US Bank Trust National Association v. Association of Apartment Owners Haleakala Gardens

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
08-JUN-2026
08:11 AM
Dkt. 66 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS OWNER
TRUSTEE FOR VRMTG ASSET TRUST, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
AOAO HALEAKALA GARDENS, Defendant-Appellant;
CYNTHIA D. SMITH; TROY T. SMITH; and
HALEAKALA GARDENS – PHASE II, Defendants-Appellees,
and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 2CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant AOAO Haleakala Gardens (AOAO)

appeals from the June 14, 2024 "Order Approving Commissioner's

Report and Granting Plaintiff[-Appellee US Bank Trust National

Association, Not in Its Individual Capacity but Solely as Owner

Trustee for VRMTG Asset Trust's (US Bank)] Motion for
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Confirmation of Foreclosure Sale, Allowance of Costs,

Commissions and Fees, Distribution of Proceeds, Directing

Conveyance and for Writ of Possession/Ejectments, Filed

April 23, 2024" (Confirmation Order), the June 14, 2024

"Judgment," and the July 10, 2024 "Order Denying [AOAO's] Non-

Hearing Motion for Reconsideration of [Confirmation Order]"

(Order Denying Reconsideration)," entered by the Circuit Court

of the Second Circuit (circuit court). 1

Defendants-Appellees Cynthia and Troy Smith (the

Smiths) were the owners of a condominium unit at the Haleakala

Gardens (Property). The Smiths obtained a loan, which was

secured by a mortgage on the Property. The mortgage was

assigned to US Bank in 2021. The Smiths defaulted on their loan

in 2009. The Smiths also stopped paying maintenance fees to the

AOAO. On June 18, 2013, the Smiths transferred their property

via quitclaim deed to the AOAO to settle their outstanding

maintenance fee debt. Upon assuming possession of the Property,

the AOAO rented and maintained the Property.

US Bank commenced a judicial foreclosure action in

June 2022 and moved for summary judgment in September 2023. On

November 1, 2023, the circuit court granted summary judgment in

favor of US Bank and appointed a commissioner; the AOAO stopped

1 The Honorable Kelsey T. Kawano presided.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

receiving rental income for the Property. In April 2024, US

Bank moved for confirmation of the foreclosure sale of the

Property. In its Confirmation Order, the circuit court ordered

an accounting of all rental proceeds collected from the Property

from June 2013, when the AOAO acquired possession of the

Property, to June 2024, when the circuit court confirmed the

foreclosure sale, as well as disbursement of any excess rental

proceeds. The AOAO moved to reconsider, and the circuit court

entered its Order Denying Reconsideration.

The AOAO asserts two related points of error on

appeal, contending that the circuit court erred by "relying on":

(1) "Hawaii Revised Statutes [(HRS)] § 514B-146(n) to require

the [AOAO] to disburse rental income and provide an accounting

accruing from the date of the [AOAO's] ownership of the

Property"; and (2) "[Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Association of

Apartment Owners of Elima Lani Condominiums, 152 Hawaiʻi 406, 526

P.3d 383 (2023)] to order the [AOAO] to disburse rental income

the [AOAO] obtained prior to the [circuit court's] granting of

[US Bank's] Motion for Summary Judgment."

Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and

relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties,

we resolve the AOAO's points of error 2 as follows.

The AOAO contends that the circuit court's

Confirmation Order erroneously ordered the AOAO's accounting and

disbursement of the rental income pursuant to HRS § 514B-146(n)

(2018). "The lower court's authority to confirm a judicial sale

is a matter of equitable discretion. Hence, the exercise of

discretion by the lower court judge will not be disturbed on

appeal except for abuse." U.S. Bank Tr., N.A. v. Ass'n of

Apartment Owners of Waikoloa Hills Condo. Phase 1, 150 Hawaiʻi

573, 581, 506 P.3d 869, 877 (App. 2022) (cleaned up).

