Association of Apartment Owners of Century Center, Inc. ex rel. Board of Directors v. Young Jin An
389 P.3d 115
Haw.2016Background
- Nonjudicial foreclosure by AOAO of a Century Center unit; AOAO purchases at foreclosure and files for summary possession against An and Ambrosia-Spa Inc.
- Respondents move to dismiss under HRS § 604-5(d) for lack of jurisdiction because title to real estate is in question, supported by an affidavit under DCRCP Rule 12.1
- ICA vacates district court’s judgment and writ, concluding An’s affidavit and attached quitclaim deed establish title dispute; remands for dismissal
- AOAO challenges ICA decision; Supreme Court holds that the quitclaim deed may be considered to the extent it supports An’s Rule 12.1 claim and that An’s affidavit satisfies Rule 12.1, thereby lacking jurisdiction in district court
- Statutory framework: HRS § 604-5(d) bars district court jurisdiction where title is in question; Rule 12.1 requires detailed source, nature, and extent of title; HRS §§ 501-118 and 667-102(b)(2) discussed but not dispositive
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under HRS § 604-5(d). | AOAO asserts title dispute exists; district court must dismiss. | An claims title via agreement of sale and equitable interest; Rule 12.1 satisfied. | Yes; district court lacked jurisdiction. |
| Whether An’s Rule 12.1 affidavit sufficiently sets forth the source, nature, and extent of title. | An’s affidavit adequately describes equitable title via Agreement of Sale. | Affidavit insufficiently details title; defective under Peelua/Aames line. | Yes; affidavit satisfies Rule 12.1. |
| Whether the ICA properly considered attachments (quitclaim deed) attached to the AOAO’s complaint. | Quitclaim supports An’s claim to title. | Cannot rebut title once dispute established per Peelua. | Yes; permissible to consider attachments to support title dispute. |
| Whether HRS § 501-118 or § 667-102(b)(2) bars Respondents’ challenge to foreclosure. | Statutes bar certain challenges; not applicable here. | Statutes do not bar because No new certificate of title; plan status. | No; not dispositive to bar challenge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monette v. Benjamin, 52 Haw. 246 (Haw. 1970) (title must be described with specificity in Rule 12.1 affidavit)
- Peelua v. Peelua, 126 Haw. 38 (Haw. 2011) (affidavits must show particulars; attachments may support title claim)
- Aames Funding Corp. v. Mores, 107 Haw. 96 (Haw. 2006) (affidavit cannot be vague; must allege specific title basis)
- Castro v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 131 Haw. 28 (Haw. 2013) (requires showing bearing on title; conclusory assertions insufficient)
- Jenkins v. Wise, 58 Haw. 592 (Haw. 1978) (equitable interest via contract can yield title-related rights when in force)