Preview:

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-30225 08-NOV-2011 09:25 AM

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I ---o0o--DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICE AGREEMENT RELATING TO IMPAC SECURED ASSETS CORP., MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-2, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. WAYNE PEELUA, Respondent/Defendant-Appellant. NO. SCWC-30225 CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. 30225; DC CIV. NO. 09-1-1872) November 8, 2011 RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, DUFFY, AND MCKENNA, JJ. OPINION OF THE COURT BY ACOBA, J. We hold that (1) where, in an ejectment proceeding filed in district court, a defendant seeks to raise a defense to the court's jurisdiction pursuant to District Court Rules of Civil Procedure (DCRCP) Rule 12.1,1 on the ground that the action

1

DCRCP Rule 12.1, entitled "Defense of Title in District Courts," (continued...)

provides:

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

is one in which title to real estate will come into question, the defendant must set forth in the affidavit "the source, nature, and extent of the title claimed by defendant" with sufficient detail or specificity to "fully apprise the court of the nature of" its claim to title of the property in question; (2) additionally, the defendant may include in the affidavit any other particulars that would enable the court to be fully apprised of the defendant's claim; but (3) in the instant case, the affidavit of Respondent/Defendant-Appellant Wayne Peelua (Respondent) neither included specificity or detail regarding the source, nature, and extent of title claimed nor other particulars that would fully apprise the District Court of the Second Circuit, Lahaina Division (the court),2 of his claim to title; and therefore, his defense failed under DCRCP Rule 12.1 and the court properly exercised its jurisdiction over the ejectment action filed by Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.

1

(...continued) Whenever, in the district court, in defense of an action in the nature of an action of trespass or for the summary possession of land, or any other action, the defendant shall seek to interpose a defense to the jurisdiction to the effect that the action is a real action, or one in which the title to real estate is involved, such defense shall be asserted by a written answer or written motion, which shall not be received by the court unless accompanied by an affidavit of the defendant, setting forth the source, nature and extent of the title claimed by defendant to the land in question, and such further particulars as shall fully apprise the court of the nature of defendant's claim.

(Emphasis added). The Honorable Barclay MacDonald presided at the hearing on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and the Honorable Rhonda Loo presided at trial.
2

2

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

Petitioner filed its application for writ of certiorari3 on September 2, 2011 (Application).4 Petitioner

sought review of the June 7, 2011 judgment of the ICA filed pursuant to its May 17, 2011 Summary Disposition Order (SDO),5 vacating the November 18, 2009 Judgment for Possession filed by the court and remanding the case with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. I. The following essential matters, some verbatim, are from the record and the submissions of the parties. The instant action arises from an ejectment proceeding involving a dispute as to whether Respondent alleged a cognizable claim to the title of real property located at 4570 Lower Honoapiilani Road in Lahaina, Hawai#i (the Property) that was purchased by Petitioner. On April 13, 2009, Petitioner, as

3 Pursuant to Hawai#i Revised Statutes (HRS)

Download scwc-30225-0.pdf

Hawaii Law