Ege v. Bank of America, N.A.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
29-SEP-2025
08:10 AM
Dkt. 72 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

ROBERT EGE; DAVID KAHIKINA; TRACIE KAHIKINA; DEBORAH L. MINES,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE DL MINES 2005 TRUST U/D/T
DATED APRIL 7, 2005, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS,
INC.; FIRST HAWAIIAN BANK; AXIA FINANCIAL, LLC; BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A.; JAMES ISBISTER; DEANNA ISBISTER; LAURIE ROUSSEAU-NEPTON;
MICHAEL D. CAMPBELL; ANNETTE M. CAMPBELL; Defendants-Appellees,
and
DOE DEFENDANTS 1-50, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(CIVIL NO. 3CC19100092K)

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

This appeal challenges the grant of summary judgment
on plaintiffs-borrowers' claims of wrongful foreclosure and
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 480 violations against
their common lender, and their claims to quiet title and
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

ejectment against the current titleholders of the foreclosed
properties. The Hawai‘i Supreme Court's recent decision in
McCullough v. Bank of America, N.A., __ Hawai‘i __, __ P.3d __,
2025 WL _______ (Haw. Sep. 12, 2025) is dispositive, and we
affirm.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Robert Ege (Ege), David and
Tracie Kahikina (Kahikinas), and Deborah L. Mines, Individually
and as Trustee of the DL Mines 2005 Trust U/D/T Dates April 7,
2005 (Mines) (collectively, Appellants) appeal from the February
28, 2023 "Final Judgment as to All Claims and All Parties"
(Final Judgment), entered by the Circuit Court of the Third
Circuit (circuit court). 1
Appellants' April 5, 2019 Complaint asserted three
individual actions by Ege, the Kahikinas, and Mines, for
wrongful foreclosure, seeking damages and return of title.
Appellants all had the same lender and foreclosing mortgagee,
Defendant-Appellee Bank of America, N.A. (BANA), against whom
they asserted two counts: Count 1 for "Wrongful Deprivation of
Real Property" (wrongful foreclosure) and Count 2 for "Unfair
and Deceptive Trade Practices and Unfair Methods of Competition
Under HRS Chapter 480" (UDAP/UMOC), based on procedural defects
in BANA's non-judicial foreclosure on Appellants' respective
properties in 2008 and 2010. Appellants also asserted Count 3,
quiet title and ejectment, against the current titleholders of
the properties, which included Defendants-Appellees James
Isbister, Deanna Isbister, Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc. (MERS), First Hawaiian Bank, Laurie Rousseau-

1 The Honorable Wendy M. DeWeese presided.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Nepton, Michael D. Campbell and Annette M. Campbell (together,
Campbells), and BANA. 2
BANA filed individual motions for summary judgment
against Ege, David Kahikina, and Mines on the wrongful
foreclosure and UDAP/UMOC claims, primarily arguing that
Appellants failed to prove compensatory damages. The circuit
court granted BANA's summary judgment on Counts 1 and 2,
concluding that Appellants failed to establish compensatory
damages; and Appellants may not include as damages their unpaid
mortgage debt, unpaid accrued interest, and lost rental income.
BANA and MERS filed motions for summary judgment as to
Mines's quiet title and ejectment in Count 3, as barred by the
six-year statute of limitations under HRS § 657-1(4), and
arguing, among other things, that the Campbells were bona fide
purchasers. The circuit court's order granting BANA and MERS
summary judgment on Count 3 concluded, among other things, that
the Campbells were bona fide purchasers, and BANA and MERS were
bona fide mortgagees.
The remaining titleholder defendants filed a motion
for summary judgment on Count 3, arguing, among other things,
that they were bona fide purchasers; and that Appellants' claims
against them were barred by the six-year statute of limitations.
The circuit court's order granting the titleholders' summary
judgment in Count 3 concluded, among other things, that the
titleholders were bona fide purchasers or mortgagees; and the
quiet title and ejectment claims were time-barred.
On appeal, Appellants contend the circuit court erred
by: (1) granting BANA's summary judgment on Counts 1 and 2 based
on its erroneous conclusion that Appellants "had no damages

