Justia Hawaii Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Several borrowers executed mortgage agreements with a lender, granting the lender a lien on their respective properties in Hawai‘i. Between 2008 and 2009, the borrowers defaulted on their mortgage loans, and the lender foreclosed on the properties through nonjudicial foreclosure sales. The lender was the winning bidder at each sale and subsequently conveyed the properties to third parties. In 2019, the borrowers filed suit, alleging wrongful foreclosure, unfair or deceptive acts and practices (UDAP), and sought quiet title and ejectment against the current titleholders. They requested both monetary damages and the return of title and possession of the properties.The Circuit Court of the Third Circuit granted summary judgment in favor of the lender and the titleholders. The court found that the borrowers could not establish compensatory damages because their outstanding mortgage debts at the time of foreclosure exceeded any damages they claimed, even when accounting for loss of use and other asserted losses. The court also determined that the borrowers’ quiet title and ejectment claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that the titleholders were bona fide purchasers. The borrowers appealed, and the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i accepted transfer of the case.The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i affirmed the circuit court’s summary judgment. The court held that, under its precedents, borrowers must establish compensatory damages after accounting for their mortgage debts to survive summary judgment on wrongful foreclosure and UDAP claims. Here, the borrowers’ debts exceeded their claimed damages. The court further held that claims for return of title and possession are subject to a six-year statute of limitations for wrongful foreclosure actions, which barred the borrowers’ claims. Additionally, the court concluded that the titleholders were bona fide purchasers, as the foreclosure affidavits did not provide constructive notice of any defects. View "McCullough v. Bank of America, N.A." on Justia Law

A food and beverage server brought a class action lawsuit against several hotel and resort entities, alleging that from 2010 to 2016, the hotels imposed service charges on customers but failed to distribute the full amount of those charges as gratuities to employees. Instead, the hotels retained a portion of the service charges without clearly informing customers that not all of the service charge would go to employees as tips. The disclosures provided by the hotels during this period stated that “a portion” of the service fee was allocated to employees as “tips or wages” and another portion to cover other costs, but did not specify the exact amount or percentage distributed to employees.In the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, both parties moved for summary judgment. The circuit court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the hotels’ disclosures were insufficient because they did not specify the portion of the service charge distributed to employees. The hotels appealed, and the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) reversed the circuit court’s decision. The ICA held that the statute did not require disclosure of the specific amount or percentage distributed to employees and that the hotels’ disclosures were sufficient.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i reviewed the case and held that the ICA erred in concluding the hotels’ disclosures satisfied Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 481B-14. The court determined that merely reciting statutory language or stating that “a portion” of the service charge goes to employees is ambiguous and does not clearly inform consumers. The court held that when only part of a service charge is distributed as tips, the employer must disclose the amount or percentage paid to employees. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s judgment, affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rodriguez v. Mauna Kea Resort LLC." on Justia Law

Two brothers, Roland and Robert, ran an automotive business together under Guieb Inc. Their relationship deteriorated when Robert made decisions that Roland disagreed with, including using their company for his own benefit and allegedly stealing the trade name and most profitable shop for his personal companies. Roland sued Robert, alleging unfair and deceptive trade practices, unfair methods of competition, and deceptive trade practices under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 480-2 and 481A-3. He also sought punitive damages for fraud, misrepresentation, nondisclosure, and breach of fiduciary duty.The Circuit Court of the First Circuit granted Robert’s motion for partial summary judgment (MPSJ) and dismissed Roland’s claims under count 12, finding no genuine issue of material fact. The court also granted Robert’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on punitive damages, preventing the jury from considering them. Additionally, the court ruled that brotherhood did not establish a fiduciary duty, granting Robert’s MPSJ on that issue as well.The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) reversed the circuit court on three issues. It held that Roland’s unfair and deceptive trade practices claim should have gone to the jury, as there was evidence that Robert represented Guieb Inc. and Guieb Group as the same entity. The ICA also held that the jury should have considered punitive damages, given the evidence of Robert’s actions that could justify such damages. Lastly, the ICA found that brotherhood created a kinship fiduciary duty, which should have been considered by the jury.The Supreme Court of Hawaii agreed with the ICA that the jury should have considered Roland’s claims under count 12 and punitive damages. However, it disagreed that kinship created a fiduciary duty, affirming the circuit court’s MPSJ on that issue. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Guieb v. Guieb" on Justia Law

