming sale to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, which affirmed the circuit court’s rulings.

Petitioners’ Application for Writ of Certiorari asks the Supreme Court to review their client abandonment and intervening authority arguments.