Justice is Served .... Twice

We. Won. …. Twice!!!

Thank you to any of you who already were keeping up on the results of my recent Supreme Court Oral Arguments. I appreciate it. I’m late in reporting, but happy to report, that both arguments went over well with the Court and we….dun dun dun…. won both appeals!!! Here’s the details for the foreclosure case (the criminal case results will be the subject of my next blog post):

JBNC vs Namahoe - Wrongful Foreclosure Case

Elton Namahoe - Borrower (pc: Civil Beat)

Factual Summary: In this case, JBNC, a predatory purveyor of reverse mortgages, foreclosed on an elderly borrower named Namahoe based on an alleged failure to make $500 worth of repairs to his carport. The case proceeded, but, due to dubious service of process on Namahoe, he failed to defend the lawsuit and eventually a summary judgment of foreclosure was issued to JBNC. After the case ended, Will Rosdil was hired by Namahoe to try to unwind the proceedings. He argued, among other things, that JBNC and its attorneys had committed fraud on the court where they had 1) failed to disclose the details of the foreclosure to the judge ($500 repairs vs losing a $200k+ home), and 2) failed to disclose that they did not fully comply with HUD regulations precedent to foreclosure.

Justice Nakayama (foreground); Justice Recktenwald (background) (pc: Civil Beat)

The Decision: The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, found that JBNC and its attorneys did in fact commit fraud on the Court. (“Despite the high threshold for a finding of fraud on the court, we find that JBNC committed fraud on the court in pursuit of this foreclosure against Namahoe.” - Justice Recktenwald, Opinion at page 40.). We win!!!

 

What is Next: The Court ruled that “the circuit court’s denial of Namahoe’s [ ]motion [for relief] is [ ] reversed, and the Decree of Foreclosure is vacated insofar as it would preclude Namahoe from asserting a wrongful foreclosure claim.” Opinion, page 49. This means that the foreclosure goes back to its pre-summary-judgment ruling stage so that Namahoe can defend against. Also, it means Namahoe’s separate lawsuit against JBNC and its attorneys for wrongful foreclosure can proceed once again as well. Those cases are now pending again before the lower court.

Will Rosdil - Attorney Hired to Unwind the Bogus Foreclosure (pc: Civil Beat)

What this Means for Borrowers and Lenders: Courts across the nation, but especially in Hawaii, have recognized for years that foreclosing lenders often employ predatory practices. As a result, protections for borrowers have routinely been extended. This case furthers that practice. It iterates and clarifies that a lender must strictly adhere to all contractual and legal (statutory and case law) prerequisites to foreclosure. Most importantly, however, it again recognizes that the foreclosing attorney is also held to this same standard and the attorney must certify to the Court the lender’s compliance. Finally, this case shows that where the practices are especially egregious and/or predatory, relief for a borrower can be gained even well after the fact of the foreclosure.

Also, special thanks to John Hill at Civil Beat for his fabulous article covering the story. You can find it here.

If you would like to read the full Supreme Court opinion, you can find that here.

Supreme Court Wants Me Back!

State vs Ines - Hawaii Supreme Court Oral Argument

I guess they liked my performance at the last oral argument because the Justices have invited me back on a new case. This one is criminal, and it is going to be interesting (live-stream options noted at end of post below).

Hawaii

Supreme Court

Oral Argument - Upcoming, Nov. 29, 2pm



Here’s what you need to know:

Case Name: State vs Ines/Lafoga

Salient Facts:

  • Attempted Murder: Both defendants were charged with attempted murder and kidnapping regarding an alleged shooting.

  • Lack of Gang Evidence: The prosecutors wanted to introduce evidence of alleged gang membership by both defendants, arguing that the shooting was gang-motivated.

  • Jury Selection: The Court, without any solid evidence, other than prosecutorial allegations, empaneled an anonymous jury (the names of prospective jurors being withheld from the innocent-until-proven-guilty defendants).

  • Guilty-Life: Both defendants were found guilty of the attempted murder charge and sentenced to Life With the Possibility of Parole.

  • Extended Sentence - No Parole: The jurors were then instructed that if the jury found it was “necessary for the protection of the public”, the jury could “extend the term” of the sentence from a “possible life term” to a “definite life term”. They were not told that the only difference between the two was the possibility of parole.



Issues Before the Supreme Court:

  1. Were the defendants’ Constitutional and Statutory rights - to an impartial jury and to the presumption of innocence - denied where the Court empaneled an anonymous jury without any evidence being presented showing that the jury needed such protections?

  2. Were the jury instructions regarding the “possible” versus “definite” life terms of imprisonment misleading where the jurors likely interpreted such as indicting that the non-extended prison terms were less-than-life terms of imprisonment?



Viewing Options:

YouTube… https://youtu.be/GXiupnxd0bM

‘Olelo TV (channel 49)

Court Website (add’l info)

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER BELOW FOR UPDATES