§480-12 Contracts void. Any contract or agreement in violation of this chapter is void and is not enforceable at law or in equity. [L 1961, c 190, §10; Supp, §205A-10; HRS §480-12]
Construing the evidence in plaintiff decedent's trustee's favor, there was sufficient evidence (decedent mortgagee's impairments, e.g., advanced age, inability to see or hear, and dementia, rendered decedent "incapable of reading, writing and understanding re-finance mortgage documents") that the mortgage between decedent and defendants was void under this section, such that plaintiff may continue to seek rescission under chapter 480. 848 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (2012).
Although a damage claim under §480-13 based on violations of §480-2 may only be asserted against the wrongdoer, a rescission claim under chapter 480 can stand against subsequent assignees if the contract is void; where plaintiff had alleged that defendant mortgage broker assigned or sold loans to other defendants, plaintiff could seek rescission against other defendants if mortgage broker violated chapter 480 and the loans were void; however, a plaintiff seeking affirmatively to void a mortgage transaction under this section must "place the parties in as close a position as they held prior to the transaction". 861 F. Supp. 2d 1153 (2012).
A partially illegal contract may be upheld by severing the illegal portion. 61 H. 607, 607 P.2d 1304.
Where plaintiff did not provide to homeowners the lien disclosure notices before or upon signing of the contract or prior to the commencement of the work as required by §444-25.5(a), plaintiff's conduct was an unfair or deceptive practice that rendered its contract void and unenforceable at law or in equity under this section; thus, plaintiff was not entitled to a lien upon homeowners' property under §507-42, and trial court did not err in dismissing its lien application. 111 H. 349, 141 P.3d 996.
As this section voided the contract between homeowner and contractor, §507-42 and this section precluded the imposition of a §507-42 lien upon the homeowner's property by contractor who failed to comply with the requirements of §444-25.5. 96 H. 365 (App.), 31 P.3d 222.
Section 444-25.5(d) and this section do not preclude some recovery in quantum meruit from a homeowner by a contractor who fails to comply with the requirements of §444-25.5; the amount cannot exceed the amount that would have been due the general contractor under the contract had the contract not been void, less the amount previously paid the contractor and the total of the amount paid and owed to all sub-contractors and materialmen. 96 H. 365 (App.), 31 P.3d 222.
Where plaintiff was attempting to eject defendants from a property that plaintiff purchased at a public auction that was held because of defendants' failure to pay the amount due and owing on a promissory note and mortgage on the property, the circuit court erred in finding that because the plaintiff did not originate the loan, the defendants could not raise an unfair or deceptive acts or practices defense against the plaintiff. 137 H. 53 (App.), 365 P.3d 389 (2016).