U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for GSA v. Sasaki et al

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF HAWAII
In re:
Joan-Maree Lai Sea Sasaki,
Debtor.
Case No. 25-00663
Chapter 13
U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for
GSAA Home Equity Trust 2007-1,
Asset-Backed Certificate, Series
2007-1,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Joan-Maree Lai Sea Sasaki,
Defendant.
Adv. No. 26-90014
Related ECF No.: 17
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Date Signed:
September 25, 2026
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #26-90014 Dkt # 29 Filed 09/25/26 Page 1 of 12

2
In this adversary proceeding, U.S. Bank National Association, as
Trustee for GSAA Home Equity Trust 2007-1, Asset-Backed Certificate,
Series 2007-1 (“U.S. Bank”), seeks to enforce a promissory note made by
Debtor Joan-Maree Lai Sea Sasaki and to foreclose a mortgage made by Ms.
Sasaki and her husband, Dave Kazuo Sasaki. Ms. Sasaki seeks summary
judgment, arguing primarily that the loan is void because the lender made
misrepresentations in the loan application process.
For the following reasons, I must deny the motion.
I. 	Undisputed Facts
Ms. Sasaki has filed a concise statement of material facts and
declarations by herself and her husband that recount the history of the loan
in question and authenticate certain documents.1 Contrary to Local Rule
56.1, US Bank has not filed a concise statement of material facts. Further,
U.S. Bank has offered only a declaration of its attorney authenticating
certain documents and has not offered any declarations from anyone who
was involved in the origination of the loan.2 Based on these filings, there is
no genuine dispute as to the following material facts.
In October 2006, Ms. Sasaki spoke to an agent of AMC Mortgage
Services, Inc. (“AMC”), about obtaining a mortgage loan to refinance the
1 ECF 18.
2 ECF 23.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #26-90014 Dkt # 29 Filed 09/25/26 Page 2 of 12

3
existing mortgage on her home. In response to the agent’s questions, Ms.
Sasaki told the agent that her income was between $2,500 and $3,000 per
month. Ms. Sasaki never told anyone that her income was $16,000 per
month (except possibly in the loan application described below).
AMC’s agent told Ms. Sasaki that he could secure a fixed-rate loan for
about $800,000 for her, and all she had to do was sign the forthcoming
documents.
On October 24, 2006, a notary came to the Sasakis’ home with
documents for them to sign. The notary did not show them all of the
documents but instead told them only which documents to sign and where
to sign. The notary did not give them the documents to review before
signing and said that she could not answer any questions about the loan. I
infer from the Sasakis’ testimony that, while the notary did not invite or
encourage them to read the documents, the notary did not prevent them
from doing so. The Sasakis did not read the documents and signed all of
the documents as requested. The notary did not leave copies of the
documents with the Sasakis but instead said that they would receive copies
later in the mail.
Among the documents that Ms. Sasaki signed on October 24, 2006,
was a Uniform Residential Loan Application.3 AMC, not the Sasakis,
3 ECF 17-5.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #26-90014 Dkt # 29 Filed 09/25/26 Page 3 of 12

4
completed this document. The application falsely stated that Ms. Sasaki’s
income was $16,000 per month.
Ms. Sasaki also signed a promissory note in the original principal
amount of $811,960 and bearing interest at an adjustable rate beginning at
6.75%.4 Mr. and Mrs. Sasaki both signed a mortgage encumbering their
home to secure the note.5
The loan closed shortly after the Sasakis signed the loan documents.
At some point, likely around September 2010, the Sasakis defaulted in
their obligations under the note and mortgage.6
In 2014, U.S. Bank filed a complaint in state court against Ms. Sasaki
and AMC (the “First Case”). The complaint alleged that U.S. Bank was the
beneficial owner of the note and mortgage although an assignment of the
mortgage was drafted but never completed as intended. U.S. Bank further
alleged that it was “unable to obtain a validly executed assignment of
mortgage from AMC.”7 The complaint sought only a declaratory judgment
that U.S. Bank is the legal and beneficial owner and holder of the note and
mortgage. The complaint did not seek enforcement of the note or
foreclosure of the mortgage. The court denied U.S. Bank’s motion for
summary judgment on the grounds that (1) AMC had endorsed the note in
4 ECF 1 at 50.
5 ECF 1 at 14.
6 ECF 1 at 6.
7 ECF 17-8 at 3.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #26-90014 Dkt # 29 Filed 09/25/26 Page 4 of 12

