Opinion ID: 4542112
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Applications for writs of certiorari

Text: The AOAO filed an application for certiorari, presenting six questions: [1]. Did the ICA commit grave errors of law and fact when they analyzed a nonprofit AOAO’s participation in a nonjudicial foreclosure, the same as a for-profit financial institution’s participation in a non-judicial foreclosure? [2]. Did the ICA commit grave errors of law and fact when they analyzed a for-profit financial institution’s foreclosure of its contractual mortgage, and applied the same analysis to that of the nonprofit AOAO’s foreclosure of its statutory lien? [3]. Did the ICA commit grave errors of law and fact by applying a negotiated contractual “power of sale” analysis, arising in the for-profit consumer context, to the nonprofit AOAO, who conducts a statutory lien foreclosure in accordance with the authority created by and the instructions contained in HRS § 514B-146 as provided by the [sic] Hawaii’s legislature? [4]. Did the ICA commit grave errors of law and fact by holding that the AOAO lacked authority to conduct a nonjudicial foreclosure absent an express written power of sale despite the plain language of HRS § 514B-10 providing that “the remedies provided by this chapter shall be liberally administered . . . .” and HRS § 514B-146, 15  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  providing that “[a]ll sums assessed by the association but unpaid for the share of the common expenses chargeable to any unit shall constitute a lien on the unit[,]” and that “[t]he lien of the association may be foreclosed by action or by nonjudicial or power of sale foreclosure procedures set forth in chapter 667”? [5]. Did the ICA commit grave errors of law and fact in holding that Respondents had stated a cognizable claim for wrongful foreclosure against the AOAO, based on the 2010 non-judicial foreclosure sale of the unit owned by Respondents? [6]. Did the ICA commit grave errors of law and fact in light of S.B. 551, which has passed two committees in the Senate and one committee in this House of Representatives, recognizing that “this Act confirms the legislative intent that associations should be able to use nonjudicial foreclosure to collect delinquencies without having specific authority to conduct nonjudicial foreclosures in an agreement with a delinquent owner or in the association’s declaration or bylaws . . . .”? (Ellipses and some alterations in original.) The first five questions raise issues addressed by the circuit court and the ICA. The sixth question was based on Senate Bill 551, which was then pending before the legislature. As discussed below, we ordered supplemental briefing regarding Act 282. The Malabes also filed an application for certiorari, presenting two questions:
Petitioners’ claim for unfair or deceptive acts or practices (hereafter “UDAP”) is time-barred under HRS §480-24, by applying the occurrence rule rather than the discovery rule.
Petitioners failed to allege fraudulent concealment sufficient to state a claim of equitable tolling of the statute of limitations on their UDAP claim. 16  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER