| |
| |
Hawaii Supreme Court Case No. 16751 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-07) |
 | | Utsunomiya, on the other hand, claimed that the $200,000.00 was a deposit to be applied to the total purchase price and that the sale was conditioned upon Moomuku's ability to convey "free and clear title" by January 3, 1991. |
 | | Utsunomiya also alleged it had remained ready and willing to comply with the letter of intent until January 3, 1991, but because clear title had not been conveyed by that date, it was entitled to foreclose on the lien. |
 | | Instead, Utsunomiya made a claim against Moomuku's equity interest in the property to the extent of its $200,000 deposit, and thus, recorded the notice of lis pendens presumably based on the belief that its claim "concerned" or "affected" the property. |
| www.hsba.org /HSBA/Legal_Research/Hawaii/sc/16751.cfm (7160 words) |
|