FUCHS v. KE KAILANI PARTNERS, LLC - PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI | This Petition could result in American homeowners facing foreclosure saving trillions of dollars in equity by policing deficiency judgments as is now being done only in half of the states

In The Supreme Court of the United States MICHAEL J. FUCHS and KE KAILANI DEVELOPMENT LLC, Petitioners, V. KE KAILANI PARTNERS, LLC, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Hawaii Supreme Court, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, and the First Circuit Court of the State of Hawaii a_ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Gary Victor Dubin Counsel of Record FREDERICK J. ARENSMEYER Dunrin Law Offices 65 Merchant Street, Suite 3100 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Telephone: (808) 537-2300 Facsimile: (808) 523-7733 E -Mail: gdubin@dubinlaw.net Attorneys for Petitioners QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Resolving the conflict in the decisions, equally divided, among state courts, and between state and federal courts, concerning one of the most fundamental due process issues in constitutional law, the requirement of a neutral and impartial decision maker: Is a presiding state judge, discovered to have an undisclosed stock ownership interest in an adverse party, refusing nevertheless to recuse himself, in violation of judicial ethics and a disqualified jurist, based upon an objective standard of the appearance of partiality, and his or her decisions required to be set aside? 2. Resolving the conflict in the decisions, equally divided, among state courts, and between federal courts in their exercise of diversity jurisdiction: Is it a violation of due process of law as an unconstitutional forfeiture of property rights for a state or federal court to award a foreclosing mortgagee a deficiency judgment calculated solely by subtracting the net proceeds of a forced auction sale from the amount owed, without the court conducting an evidentiary hearing after sale confirmation to first determine the fair value of a foreclosed property? 3. Is it a violation of due process and equal protection, when a right to appeal is expressly provided by state law, for a state appellate court nevertheless to deny the right to appeal based solely upon a filed notice of appeal delayed solely due to a malfunction in that state's authorized electronic appellate filing system?  

20161205080816_1_1 by DinSFLA on Scribd