Interpretation of a statute is a question of law reviewed de

novo. Barker v. Young, 153 Hawaiʻi 144, 148, 528 P.3d 217, 221

(2023).

HRS § 514B-146(n) provides:

After any judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding in
which the association acquires title to the unit, any
excess rental income received by the association from the
unit shall be paid to existing lien holders based on the
priority of lien, and not on a pro rata basis, and shall be
applied to the benefit of the unit owner. For purposes of
this subsection, excess rental income shall be any net
income received by the association after a court has issued
a final judgment determining the priority of a senior
mortgagee and after paying, crediting, or reimbursing the
association or a third party for:

(1) The lien for delinquent assessments pursuant to
subsections (a) and (b);

(2) Any maintenance fee delinquency against the unit;

2 We consolidate and reorganize the AOAO's points of error herein.

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(3) Attorney's fees and other collection costs related to
the association's foreclosure of the unit; or

(4) Any costs incurred by the association for the rental,
repair, maintenance, or rehabilitation of the unit
while the association is in possession of the unit
including monthly association maintenance fees,
management fees, real estate commissions, cleaning
and repair expenses for the unit, and general excise
taxes paid on rental income;

provided that the lien for delinquent assessments under
paragraph (1) shall be paid, credited, or reimbursed first.

(Emphasis added.)

By its plain language, HRS § 514B-146(n) applies

"[a]fter any judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding in

which the association acquires title to the unit." Id.; see

also Barker, 153 Hawaiʻi at 149, 528 P.3d at 222 ("The rules of

statutory interpretation require us to apply a plain language

analysis when statutory language is clear. Only when there is

an ambiguity in a statute are we to resort to other methods of

statutory interpretation.").

The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court has also expressly

interpreted HRS § 514B-146(n) to apply in situations where an

AOAO has foreclosed on a property:

The first clause provides that the statute only applies
after an association has foreclosed. The second clause
provides that "excess rental income" shall be paid to
senior lien holders by priority, to be applied for "the
benefit of the unit owner." In context, it is clear that
"the unit owner" refers to the owner prior to the
association, on whom the association foreclosed. See HRS
§ 514B-146(a) (Supp. 2015) (allowing the association,
during its foreclosure, to collect a "reasonable rental"
from "the unit owner").

. . . .

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

[W]e interpret HRS § 514B-146(n) to apply to rental income
received by the association after a mortgagee's subsequent
foreclosure, whether or not a commissioner is appointed.
The statute entitles the association to such income,
however collected, but only to the extent it does not
exceed the sum of the amounts listed in subsections (1)
through (4). . . .

. . . .

[I]n enacting HRS § 514B-146(n), the legislature intended
for a foreclosing association to be able to collect what it
was due and no more; hence, the association is to receive
all rents short of "excess rental income." Accordingly,
the statute calls for an accounting to take place upon
confirmation. The association must account for all rents
from the time it foreclosed on the property.

Elima, 152 Hawaiʻi at 415-16, 526 P.3d at 392-93. 3

Here, the AOAO did not acquire the Property through

judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings. The Smiths,

who were delinquent on their maintenance fees, quitclaimed the

Property to the AOAO as part of a settlement agreement. We

conclude that neither HRS § 514B-146(n), nor Elima, provides

legal authority for the circuit court to order the AOAO to

account for and disgorge rental proceeds collected from the time

it acquired the Property by quitclaim deed in 2013, until the

Confirmation Order was entered in 2024. The circuit court,

which appears to have relied solely upon HRS § 514B-146(n) and

Elima, therefore erred in ordering the AOAO to account for and

disgorge the rental proceeds on that basis.

3 In Elima, there were two foreclosure actions: a 2015 nonjudicial
foreclosure pursuant to HRS § 667, et seq. (2016), through which the
association acquired possession of the property; and a 2016 judicial
foreclosure through which the lender and mortgagee obtained a foreclosure
judgment.

