Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Bank of America, N.A. v. Fujikawa

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

• Citations: None known

• Docket Number: CAAP-23-0000751

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (1.2K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
17-MAR-2026
08:01 AM
Dkt. 39 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

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

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
LISA FUJIKAWA, Defendant/Cross Claim Defendant-Appellee
and
ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF ALII LANI,
Defendant/Cross Claimant-Appellee
and
JOHN DOES 1-10, JANES DOES 1-10, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10,
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, DOE ENTITIES 1-10, AND DOE
GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-10, Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 3CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, and Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)
Plaintiff-Appellant Bank of America, N.A. (BANA)
appeals from the following orders and judgment entered in the
Circuit Court of the Third Circuit1/ (Circuit Court): (1) the
October 27, 2023 "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order
Granting in Part and Denying in Part [BANA]'s Motion for Default
Judgment Against [Defendant-Appellee] Lisa Fujikawa NKA Lisa
Moore [(Moore)] and Summary Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure
Against All Defendants on Complaint Filed November 8, 2019"
(FOFs/COLs/Order); (2) the October 27, 2023 "Judgment on
[FOFs/COLs/Order]" (Judgment); and (3) the February 21, 2024
Minute Order denying BANA's November 6, 2023 Motion for

1/
The Honorable Robert D.S. Kim presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Additional Findings or in the Alternative Motion for Amendment of
Judgment (Minute Order). Moore has not appeared in this appeal
and did not file an answering brief.
On November 8, 2019, BANA filed the Complaint against
Moore, seeking, among other things, foreclosure of the subject
mortgage (Mortgage); a determination of all sums due under the
subject Note (Note) and Mortgage, including principal, interest,
costs, fees, and other charges; and a determination that these
amounts are a valid and enforceable lien on the subject property
(Property). The Complaint stated that "[a]s of October 25, 2019,
the account with interest, advances [and] all other charges is
immediately due and payable in the sum of $529,262.86." The
Complaint provided a breakdown of that sum, which included the
unpaid "[p]rincipal [b]alance" of $345,396.54 and other itemized
charges. The Complaint also stated: "[Plus daily interest rate
at 6.3750% accrued for each day after October 25, 2019, until
paid.]"
Moore was personally served with the Summons and
Complaint, but did not file an answer or otherwise respond. On
November 15, 2021, the Clerk of the Circuit Court entered default
against Moore.
On November 21, 2022, BANA filed a motion for default
judgment and summary judgment (MSJ). The MSJ sought a default
judgment against Moore under Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure
(HRCP) Rule 55(b(2),2/ and summary judgment against all defendants

2/
HRCP Rule 55(b)(2) states, in relevant part:
(b) Judgment. Judgment by default may be entered as
follows:

. . . .
(2) BY THE COURT. In all other cases the party
entitled to a judgment by default shall apply to the court
therefor: . . . If the party against whom judgment by
default is sought has appeared in the action, the party . .
. shall be served with written notice of the application for
judgment at least 3 days prior to the hearing on such
application. If, in order to enable the court to enter
judgment or to carry it into effect, it is necessary to take
an account or to determine the amount of damages or to
establish the truth of any averment by evidence or to make
an investigation of any other matter, the court may conduct
such hearings or order such references as it deems necessary
and proper and shall accord a right of trial by jury to the

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

under HRCP Rule 56, for the relief requested in the Complaint.
The MSJ asserted that the total amount then due was $603,832.65,
with a breakdown of that sum that included interest, late
charges, and other fees. Moore did not oppose or otherwise
respond to the MSJ.
On June 2, 2022, the Circuit Court held a hearing on
the MSJ, with all parties attending, including Moore, who
represented herself. When asked by the court why she had not
responded to the Complaint, Moore stated that she no longer owned
the Property and "the Association . . . took over ownership
. . . ."3/ The court explained, "what [BANA is] talking about is
any legal obligation under the note and the mortgage. That's why
you're still in this case. . . . [S]o you're still obligated
under the mortgage for whatever is owed." (Formatting altered.)
The court also noted, "And you didn't file a request to set aside
the default and you didn't answer within the time, and so your
status is that you're defaulted and, therefore, now the bank is
saying they wanna get judgment against you." Moore did not ask
to set aside the default or otherwise challenge it in any way.
The Circuit Court then entered default judgment against
Moore for $345,396.54, the unpaid principal balance of Moore's
debt. The court reasoned, "[t]hat's what [Moore] got notice of"
in the Complaint "and therefore that's the amount I'm gonna
establish against her."4/ The court also indicated that it "had
questions" regarding the amount of interest and other fees stated
in the Complaint. When BANA followed up on those questions, the
court stated, "Yeah, but that's moot now because that's the
amount[,]" referring to the principal balance of $345,396.54, and
further stated, "that's my ruling because a person under the case
law, you know, the person chooses not to proceed because they

parties when and as required by any statute.
3/
Defendant-Appellee Association of Apartment Owners of Alii Lani
(Association) acquired title to the subject property ( Property) by means of a
nonjudicial foreclosure in 2019. The Association's interest is subordinate to
BANA's Mortgage.
4/
The court initially set the judgment amount of $329,250.01 based
on a statement made by Moore during the hearing, but later corrected the
amount to $345,396.54 based on the Complaint.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

