The Hawaii Supreme Court has dismissed claims against a lender's attorneys in a complex foreclosure dispute that has generated multiple lawsuits over more than a decade. The court issued its opinion Feb. 12 in *Greenspon v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company*, bringing closure to one aspect of plaintiff Michael C. Greenspon's ongoing legal battle over a Maui property.
The case stems from Greenspon's 2003 purchase of property on Maui, which became the subject of foreclosure proceedings seven years later. In 2010, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company obtained title to the property following an attempted nonjudicial foreclosure sale by a predecessor in interest. The bank subsequently filed an ejectment action against Greenspon in the District Court of the Second Circuit, seeking to remove him from the property, but that action was dismissed without prejudice.
Greenspon responded in 2011 by filing what the court characterized as a "wrongful nonjudicial foreclosure lawsuit" against Deutsche Bank and other parties in what became known as the "Main Action." The district court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank, but the case took a significant turn in 2016 when the Intermediate Court of Appeals vacated that summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The legal landscape became more complex on remand. In 2018, Deutsche Bank, now represented by the prominent law firm Dentons US LLP, filed an amended counterclaim in the Main Action. The current case before the Hawaii Supreme Court represents just one of what the court described as "various lawsuits filed by Michael C. Greenspon" arising from the foreclosure dispute.
The defendants in this particular lawsuit include Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, James Blaine Rogers III, J. Blaine Rogers III ALC, Alan Jarren Ma, and Dentons US LLP. The inclusion of individual attorneys and the law firm as defendants suggests Greenspon's claims extended beyond the underlying foreclosure to potential professional misconduct or other attorney-related allegations.
The Hawaii Supreme Court's opinion was authored by Acting Chief Justice McKenna, with Justices Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens joining, along with Circuit Judge Kawashima, who was assigned due to a vacancy on the high court. The court characterized the appeal as arising "from a dismissal of claims against a lender's attorneys," indicating that lower courts had previously ruled in favor of the attorney defendants.
The case reached the Hawaii Supreme Court through the state's certiorari process, meaning the high court discretionarily chose to review the Intermediate Court of Appeals decision. The original circuit court case was filed in 2019, as evidenced by the case number 2CC191000092, suggesting the legal dispute has continued for several years beyond the initial foreclosure proceedings.
While the court's opinion is marked for publication in West's Hawaii Reports and Pacific Reporter, indicating its potential precedential value, the specific legal theories underlying Greenspon's claims against the attorneys are not detailed in the available portions of the opinion. The dismissal suggests that whatever claims were brought against Deutsche Bank's legal representatives did not survive the defendants' challenges.
The involvement of Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC as a defendant reflects the common practice in mortgage and foreclosure cases where loan servicing companies become parties to disputes alongside the actual note holders or trustees. Ocwen has been involved in numerous foreclosure-related lawsuits across the country as one of the nation's largest mortgage servicers.
Dentons US LLP's inclusion as a defendant is notable given the firm's status as one of the world's largest law firms. The firm's involvement suggests the high stakes and complexity of the underlying foreclosure dispute, as borrowers in foreclosure cases rarely have the resources to pursue claims against major law firms without significant underlying legal theories.
The case highlights the ongoing challenges in Hawaii's foreclosure landscape, where complex title issues and lengthy legal proceedings have created numerous disputes between borrowers and lenders. Hawaii's unique legal environment, including specific procedural requirements for nonjudicial foreclosures, has generated substantial litigation in recent years.
The Supreme Court's dismissal of claims against the lender's attorneys provides some clarity for legal practitioners representing financial institutions in foreclosure proceedings, though the specific reasoning behind the dismissal awaits fuller publication of the court's opinion. The decision may influence how similar claims against foreclosure attorneys are evaluated in future cases.
With the dismissal of claims against the attorneys, Greenspon's broader legal challenges related to the Maui property foreclosure continue to work their way through Hawaii's court system, reflecting the complex and often protracted nature of foreclosure disputes in the state.