Simon v. Bank of America, N.A., 634 B.R. 1057

Debtors owned real property in Lahaina subject to a mortgage assigned to Bank of America, N.A. (BANA); BANA conducted a nonjudicial foreclosure and the property was declared sold in October 2010.
Debtors filed Chapter 7 in October 2011, received discharge and the case closed; the case was reopened in October 2019 and Trustee Richard Yanagi was reappointed to pursue previously-unscheduled claims against BANA.
Trustee filed an adversary complaint (Feb. 2021) alleging wrongful nonjudicial foreclosure (Count I) and violations of Hawaii’s UDAP/antitrust-style statute (HRS §§480-2, 480-13) (Count II), and demanded a jury trial.
BANA moved to strike the jury demand, arguing the claims and requested remedies are equitable; the bankruptcy court held a hearing on the motion.
Applying the Seventh Amendment two-step test (historical analogy and nature of the remedy), the court found Count I involves mixed legal and equitable issues and Count II is essentially legal; therefore a jury trial cannot be entirely stricken.
The court denied BANA’s motion to strike the jury demand and left it to the district court (which must try the jury issues) to decide which specific issues are submitted to the jury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trustee has a right to jury trial on wrongful foreclosure (Count I)	Yanagi contends wrongful foreclosure entitles him to damages (legal relief) and/or return of property (equitable), so legal issues warrant a jury.	BANA argues wrongful foreclosure and the requested relief (including monetary damages) are equitable, so no jury.	Mixed: the claim includes both legal and equitable elements; trustee entitled to jury trial on factual issues common to legal remedies (e.g., damages).
Whether trustee has a right to jury trial on UDAP / HRS §480-2 and treble damages (Count II)	Trustee argues the statutory claim sounds in tort and seeks treble money damages—a classic legal remedy—so jury trial applies.	BANA argues the statute allows equitable relief and joining equitable remedies defeats the right to jury.	Legal: the claim is analogous to tort/antitrust actions and seeks monetary treble damages; jury trial is required for the legal issues despite any joined equitable relief.
Whether seeking declaratory/injunctive relief waives jury right on legal claims	Trustee notes that joining equitable relief does not forfeit jury rights on legal claims.	BANA contends equitable relief in the complaint militates against a jury.	Denied: joining equitable relief does not extinguish the right to jury trial on legal claims; common factual issues must be submitted to a jury.

Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (1989) (articulates two-part Seventh Amendment test: historical analogy and nature of remedy)
Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412 (1987) (explains the two-step jury-trial inquiry and emphasizes remedy analysis)
Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469 (1962) (legal claims retain jury right even when joined with equitable claims)
Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189 (1974) (joining legal and equitable claims does not abridge jury rights)
Simler v. Conner, 372 U.S. 221 (1963) (federal characterization governs whether a state-law claim is legal or equitable for jury purposes)
Kekauoha-Alisa v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., 674 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding lender misconduct in foreclosure can constitute breach of contract under Hawaii law)
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd., 526 U.S. 687 (1999) (statutory claims that "sound in tort" and seek legal relief are covered by the Seventh Amendment)
Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959) (jury-trial priority where legal and equitable claims overlap)
Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 (2002) (distinguishing legal from equitable remedies)
Santiago v. Tanaka, 366 P.3d 612 (Haw. 2016) (Hawaii law: wrongful nonjudicial foreclosure may be set aside in equity with restitution for proven losses)