know what the amount is and that's the amount."
On October 27, 2023, the Circuit Court entered the
FOFs/COLs/Order, in which it concluded that BANA was entitled to
foreclose the Mortgage, and the total amount of $345,396.54 was
due and payable on the Note and Mortgage. FOF 6 specified that
the court denied: (1) the itemized amounts that were alleged in
paragraph 10 of the Complaint and totaled $183,866.32, plus daily
interest at the rate of 6.375% for each day after October 25,
2019; and (2) the itemized amounts that were sought in the MSJ
and supported by the attached Exhibits 6 and 7 and totaled
$321,836.72, plus daily interest at the rate of 6.375% from
September 1, 2022, until paid.
BANA appeals from the FOFs/COLs/Order and Judgment
"solely as it relates to the denial of the additional interest,
fees, and charges allowed by the [M]ortgage and [N]ote and pled
in the Complaint." BANA asserts a single point of error,
contending that "[t]he Circuit Court abused it discretion by
entering default judgment of foreclosure against [Moore] limiting
[BANA's] recovery to only the [unpaid principal balance], and not
all sums due and owing on the Mortgage and Note . . . ."
After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant
legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues
raised and the arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve
BANA's contention as follows.
HRCP Rule 54(c) provides in relevant part that "[a]
judgment by default shall not be different in kind from or exceed
in amount that prayed for in the demand for judgment." "[B]y its
plain meaning, HRCP Rule 54(c) restricts the scope of relief that
may be granted by default judgment to that specifically prayed
for." In re Genesys Data Technologies, Inc., 95 Hawai#i 33, 38,
18 P.3d 895, 900 (2001) (quoting Matsushima v. Rego, 67 Haw. 556,
559, 696 P.2d 843, 846 (1985)). "The purpose of the rule is to
provide a defending party with adequate notice upon which to make
an informed judgment on whether to default or actively defend the
action." Id. (quoting Matsushima, 67 Haw. at 559-60, 696 P.2d at
846). This purpose is served "where the 'plaintiff states the
nature of the injury . . . and sets forth the specific elements

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

of damages for which he seeks judgment,' such that the defendant
can make a reasonably informed judgment as to whether to actively
defend the action." Id. at 42, 18 P.3d at 904 (emphasis added)
(quoting Melehes v. Wilson, 774 P.2d 573, 579–80 (Wyo. 1989)).
The Complaint need not request damages in a specific amount.
Id.; see also HRCP Rule 55(b)(2) ("If, in order to enable the
court to enter judgment . . . , it is necessary to take an
account or to determine the amount of damages . . . , the court
may conduct such hearings or order such references as it deems
necessary and proper . . . .").
Here, the Complaint sought judgment for all sums due
under the Note and Mortgage, including principal, interest, fees,
and other charges, with an itemized breakdown of the amounts due
as of October 25, 2019. Similarly, in the MSJ, BANA sought
judgment for the relief prayed for in the Complaint, with an
itemized breakdown of the amounts due as of September 1, 2022.
There is no dispute that Moore was served with the Complaint and
the MSJ.
On this record, we conclude that the Circuit Court
clearly erred or otherwise abused its discretion in limiting
BANA's recovery to only the unpaid principal balance of Moore's
debt. BANA was not required to set out in the Complaint a
specific total debt amount in order to obtain a default judgment
against Moore. The Complaint provided notice of the specific
elements of Moore's alleged debt, such that she could make a
reasonably informed judgment as to whether to actively defend the
action. She chose not to. In these circumstances, the Circuit
Court could have entered judgment against Moore as prayed for in
the Complaint and determined the specific total amount of Moore's
debt in a later sale confirmation proceeding (and related
judgment). See HawaiiUSA Federal Credit Union v. Monalim, 147
Hawai#i 33, 49 n.22, 464 P.3d 821, 837 n.22 (2020) ("Our law does
not burden the foreclosing party with the obligation to prove the
amount due on the mortgage before the foreclosure sale because 'a
deficiency judgment is rendered only after the sale of the
mortgaged property.' [Bank of Honolulu, N.A. v. ]Anderson, 3
Haw. App. [545, ]549, 654 P.2d [1370, ]1374[ (1982)]. This

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

process does not require a court to determine the amount due on
the mortgage before granting a decree of foreclosure to the
mortgagee."). Hawai#i law did not authorize the Circuit Court to
limit BANA's recovery to the principal amount of Moore's debt
simply because some of the non-principal amounts of that debt
could not be precisely determined at the foreclosure stage.5/
For these reasons, the FOFs/COLs/Order and the Judgment
are vacated to the extent the Circuit Court limited BANA's
recovery to the principal amount of Moore's debt. The case is
remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent
with this summary disposition order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 17, 2026.

On the brief:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Patricia J. McHenry and Presiding Judge
Allison Mizuo Lee
(Cades Schutte)
for Plaintiff-Appellant. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge

/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Associate Judge

5/
Furthermore, to the extent the Circuit Court had questions
regarding the amount of interest and other fees stated in the Complaint, it
could have conducted a hearing under HRCP Rule 55 rather than summarily
denying recovery.

6