Yamaguchi v. Title Guaranty Escrow Services, Inc.

── Yamaguchi v. Title Guaranty Escrow Services, Inc. ── Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Date: May 19, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 19-MAY-2026 09:43 AM Dkt. 76 SO NO.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  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER disregards rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant.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 cour