Yamaguchi v. Title Guaranty Escrow Services, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
19-MAY-2026
09:43 AM
Dkt. 76 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

NAHO YAMAGUCHI, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TITLE GUARANTY ESCROW SERVICES, INC., a Hawaii corporation,
Defendant/Crossclaimant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee,
and
MARTELL CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, doing business as IRONGATE;
THE BLACKSTONE GROUP, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership,
Defendants/Cross-claim Defendants-Appellees,
and
PACREP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Third-Party Defendant,
and
JOHN DOES 1-20; JANE DOES 1-20; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-20;
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-20; DOE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES 1-20, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CC181000539)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)

The supreme court remanded this case for us to address
the merits of Naho Yamaguchi's appeal from the circuit court's
award of attorney fees to Title Guaranty Escrow Services, Inc.1
Yamaguchi v. Title Guar. Escrow Servs., Inc., ___ Hawai#i ___,
___ P.3d ___, 2026 WL 789054 (Mar. 20, 2026). We affirm.
We review an order granting or denying attorney fees
for abuse of discretion. Cowan v. Exclusive Resorts PBL1, LLC,
156 Hawai#i 268, 272, 574 P.3d 288, 292 (2025). A court abuses
its discretion if it clearly exceeds the bounds of reason or

1
The Honorable James H. Ashford presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

disregards rules or principles of law or practice to the
substantial detriment of a party litigant. Id.
Title Guaranty's fee motion was brought under Hawaii
Revised Statutes (HRS) § 607-14 (2016), concerning "actions in
the nature of assumpsit, etc." Yamaguchi's opposition memorandum
argued that her breach-of-contract claim "was for nominal
damages" and her breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim required more
work and sounded in tort, so Title Guaranty should recover only
five percent of its attorney fees. Title Guaranty replied that
Yamaguchi's "entire case was premised on whether [Title Guaranty]
complied with the Escrow Agreement."
During the hearing on the motion the circuit court
noted the Sales Agreement "expressly provides that [Yamaguchi]
agrees to pay . . . all attorney's fees, costs, and expenses
incurred by Title Guaranty in connection with or arising out of
the disbursement of [Yamaguchi]'s deposits." The court cited
Blair v. Ing and stated it "must determine the nature of the
lawsuit by looking to the essential character of the underlying
action." See Blair v. Ing, 96 Hawai#i 327, 332, 31 P.3d 184, 189
(2001) ("In deciding whether to award fees under HRS § 607–14,
the court must determine the nature of the lawsuit where both
assumpsit and non-assumpsit claims are asserted in an action.").
Blair also instructed, "in awarding attorneys' fees in
a case involving both assumpsit and non-assumpsit claims, a court
must base its award of fees, if practicable, on an apportionment
of the fees claimed between assumpsit and non-assumpsit claims."
Id. There, the plaintiffs sued an accountant for malpractice
under an implied contract for tax return preparation services.
Id. The supreme court held:

Without the implied contract, which could create a
cognizable duty, Plaintiffs would have no negligence
claim. . . .

Because the negligence claim in this case was derived
from the alleged implied contract and was inextricably
linked to the implied contract claim by virtue of the
malpractice suit, we hold that it is impracticable, if not
impossible, to apportion the fees between the assumpsit and
non-assumpsit claims.

Id. at 332–33, 31 P.3d at 189–90.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Here, but for the Sales Contract, by which Yamaguchi
assented to the Escrow Agreement, Title Guaranty would owe no
fiduciary duty. The circuit court analogized Yamaguchi's claims
to those asserted in Blair, and stated apportionment was not
practicable. The court awarded Title Guaranty all of its
requested fees.
Yamaguchi's second amended complaint alleged that Title
Guaranty "converted $592,790.43 of" her money. The amount
awarded ($27,349.27) was within the twenty-five percent limit
under HRS § 607-14, which provides that the amount of fees shall
be assessed on "the amount sued for if the defendant obtains
judgment."
On this record, we conclude the circuit court acted
within its discretion in granting Title Guaranty's motion for
attorney fees. The February 10, 2021 Order Granting Defendant
Title Guaranty Escrow Services, Inc.'s Motion for Attorney's Fees
and Costs is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 19, 2026.

On the briefs:
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Junsuke Aaron Otsuka, Presiding Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellant
Naho Yamaguchi. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge
Charles A. Price,
for Defendant/ /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Crossclaimant/Third-Party Associate Judge
Plaintiff-Appellee
Title Guaranty Escrow
Services, Inc.

3