In August 2023, a devastating fire in Lahaina, Maui, caused significant damage, destroying over 3,000 structures and resulting in at least 102 fatalities. Numerous lawsuits were filed by individual plaintiffs and class action plaintiffs against various defendants, including Hawaiian Electric Industries and others. Additionally, several insurance carriers filed subrogation actions to recover benefits paid to their insureds for damages caused by the fires. A global settlement agreement was reached among the plaintiffs and defendants, but the settlement required either a release of all subrogation claims by the insurance carriers or a final judgment that the insurers' exclusive remedy would be a lien against the settlement under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 663-10.The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit reserved three questions for the Hawai‘i Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i reviewed the case and issued an opinion. The court held that the holding in Yukumoto v. Tawarahara, which limited subrogation remedies for health insurers to reimbursement from their insureds under HRS § 663-10, extends to property and casualty insurance carriers. Therefore, under HRS § 431:13-103(a)(10)(A), the lien provided for under HRS § 663-10(a) is the exclusive remedy for property and casualty insurers to recover claims paid for damages caused by a third-party tortfeasor in the context of a tort settlement.The court also held that a property and casualty insurer’s subrogation right of reimbursement is not prejudiced by its insured’s release of any tortfeasor when the settlement documents and release preserve those same rights under HRS § 663-10. Finally, the court declined to apply the made whole doctrine to the statutory lien-claim process established by HRS §§ 431:13-103(a)(10) and 663-10 under the circumstances of this mass tort case. View "In re: The Petition for the Coordination of Maui Fire Cases. S.Ct. Order" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the circuit court holding that Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi had violated Hawai'i's Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices law (UDAP) by misleading the public about the safety and efficacy of their anitplatelet drug, Plavix, holding that remand was required.The circuit court concluded that Defendants misled Hawai'i consumers by failing to warn them that Plavix was less effective for poor responders, granted the State's motion for partial summary judgment, and imposed an $834 million penalty. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the circuit court's deceptive acts or practices holding, holding that the summary judgment ruling circumscribed Defendants' ability to present a full defense and affected the penalty award, requiring a new trial; (2) affirmed the holding that Defendants committed unfair acts under UDAP; and (3) held that Defendants' procedural arguments failed. View "State v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirming the district court's order on motion for summary judgment and judgment, holding that the ICA erred when it affirmed the district court regarding Plaintiff-buyers' claims alleging unfair or deceptive acts or practices (UDAP) remaining after summary judgment.Following the execution of two purchase agreements, Buyers took possession of the vehicle in dispute in this case, which, unbeknownst to Buyers at the time, had a defective clutch assembly. Seller refused to repair the vehicle at no cost to Buyers or to return Buyers' deposit. Buyers brought this action alleging that Seller had engaged in UDAP. The district court granted summary judgment for Seller and then entered judgment against Buyers on all remaining claims. The ICA affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the lower courts' judgments in part, holding that the district court erred in interpreting Haw. Rev. Stat. 481J-2 to conclude that the warranty for used motor vehicles does not cover a clutch assembly. View "Leong v. Honolulu Ford, Inc. " on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) vacating the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice Petitioners’ charges of one count of prostitution under Haw. Rev. Stat. 712-1200(1)(b) based on State v. Modica, 567 P.2d 420 (1977), holding that the ICA erred in determining that Petitioners’ due process and equal protection rights had not been violated.In their motions to dismiss, Petitioners argued that sections 712-1200(1)(a) and (1)(b) prohibited the same conduct but that subsection (1)(b) barred a harsher penalty and that, pursuant to Modica, where two crimes prohibit the same conduct, to convict them of the crime carrying the harsher penalty would violate their due process and equal protection rights. The district court agreed and dismissed the charges. The ICA disagreed, concluding that subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) prohibited different conduct, and therefore, the district court erred in finding a Modica violation. The Supreme Court disagreed with the ICA and remanded these cases for further proceedings, holding that, based on the plain language of sections 712-1200(1)(a) and (1)(b), as they existed at the time Petitioners were charged, Petitioners’ charges violated the Modica rule. View "State v. Sasai" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Attorney alleging that Attorney failed properly to advertise and conduct non-judicial foreclosure sales of their properties in violation of duties under Plaintiffs’ mortgages, statutory law, common law, and the consumer protection statute. The circuit court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that dismissal was appropriate where (1) the statutory requirements of former Haw. Rev. Stat. 667-5 and 776-7 do not give rise to a private right of action against a foreclosing mortgagee’s attorney; and (2) an unfair or deceptive acts or practices acts or practices claim against Attorney as the foreclosing mortgagee’s attorney was not recognized. View "Sigwart v. Office of David B. Rosen" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, food and beverage services employees of hotels, brought claims against their employers for violating Haw. Rev. Stat. 481B-14 by invoking Haw. Rev. Stat. 388-6, 388-10, and 388-11. Specifically, Plaintiffs contended that the hotel or restaurant violated section 481B-14 when it applied a service charge for the sale of food and beverage services but did not distribute the full service charge directly to Plaintiffs and failed to disclose this fact to consumers. The Supreme Court accepted certification to answer a question of law and held (1) when a hotel or restaurant applying a service charge for the sale of food or beverage services allegedly violates section 481B-14 by not distributing 100 percent of the service charge directly to its employees as "tip income" and by failing to disclose this practice to the purchaser of the services, the employees may bring an action under sections 388-6, 388-10, and 388-11 to enforce their rights and to seek remedies.View "Villon v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

Walter and Sylvia Chang and the Walter Chang Trust instituted an action related to the foreclosure of property on which the Changs held a purchase money mortgage. The Chang named as defendants several parties, including Eadean Buffington, the Changs' attorney, and Investors Funding, a mortgagee of the property. After the circuit court action was removed to the bankruptcy court, Integrity Escrow and Title was added as a third party defendant. The bankruptcy court granted the Changs' petition for a determination that their settlement with Investors Funding was made in good faith. Buffington and Integrity appealed the order. The bankruptcy court subsequently remanded the action to the circuit court. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) dismissed Buffington and Integrity's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's dismissal order, holding the ICA erred in concluding that (1) it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because one of the parties was in bankruptcy; (2) it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the good faith settlement order was not in the record on appeal; and (3) the good faith settlement order entered by the bankruptcy court prior to remand was not properly appealable in the state court system. Remanded. View "Chang v. Buffington" on Justia Law