Supreme Court Oral Argument!!!

Wow! The time has come! I am officially in the big leagues, the NBA, the NFL, the Royal Canadian Curling Club (any curling fans out there?….*crickets*). I have my first oral argument this week before the Hawaii Supreme Court! Wow!

The hearing is Thursday, August 25, at 2:00 p.m. Live attendance is encouraged at:

Supreme Court Courtroom

Aliʻiōlani Hale

417 South King Street

Honolulu, HI 96813

Or, there is a livestream option here: https://youtu.be/q1nUfy05S54

Please attend!!!

What you need to know about the case-

  • Case Name: JBNC vs Namahoe

  • Background: I represent Namahoe, an elderly Big-Island man, who obtained a reverse mortgage in 2009. In 2013, JBNC instituted wrongful foreclosure proceedings based on allegedly $500 worth of repairs to the carport that Namahoe had allegedly failed to complete. Rather than using $750 of loan monies, held by JBNC specifically for this purpose, to complete the repairs, JBNC instead foreclosed. What’s more, JBNC never complied with HUD notice and loss mitigation requirements. Eventually, the case proceeded without Namahoe receiving notice and then, of course, he lost.

  • The Appeal: In 2017, Namahoe moved the lower court for post-judgment relief, but his claims were denied. Namahoe appealed. We lost the appeal, but the Supreme Court elected to rehear the matter, hence the coming hearing.

  • Issues Presented:

    • First, whether Hungate v. Rosen, a 2017 case, applies to the facts of our case. That case clarifies that lenders must strictly comply with both Statutory and Contractual conditions precedent to foreclosure.

      • Issue - does it apply to the facts of our 2013 case?

    • Second, the motion Namahoe filed for relief in 2017 came three years after the judgment, but only one year after the home was sold to a third party by JBNC. The statute says such a motion need be made “not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. ”

      • Issue - what does that mean? When did the one year countdown start? At the judgment in 2014 or sometime later?

    • Third, the motion Namahoe filed also claimed the judgment itself was void because the lender, JBNC, had failed to comply with statutory notice requirements. JBNC said it was no matter because Namahoe was eventually served prior to the judgement.

      • Issue - did the later service, if any, cure the lack of the statutorily-required pre-case notice?

    • Finally, the motion claimed JBNC committed fraud on the court by failing to disclose 1) that the foreclosure was based only on $500 worth of repairs, and 2) that no conditions precedent were complied with by JBNC. The Appellate Court dismissed this issue outright, stating that Namahoe could just file a separate lawsuit claiming fraud.

      • Issue - should the ICA have at least addressed the issue?

Tune in this Thursday for the exciting conclusion of this week’s episode of “Shady Corporations Screwing the Little Guy.” (Seriously, I hope you tune in or attend. Mahalo in advance.)