Oral Argument Before the Hawai‘i Supreme Court – SCWC-17-0000847
No. SCWC-17-0000847, Tuesday, October 17, 2023, 2 p.m.
ROSALINDA GANIR SAPLAN and RECTO RAMOS SAPLAN, Respondents/Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR BAFC 2007-A, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee.
The above-captioned case was set for oral argument on the merits at:
Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
The oral argument was livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo TV 55.
Attorneys for Petitioner U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR BAFC 2007-A:
Jade Lynne Ching, Ryan B. Kasten, and Michelle N. Comeau of Nakashima Ching LLC
Attorney for Respondents ROSALINDA GANIR SAPLAN and RECTO RAMOS SAPLAN:
Keith M. Kiuchi
NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge James H. Ashford and Circuit Judge Fa‘auuga To‘otoo due to vacancies, filed 09/05/23.
NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 09/05/23.
COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna and Eddins, JJ., and Circuit Judge To‘otoo and Circuit Judge Ashford, assigned by reason of vacancies
This case arises out of U.S. Bank’s nonjudicial foreclosure of a promissory note executed by Rosalinda Ganir Saplan and Recto Ramos Saplan (the “Saplans”) for purchase of a property in Kailua-Kona. In 2011, U.S. Bank filed an ejectment action to remove the Saplans and others from the property. The 2011 action was dismissed by the court for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rules of the Circuit Courts of Hawai‘i 12(q) because a pretrial conference was not scheduled. In 2014, U.S. Bank again filed suit for ejectment of the Saplans and others.
In 2015, the Saplans brought the current action to quiet title in their favor. They argued that the order dismissing the 2011 action was an adjudication on the merits that had already quieted title in their favor, and that U.S. Bank’s 2014 action for ejectment was therefore precluded. U.S. Bank moved for summary judgment, which the circuit court granted.
The Saplans appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”). The ICA held that U.S. Bank failed to establish that the Saplans’ 2015 claims (i.e. the instant quiet title and related claims) were precluded by the 2014 action, and that U.S. Bank failed to establish that there was no genuine issue of material fact.
On appeal, U.S. Bank argues that the ICA erred by holding (1) that the 2011 dismissal was on the merits for the purposes of claim preclusion and (2) that U.S. Bank had not met its burden of showing there were genuine issues of material fact for trial. In response, the Saplans argue (1) the ICA correctly applied precedent in requiring U.S. Bank to establish that the price for the property was adequate and (2) because U.S. Bank did not seek a final judgment or object to the dismissal of the 2011 action, the ICA was correct in holding that the 2011 action was dismissed with prejudice.