LYNETTE K. NIAU AND LEEDON K. WHITE, SR., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
QUICK LOAN FUNDING; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS REALTY CORP., and DOES 2-30, Defendants-Appellees, and ARCH BAY HOLDINGS, LLC - SERIES 2009C, Cross-Claimant-Appellee,
QUICK LOAN FUNDING; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS REALTY CORP., Cross-Claim Defendants-Appellees
This decision is published in table format in the Pacific and Hawai'i reporter.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT. (CIVIL NO. 10-1-0390).
On the briefs: Gary Victor Dubin, Frederick J. Arensmeyer, Daisy Lynn B. Hartsfield, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Jade Lynne Ching, J. Blaine Rogers (Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing), for Cross-Claimant-Appellee, ARCH BAY HOLDINGS, LLC-SERIES 2009c.
By: Nakamura, Chief Judge, Leonard and Reifurth, JJ.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Plaintiffs-Appellants Lynette K. Niau (Lynette) and Leedon K. White, Sr. (Leedon) (collectively, Appellants) appeal from the Judgment filed on April 10, 2012 (Judgment) in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court), and challenge the Circuit Court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant/Cross-Claimant-Appellee Arch Bay Holdings, LLC, Series 2009C (Arch Bay) and against Appellants.
Appellants raise three points of error on appeal, contending that the Circuit Court erred in: (1) granting Arch Bay's motion for summary judgment in light of Appellants' claims of Truth In Lending Act (TILA) violations and Appellants' notice of rescission; (2) concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding alleged violations under Chapter 480, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS ), which included claims of fraud, unfair and deceptive acts and practices, and breach of contract; and (3) concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding Appellants' ability to pay the alleged outstanding debt.
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 by the parties, we resolve Appellants' points of error as follows:
(1) " TILA provides two remedies for loan disclosure violations--rescission and civil damages, each governed by separate statutory procedures." Merritt v. Countrywide Fin. Corp.., 759 F.3d 1023, 1029-30 (9th Cir. 2014) (footnote omitted). We first address Appellants' claim for damages under TILA.
The declared purpose of [TILA] is " to assure a meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available to him and avoid the uninformed use of credit, and to protect the consumer against inaccurate and unfair credit billing and credit card practices." 15 U.S.C. § 1601(a); see Mourning v. Family Publications Service. Inc., 411 U.S. 356, 363-368, 93 S.Ct. 1652, 1657-1660, 36 L.Ed.2d 318 (1973). Accordingly, [TILA] requires creditors to provide borrowers with clear and accurate disclosures of terms dealing with things like finance charges, annual percentage rates of interest, and the borrower's rights. See § § 1631, 1632, 1635, 1638.
Haw. Cmty. Fed. Credit Union v. Keka, 94 Hawai'i 213, 223, 11 P.3d 1, 11 (2000) (quoting Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410, 412-13, 118 S.Ct. 1408, 140 L.Ed.2d 566 (1998)). 15 U.S.C. § 1632(a) (2012) provides:
(a) Information clearly and conspicuously disclosed; " annual percentage rate" and " finance charge" ; order of disclosures and use of different terminology
Information required by this subchapter shall be disclosed clearly and conspicuously, in accordance with regulations of the Bureau. The terms " annual percentage rate" and " finance charge" shall be disclosed more conspicuously than other terms, data, or information provided in connection with a transaction, except information relating to the identity of the creditor. Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, regulations of the Bureau need not require that disclosures pursuant to this subchapter be made in the order set forth in this subchapter and, except as otherwise ...