Background
Hye Ja Choi sued Central Pacific Bank after it closed her checking account and sent her a check for its $1,061.90 balance. Choi alleged embezzlement, account closure, illegal acts, and harassment, and sought $40,000.
The bank relied on its Deposit Account Agreement, which allowed it to end an account relationship with notice and to send a check for remaining funds. It notified Choi that it would no longer maintain her deposit accounts because of her conduct at its branch, closed the account after the stated deadline, and repeatedly tendered the balance check. The district court granted the bank summary judgment and awarded it attorney fees and costs.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. CPB’s evidence established that it closed Choi’s account under the Deposit Account Agreement and tendered her the account balance. Choi, in contrast, offered no affidavit or declaration creating a genuine factual dispute; her unauthenticated documents concerned other accounts and were not alleged in her complaint.
Choi’s reliance on Hawaii’s theft statute did not save her claims because that criminal statute creates no private right of action. She also did not establish that CPB owed her a legal duty beyond its contractual obligations. The court declined to address CPB’s alternative statute-of-limitations argument. Challenges to the attorney-fee and cost award were waived because Choi had not raised them in the district court.
Key Takeaways
- A bank may close an account when its governing deposit agreement authorizes termination and the bank follows its notice and fund-tender provisions.
- A summary-judgment opponent must present specific admissible facts, not general allegations or materials unrelated to the pleaded claims.
- Hawaii’s criminal theft statute does not provide a private civil cause of action.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the value of clear deposit-account termination provisions and evidence showing that a customer’s remaining funds were tendered. It also underscores that self-represented litigants remain responsible for producing evidence sufficient to create a triable issue.
On appeal, arguments concerning fees and costs generally must have been properly presented to the trial court first.