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the Judgment. We

affirm in part, and vacate in part, the Confirmation Order and

the Order Denying Reconsideration. Specifically, we vacate the

following paragraphs of the Confirmation Order:

11. The [AOAO] shall file a complete and detailed
accounting and explanation of all rental proceeds
collected, and any charges and expenses made against the
. . . Property beginning from the date the [AOAO] became
the record owner of the . . . Property through the date of
the [circuit court's] entry of this [Confirmation Order].
The [AOAO] shall provide its accounting and disburse any
excess rental proceeds within thirty-five (35) days from
the [circuit court's] entry of this [Confirmation Order]
unless otherwise ordered by the [circuit court].

12. The [AOAO], shall disburse any excess rental
proceeds by the sale closing deadline set forth by the
[circuit court] herein, with the disbursement consistent
with [Elima], in the following order of priority:

i. First, pay any real property taxes to the
County of Maui that remain outstanding at the
time of closing and any real property taxes
that [US Bank] has advanced, to the benefit of
the [AOAO], from the date of their ownership;

ii. Second, any current common expenses owed on the
Property and other charges as allowed under
[HRS] § 514B-146(n), due to [the AOAO] until
the date of closing;

iii. Third, pay Commissioner's fees/costs;

iv. Fourth, to pay down [US Bank's] delinquency;

v. Fifth, any further excess rental proceeds to
[the Smiths], the former owners of the . . .
Property.

We further vacate any other part of the Confirmation Order and

Order Denying Reconsideration that requires the AOAO to provide

an accounting and disgorgement of the rental proceeds it

collected on the Property prior to entry of the Confirmation

Order. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

summary disposition order, including with regard to the circuit

court's discretion to consider its equitable authority to order

the AOAO's accounting and disgorgement of rental proceeds on any

basis in equity other than HRS § 514B-146(n) and Elima.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, June 8, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Chief Judge
Kelly A. LaPrade,
for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge
Leila M. Rothwell,
for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Associate Judge
David W. Cain,
for Defendants-Appellees.

8

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
08-JUN-2026
08:11 AM
Dkt. 66 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS OWNER
TRUSTEE FOR VRMTG ASSET TRUST, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
AOAO HALEAKALA GARDENS, Defendant-Appellant;
CYNTHIA D. SMITH; TROY T. SMITH; and
HALEAKALA GARDENS – PHASE II, Defendants-Appellees,
and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 2CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant AOAO Haleakala Gardens (AOAO)

appeals from the June 14, 2024 "Order Approving Commissioner's

Report and Granting Plaintiff[-Appellee US Bank Trust National

Association, Not in Its Individual Capacity but Solely as Owner

Trustee for VRMTG Asset Trust's (US Bank)] Motion for
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Confirmation of Foreclosure Sale, Allowance of Costs,

Commissions and Fees, Distribution of Proceeds, Directing

Conveyance and for Writ of Possession/Ejectments, Filed

April 23, 2024" (Confirmation Order), the June 14, 2024

"Judgment," and the July 10, 2024 "Order Denying [AOAO's] Non-

Hearing Motion for Reconsideration of [Confirmation Order]"

(Order Denying Reconsideration)," entered by the Circuit Court

of the Second Circuit (circuit court). 1

Defendants-Appellees Cynthia and Troy Smith (the

Smiths) were the owners of a condominium unit at the Haleakala

Gardens (Property). The Smiths obtained a loan, which was

secured by a mortgage on the Property. The mortgage was

assigned to US Bank in 2021. The Smiths defaulted on their loan

in 2009. The Smiths also stopped paying maintenance fees to the

AOAO. On June 18, 2013, the Smiths transferred their property

via quitclaim deed to the AOAO to settle their outstanding

maintenance fee debt. Upon assuming possession of the Property,

the AOAO rented and maintained the Property.