5
favor of U.S. Bank, and (2) the mortgage follows the note under Hawaii
law, meaning there was no real dispute justifying declaratory relief.8 The
court later dismissed the First Case for failure to prosecute.
In 2016, U.S. Bank filed another complaint in state court against the
Sasakis, AMC, and others (the “Second Case”). U.S. Bank alleged that AMC
had endorsed the note in favor of U.S. Bank and had also executed an
assignment of mortgage, but that the assignment could not be recorded
because it did not include the number of the certificate of title covering the
Sasakis’ property, and that U.S. Bank had been unable to obtain a proper
assignment from AMC.9 The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that
U.S. Bank was the holder of the mortgage (the same claim stated in the First
Case) and foreclosure of the mortgage (a claim not stated in the First Case).
U.S. Bank moved the court to dismiss the Second Case without
prejudice.10 The motion stated that, under Hawaii case law, a foreclosing
lender must prove that it properly sent notice of default before it filed its
complaint and that, although U.S. Bank believed that a prior servicer of the
loan had mailed a notice of default to the Sasakis, it could not obtain
admissible evidence of that fact. The Sasakis did not oppose dismissal of
the Second Case but argued that the court should dismiss the case with
8 ECF 17-9.
9 ECF 17-11 at 3-4.
10 ECF 23 at 28.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #26-90014 Dkt # 29 Filed 09/25/26 Page 5 of 12

6
prejudice and allow them to recover their fees and costs.11 The court
granted U.S. Bank’s motion and dismissed the Second Case without
prejudice. The court also denied the Sasakis’ request for fees and costs and
held that U.S. Bank could not obtain a deficiency judgment against Ms.
Sasaki in a subsequent case.12
In February 2025, U.S. Bank sued the Sasakis in state court (the
“Third Case”). The complaint did not seek declaratory relief and sought
only enforcement of the note and foreclosure of the mortgage.13
On July 29, 2025, Ms. Sasaki commenced a chapter 13 bankruptcy
case in this court. This invoked the automatic stay and prevented further
prosecution of the Third Case.
On the same day, Ms. Sasaki removed the Third Case to this court,
where it became this adversary proceeding.14
II. 	Discussion
a. 	Genuine Disputes of Material Fact About The Loan Origination
Under Civil Rule 56(a), made applicable by Rule 7056, summary
judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
The movant bears the initial burden of demonstrating an absence of a
11 ECF 23 at 38.
12 ECF 17-12
13 Consistent with the order dismissing the Second Case, the complaint in the Third Case did not seek a
deficiency judgment. ECF 1 at 9.
14 ECF 2.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #26-90014 Dkt # 29 Filed 09/25/26 Page 6 of 12

7
genuine issue of material fact.15 I must view the evidence in the light most
favorable to U.S. Bank, the non-moving party, and draw all justifiable
inferences in its favor.16
All of Ms. Sasaki’s claims rest on her and her husband’s testimony
that (1) she told AMC that her income was $2,500 to $3,000 per month and
AMC falsely completed the loan application to reflect that her income was
$16,000 per month, and (2) AMC promised her a fixed rate loan but actually
delivered a variable rate loan.
U.S. Bank does not offer the testimony of anyone who was involved
in the origination of the loan or any conversations the Sasakis had with
AMC. Instead, U.S. Bank relies entirely on the fact that Ms. Sasaki signed
the loan application and promissory note.
The Sasakis’ account is plausible. Nothing suggests that Ms. Sasaki
earned anything close to $16,000 per month, totaling $192,000 per year. U.S.
Bank does not directly rebut their testimony.
But I cannot say that U.S. Bank’s account is so implausible that no
reasonable finder of fact could accept it. Ms. Sasaki admittedly signed
documents in which she stated that her income was $16,000 and accepted a
variable interest rate. She must have suspected that something was amiss
15 See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585 (1986).
16 Fresno Motors, LLC v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, 771 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2014).
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #26-90014 Dkt # 29 Filed 09/25/26 Page 7 of 12

8
when she received her first bill for a monthly mortgage payment. The
interest alone on the loan would have amounted to over $4,500 per month,
which was more than her monthly gross income.
If the parties had offered at trial only the evidence they have offered
in connection with the motion, I would be free to weigh that evidence, and
I would probably rule in favor of Ms. Sasaki. But on a motion for summary
judgment, I must give U.S. Bank the benefit of the doubt. Ms. Sasaki has
not carried her burden of showing that there is no genuine dispute of
material fact.
b. 	Liability of U.S. Bank Under Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 480 As AMC’s
Assignee.
U.S. Bank argues that Ms. Sasaki cannot enforce her claims against it
because it is an assignee of AMC, the alleged wrongdoer. This argument is
unfounded. “[E]ven where there is no evidence the current holder of the
note and mortgage violated HRS chapter 480, § 480–12 can nevertheless
provide a basis for rendering [the holder's] note and mortgage void and
unenforceable based on certain types of unfair or deceptive acts or
practices committed by others in the loan consummation process.”17
17 U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Smith, 137 Haw. 53, 56 (Haw. App. 2016).
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #26-90014 Dkt # 29 Filed 09/25/26 Page 8 of 12