2 The Campbells, who were subsequent purchasers of Mines's former
property, subsequently granted a mortgage lien in favor of MERS, as nominee
for BANA.
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

despite [Appellants] having forfeited all the funds – other than
the proceeds of the foreclosed mortgage loan – that they had
invested in the property through down-payments, closing costs,
monthly payments, and unforgiven debt"; (2) granting the
titleholders' summary judgment on Count 3 and granting BANA and
MERS's summary judgment against Mines in Count 3, based on its
erroneous conclusion that Appellants "could not establish the
elements of a claim for quiet title and ejectment as a matter of
law"; and (3) granting dismissal of Tracie Kahikina's claims and
"denying the Bankruptcy Trustee's motion to substitute and/or
join[.]" 3
"Summary judgments are reviewed de novo and are only
appropriate where no genuine issue of material fact is
established by admissible evidence, when the evidence and
inferences drawn therefrom are viewed in the light most favoring
the party opposing summary judgment." Llanes v. Bank of Am.,
N.A., 154 Hawai‘i 423, 428, 555 P.3d 110, 115 (2024). "[W]here
the non-movant bears the burden of proof at trial, a movant may
demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact by
either: (1) presenting evidence negating an element of the non-
movant's claim, or (2) demonstrating that the non-movant will be
unable to carry his or her burden of proof at trial." Ralston
v. Yim, 129 Hawai‘i 46, 57, 292 P.3d 1276, 1287 (2013).
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve
Appellants' points of error as follows.
(1) Appellants argue the circuit court erred by
concluding they failed to establish compensatory damages for

3 We have consolidated and restated Appellants' contentions for
clarity.
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

wrongful foreclosure and UDAP/UMOC claims in Counts 1 and 2
because Appellants' unpaid mortgage debt should have been
included in their damages.
We conclude that the circuit court correctly granted
summary judgment and determined that Appellants' unpaid mortgage
debt may not be counted as damages in wrongful foreclosure
cases. Similar to the borrowers in McCullough, Appellants have
not established compensatory damages that exceed the amounts of
their mortgage debt. See McCullough, at __ (holding that under
Llanes v. Bank of Am., N.A., 154 Hawai‘i 423, 555 P.3d 110 (2024)
and Lima v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 149 Hawai‘i 457, 494
P.3d 1190 (2021), "to survive summary judgment on their wrongful
foreclosure and UDAP claim against Lender, Borrowers must
establish compensatory damages after accounting for their
mortgage debts at the time of foreclosure.").
(2) Appellants argue the circuit court incorrectly
granted the titleholders, BANA, and MERS summary judgment on
Count 3 because there is no statute of limitations and any
subsequent purchaser had constructive notice of the allegedly
defective foreclosure process. These arguments are foreclosed
by McCullough, supra.
In McCullough, the supreme court held that the
borrowers' quiet title and ejectment claims against the
titleholders "are subject to the [six-year] statute of
limitations for a wrongful foreclosure action," and
"[c]onsequently, Borrowers' claims against Titleholders for
return of title and possession of the properties . . . are time-
barred." Id. at ___.
We conclude the circuit court correctly ruled that
Appellants' quiet title and ejectment claims, arising from an
alleged wrongful foreclosure, were time-barred. Here,

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Appellants' April 5, 2019 Complaint was filed more than six
years after their properties' foreclosure sales in 2008 and
2010. See id. We need not reach Appellants' other arguments
regarding Count 3.
(3) Appellants argue the circuit court erred by
dismissing Tracie Kahikina instead of allowing substitution by
the trustee of her bankruptcy estate. In light of our holding
that the circuit court properly granted summary judgment on
David Kahikina's identical claims arising from their property's
foreclosure, any error regarding the substitution of the
bankruptcy trustee is harmless.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit
court's February 28, 2023 Final Judgment.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, September 29, 2025.
On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
James J. Bickerton,
Chief Judge
Van-Alan H. Shima,
for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Associate Judge
Charles A. Price,
for Defendants-Appellees.
/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Attorney for Defendants-
Associate Judge
Appellees James Isbister,
Deanna Isbister, First
Hawaiian Bank, Laurie
Rousseau-Nepton, Michael D.
Campbell, and Annette M.
Campbell.

Allison Mizuo Lee,
for Defendants-Appellees
Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc. and
Bank of America, N.A.

6