US Bank commenced a judicial foreclosure action in

June 2022 and moved for summary judgment in September 2023. On

November 1, 2023, the circuit court granted summary judgment in

favor of US Bank and appointed a commissioner; the AOAO stopped

1 The Honorable Kelsey T. Kawano presided.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

receiving rental income for the Property. In April 2024, US

Bank moved for confirmation of the foreclosure sale of the

Property. In its Confirmation Order, the circuit court ordered

an accounting of all rental proceeds collected from the Property

from June 2013, when the AOAO acquired possession of the

Property, to June 2024, when the circuit court confirmed the

foreclosure sale, as well as disbursement of any excess rental

proceeds. The AOAO moved to reconsider, and the circuit court

entered its Order Denying Reconsideration.

The AOAO asserts two related points of error on

appeal, contending that the circuit court erred by "relying on":

(1) "Hawaii Revised Statutes [(HRS)] § 514B-146(n) to require

the [AOAO] to disburse rental income and provide an accounting

accruing from the date of the [AOAO's] ownership of the

Property"; and (2) "[Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Association of

Apartment Owners of Elima Lani Condominiums, 152 Hawaiʻi 406, 526

P.3d 383 (2023)] to order the [AOAO] to disburse rental income

the [AOAO] obtained prior to the [circuit court's] granting of

[US Bank's] Motion for Summary Judgment."

Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and

relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties,

we resolve the AOAO's points of error 2 as follows.

The AOAO contends that the circuit court's

Confirmation Order erroneously ordered the AOAO's accounting and

disbursement of the rental income pursuant to HRS § 514B-146(n)

(2018). "The lower court's authority to confirm a judicial sale

is a matter of equitable discretion. Hence, the exercise of

discretion by the lower court judge will not be disturbed on

appeal except for abuse." U.S. Bank Tr., N.A. v. Ass'n of

Apartment Owners of Waikoloa Hills Condo. Phase 1, 150 Hawaiʻi

573, 581, 506 P.3d 869, 877 (App. 2022) (cleaned up).

Interpretation of a statute is a question of law reviewed de

novo. Barker v. Young, 153 Hawaiʻi 144, 148, 528 P.3d 217, 221

(2023).

HRS § 514B-146(n) provides:

After any judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding in
which the association acquires title to the unit, any
excess rental income received by the association from the
unit shall be paid to existing lien holders based on the
priority of lien, and not on a pro rata basis, and shall be
applied to the benefit of the unit owner. For purposes of
this subsection, excess rental income shall be any net
income received by the association after a court has issued
a final judgment determining the priority of a senior
mortgagee and after paying, crediting, or reimbursing the
association or a third party for:

(1) The lien for delinquent assessments pursuant to
subsections (a) and (b);

(2) Any maintenance fee delinquency against the unit;

2 We consolidate and reorganize the AOAO's points of error herein.

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(3) Attorney's fees and other collection costs related to
the association's foreclosure of the unit; or

(4) Any costs incurred by the association for the rental,
repair, maintenance, or rehabilitation of the unit
while the association is in possession of the unit
including monthly association maintenance fees,
management fees, real estate commissions, cleaning
and repair expenses for the unit, and general excise
taxes paid on rental income;

provided that the lien for delinquent assessments under
paragraph (1) shall be paid, credited, or reimbursed first.

(Emphasis added.)

By its plain language, HRS § 514B-146(n) applies

"[a]fter any judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding in

which the association acquires title to the unit." Id.; see

also Barker, 153 Hawaiʻi at 149, 528 P.3d at 222 ("The rules of

statutory interpretation require us to apply a plain language

analysis when statutory language is clear. Only when there is

an ambiguity in a statute are we to resort to other methods of

statutory interpretation.").

The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court has also expressly

interpreted HRS § 514B-146(n) to apply in situations where an

AOAO has foreclosed on a property:

The first clause provides that the statute only applies
after an association has foreclosed. The second clause
provides that "excess rental income" shall be paid to
senior lien holders by priority, to be applied for "the
benefit of the unit owner." In context, it is clear that
"the unit owner" refers to the owner prior to the
association, on whom the association foreclosed. See HRS
§ 514B-146(a) (Supp. 2015) (allowing the association,
during its foreclosure, to collect a "reasonable rental"
from "the unit owner").