9
Further, Ms. Sasaki argues that U.S. Bank independently violated
chapter 480 because it knew it was not entitled to enforce the note and
mortgage when it commenced the First Case and the Second Case.
As to the First Case, this argument lacks logic. U.S. Bank filed the
First Case in order to obtain a declaratory judgment resolving questions
about its entitlement to foreclose. The court declined to grant that relief, but
it is at least plausible that U.S. Bank was entitled to ask the question.
As to the Second Case, it is significant that the state court refused Ms.
Sasaki’s request to dismiss that case with prejudice. U.S. Bank can plausibly
assert that the state court did not find that the Second Case was so
egregious that it amounted to an unfair or deceptive trade act or practice.
c. 	Timeliness of Ms. Sasaki’s contentions
U.S. Bank argues that Ms. Sasaki’s chapter 480 claims concerning the
loan’s origination are time-barred.18 Ms. Sasaki does not respond to this
argument.
Chapter 480 creates claims for unfair and deceptive trade acts and
practices. An action under chapter 480 “shall be barred unless commenced
within four years after the cause of action accrues,” subject to exceptions
that do not apply here.19 A claim under chapter 480 “accrues . . . four years
from the date of the occurrence of the violation, as opposed to Plaintiff's
18 ECF 17 at 14.
19 Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-24.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #26-90014 Dkt # 29 Filed 09/25/26 Page 9 of 12

10
discovery of the violation.”20 A chapter 480 claim based on the origination
of a loan accrues when the borrower signs the loan documents,21 or
possibly when the loan closes.22
The alleged misrepresentations concerning Ms. Sasaki’s income and
the loan terms occurred in October 2006, when she signed the loan
documents and the loan closed. Ms. Sasaki did not bring her chapter 480
claims in the Third Case until 2026.
U.S. Bank correctly points out that that Ms. Sasaki does not argue or
prove any basis for tolling or delayed accrual. Therefore, summary
judgment must be denied.
d. Abuse of process and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Ms. Sasaki argues that U.S. Bank committed abuse of process when it
commenced the First and Second Cases.
To prevail on the abuse of process claim, Ms. Sasaki must prove that
U.S. Bank “employed process primarily for an ulterior purpose,” and
committing “a wilful act not proper in the regular conduct of the
underlying case.”23
20 Heejoon Chung v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 250 F. Supp. 3d 658, 671 (D. Haw. 2017).
21 Swartz v. City Mortgage, Inc., 911 F.Supp. 916, 941 (D. Haw. 2012).
22 Teaupa v. U.S. Nat. Bank, 836 F.Supp. 2d 1083, 1099 (D. Haw. 2011).
23 Young v. Allstate Ins. Co., 119 Haw. 403, 414 (2008); Id. at 416,
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #26-90014 Dkt # 29 Filed 09/25/26 Page 10 of 12

11
Under Hawaii law, to prevail on a claim for intentional infliction of
emotional distress (“IIED”), the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s
conduct was intentional or reckless, was outrageous, and caused the
plaintiff extreme emotional distress.24 Conduct is outrageous when it is
without just cause or excuse and exceeds all bounds of decency.25
Thus, both of these claims turn on the alleged violator’s purpose and
intention. Ms. Sasaki offers no direct evidence of the purpose or intentions
of AMC or U.S. Bank. She argues that U.S. Bank filed the First Case, Second
Case, and Third Case improperly, but she offers only argument, and not
evidence, about their mental state. After a trial, the finder of fact might
make inferences about the purposes and intentions of AMC and U.S. Bank
from their conduct. But on a motion for summary judgment, I must draw
all inferences in favor of U.S. Bank. These means that, for purposes of this
motion, I must infer that U.S. Bank sought and intended only to collect a
loan that Ms. Sasaki received. Therefore, I must deny summary judgment
on the abuse of process and IIED claims.
e. 	The “Two Dismissal Rule”
Ms. Sasaki argues that the court must dismiss the complaint pursuant
to the “two dismissal” rule of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B), made applicable
by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7041. She is incorrect.
24 Id. at 425.
25 Id. at 430.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #26-90014 Dkt # 29 Filed 09/25/26 Page 11 of 12

12
Rule 41(a)(1) only applies when the plaintiff dismisses a case without
a court order. In such a situation, the dismissal is without prejudice, unless
the notice or stipulation of dismissal states otherwise, or “the plaintiff
previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action based on or
including the same claim . . . .”
The First Case and Second Case were both dismissed by a court
order. Therefore, Rule 41(a)(2) applies, and that rule does not include a
“two dismissal” provision.
Further, the claims in the First, Second, and Third Cases do not
completely overlap. This case (the Third Case) includes only foreclosure
claims. U.S. Bank asserted those claims in the Second Case, but not in the
First Case. Thus, the foreclosure claims have not been dismissed twice. The
First and Second Cases both included claims for declaratory relief, but
there are no such claims in the Third Case.
Because the prior dismissals were effectuated by the court order, and
the requisite overlap of identical claims is absent, the “two dismissal” rule
does not operate to bar this action.
III. 	Conclusion
For these reasons, the motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
END OF ORDER
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #26-90014 Dkt # 29 Filed 09/25/26 Page 12 of 12