Laulima Title Search and Claims has won a 4th foreclosure case by successfully presenting legal arguments of defect in title resulting from the 1893 Executive Agreements between Queen Liliuokalani and President Grover Cleveland.
Attorney Dexter Kaiama represented the defendents Arceli Bandalan, Anthony Bandalan Jr. and Anthony Bandalan Sr.
Routh, Crabtree and Olsen (RCO) represented the lender.
On October 18, 2011, the case of Bandalan v. Federal National Mortgage Association went before the District Court on Lanai, where Judge McDonald was asked to grant the motion to dismiss the foreclosure and render the writ of possession moot.
RCO’S Memorandum in Opposition our motion amounted to a smear campaign against Laulima Title Search and Claims, Dr. Keanu Sai and Perfect Title. RCO weaved their tale and tried to connect Laulima to Dr. Keanu Sai’s former company Perfect Title, Nonconsensual Common Law Lien and the fines that arose back in the 1990’s.
Nonconsensual Common Law Liens were used by activists across America against judges, cops and anyone in authority to place a lien on their property. A law was passed to make it illegal to place liens on property if you are not the owner and to expunge these liens and hand out a $5000 fine. RCO cited several cases of which Perfect Title was accused of using the Nonconsensual Common Law Lien when they attached “Notice of Inspection upon Claim”. The claim by RCO is Laulima and Dr. Sai are doing the same thing.
It’s not the same thing. The Notice of Defect is a Notice filed by the client of Laulima, LLC. It is not a notice filed by Laulima itself. As filed by the owner of the property as a notice, it is not a nonconsensual common law lien.
By definition, HRS §507D-2 states that a Nonconsensual Common Law Lien “does not…call for the consent of the owner of the property affected for its existence.”
As the owner of the property, the Defendants were well within their right to file a notice of defect by their own consent, whereby “defects” are a covered risk in Defendant’s owner’s title insurance policy (and the lender’s title insurance policy) that the Defendants were required to purchase for the protection of the lender.
In addition, Judge McDonald commented that the evidence presented by Laulima was substantial for him to justify the dismissal of the foreclosure. Judge McDonald presided over Peelua case that influenced his decision. In the Peelua case the issue of Title was brought up during the hearing but Judge McDonald still ruled in favor of the lender to foreclose. The case was heard in Lahaina and his decision was overturned by the Intermediate Court of Appeals.