. . . .

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

[W]e interpret HRS § 514B-146(n) to apply to rental income
received by the association after a mortgagee's subsequent
foreclosure, whether or not a commissioner is appointed.
The statute entitles the association to such income,
however collected, but only to the extent it does not
exceed the sum of the amounts listed in subsections (1)
through (4). . . .

. . . .

[I]n enacting HRS § 514B-146(n), the legislature intended
for a foreclosing association to be able to collect what it
was due and no more; hence, the association is to receive
all rents short of "excess rental income." Accordingly,
the statute calls for an accounting to take place upon
confirmation. The association must account for all rents
from the time it foreclosed on the property.

Elima, 152 Hawaiʻi at 415-16, 526 P.3d at 392-93. 3

Here, the AOAO did not acquire the Property through

judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings. The Smiths,

who were delinquent on their maintenance fees, quitclaimed the

Property to the AOAO as part of a settlement agreement. We

conclude that neither HRS § 514B-146(n), nor Elima, provides

legal authority for the circuit court to order the AOAO to

account for and disgorge rental proceeds collected from the time

it acquired the Property by quitclaim deed in 2013, until the

Confirmation Order was entered in 2024. The circuit court,

which appears to have relied solely upon HRS § 514B-146(n) and

Elima, therefore erred in ordering the AOAO to account for and

disgorge the rental proceeds on that basis.

3 In Elima, there were two foreclosure actions: a 2015 nonjudicial
foreclosure pursuant to HRS § 667, et seq. (2016), through which the
association acquired possession of the property; and a 2016 judicial
foreclosure through which the lender and mortgagee obtained a foreclosure
judgment.

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the Judgment. We

affirm in part, and vacate in part, the Confirmation Order and

the Order Denying Reconsideration. Specifically, we vacate the

following paragraphs of the Confirmation Order:

11. The [AOAO] shall file a complete and detailed
accounting and explanation of all rental proceeds
collected, and any charges and expenses made against the
. . . Property beginning from the date the [AOAO] became
the record owner of the . . . Property through the date of
the [circuit court's] entry of this [Confirmation Order].
The [AOAO] shall provide its accounting and disburse any
excess rental proceeds within thirty-five (35) days from
the [circuit court's] entry of this [Confirmation Order]
unless otherwise ordered by the [circuit court].

12. The [AOAO], shall disburse any excess rental
proceeds by the sale closing deadline set forth by the
[circuit court] herein, with the disbursement consistent
with [Elima], in the following order of priority:

i. First, pay any real property taxes to the
County of Maui that remain outstanding at the
time of closing and any real property taxes
that [US Bank] has advanced, to the benefit of
the [AOAO], from the date of their ownership;

ii. Second, any current common expenses owed on the
Property and other charges as allowed under
[HRS] § 514B-146(n), due to [the AOAO] until
the date of closing;

iii. Third, pay Commissioner's fees/costs;

iv. Fourth, to pay down [US Bank's] delinquency;

v. Fifth, any further excess rental proceeds to
[the Smiths], the former owners of the . . .
Property.

We further vacate any other part of the Confirmation Order and

Order Denying Reconsideration that requires the AOAO to provide

an accounting and disgorgement of the rental proceeds it

collected on the Property prior to entry of the Confirmation

Order. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

summary disposition order, including with regard to the circuit

court's discretion to consider its equitable authority to order

the AOAO's accounting and disgorgement of rental proceeds on any

basis in equity other than HRS § 514B-146(n) and Elima.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, June 8, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Chief Judge
Kelly A. LaPrade,
for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge
Leila M. Rothwell,
for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Associate Judge
David W. Cain,
for Defendants-Appellees.

8