Case Title: Takaki v. Cambra

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2006-05-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAW LIBRARY,

‘seeNoT FOR PUBLICATION***
a
No, 24458

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

WILLIAN K. TAKAKI, JANINA TAKAKI, BILLIE K.>
TAKAKI, Plaintiffs-Appellees

  

aad

GEORGE E. CAMBRA, Defendant-Appellant
and

JOSEPH P. TAVARES, GEORGE L. CAMBRA, VIRGINIA N. CAMBRA,

GEORGE CAMBRA’S MOVIE PRODUCTION TRUCKS, INC., SHAFTER

PAWN, INC. and JOHN and MARY DOES 1-10, DOE CORPORATIONS,
‘PARTNERSHIPS, or OTHER ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants

eee

APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. NO. 99-0-2594)

on appeal, Appellant argues that (1) the case of

1 the Honorable R, Mark Browning presiding.
‘ssanoT FOR PUBLICATION***
eee

Plaintiffs-Appellees William K. Takaki, Janina Takaki (Mr:

   

Takaki) and Billie K. Takaki (Billie) (collectively, Appellees}
4s barred by the statute of imitations; (2) “the (court) erred
in denying directed verdict and J.N.0.V."7 (3) “the [court]
Aseued @ confusing and inadequate special verdict form’;

(4) “[appellees’] claims were based solely on destruction to
corporate property and, therefore, were property of the
corporation”; and (5) “there was insufficient evidence to support
the jury's finding of intentional infliction of emotional
distress [(J180)].”

As to Appellant's first argument on appeal, the plain
language of Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 657-20 (1993)
sustains the timeliness of Appellees’ complaint inasmuch as
Appellant fraudulently concealed his liability on the clain
brought by Appellees, as determined by the jury.

As to his second argument, it cannot be concluded that
the court erred in denying Appellant's motions for directed
verdict or J.N.0.V. on the statute of limitations defense. The
court instructed the jury verbatim from HRS § 657-20.7 Any doubt

+ gRS § 657-20 states:

If any person who is liable to any of the actions
mentioned in this part or section 663-3, fravdently conceals
The existence of the cause of action oF the 2
person uno is liable for the claim from tne knowledge of the
BetiSi-entitied to bring the action, the action may be
Egnnerices at any tine within six years after the person who
Se entitled co bring the sane discovers or should have
discovered, the existence of the cause of action or the
SGentity of the person who ie Liable for the claim, although
the action would otherwise be barred by the period of
Limitations

 
‘**NOT FOR PUBLICATION®+*
ee

as to the reasonableness of Appellees’ conduct or any objection
to the Appellees’ claim of fraudulent concealment was resolved at
trial. The weight of the evidence was for the jury to decide,
see State v. Tamura, 63 Haw. 636, 637-38, 633 P.2d 1115, 1117
(1981) (holding that the jury, es the trier of fact, is the sole
judge of the credibility of witnesses or the weight of the
evidence), and whether or not Appellees reasonably relied on such
concealment was decided by the jury as rendered by its verdict,
see Tachibana v, State, 79 Hawai'i 226, 239, 900 P.2d 1293, 1307
(1995) (explaining that “an appellate court will not pass upon
issues dependent upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight
of the evidence”). Because by its verdict the jury determined
Appellant’s statute of limitations defense had not been proven,
the court was correct in denying Appellant's motion for directed
verdict.

As to point three, by their award of damages, it cannot
reasonably be disputed that the jurors did anything but determine

that there was fraudulent conc

 

Ament and that Appellant failed
to prove his statute of limitations defense. See Montalvo vy.
Lapez, 77 Hawas's 262, 292, €84 P.2d 345, 355, reconsideration
denied, 77 Hawai'l 489, 889 P.2¢ 66 (1994) ("In analyzing alleged
errors in special verdict forms, the instructions and the
interrogatories on the verdict form are considered as a whole.”)
As to point four, Appellant did not raise this defense

(enpnasis added.

 
‘++¢oT FOR PUBLICATION*#*

in a timely manner and it is, therefore, waived. See Lagondino

vs Maldonado, 7 Haw. App. 591, 596, 789 P.2d 1129, 1132 (App.),
rec! atiol ) 7 Haw. App. 667, 807 P.2d $3, cert.

denied, 71 Haw. 668, 833 P.2d 900 (1990).?
As to point five, at all times relevant to the instant
case, the elements of IIED were that (1) the act causing the harm
was intentional, (2) the act was unreasonable, and (3) the actor
should have recognized the likelihood of harm. ona vs Panis, 7
Haw. App. 414, 421, 772 2.24 695, 700 (1989). As to the first
elenent, Appellant admitted his involvement in the act causing
the harn, ines, the burning of the truck, and eventually pleaded
guilty to conspiracy to commit arson. As to the second element,
such conduct wae plainly unreasonable. The third elenent of the
test was satisfied through the testimony of Mrs. Takaki and
Billie. Based on the nature of his conduct, Appellant should
have recognized the likelihood of harm to which Mrs. Takaki and

Billie testified. Therefore,

 

> an Lagonding, the Ica opined that:

RCE Rule 17(a) requires the prosecution of an action in th
hane of the party who, by the substantive law, has the right
Sougnt to be enforced. .". . Since a real party in interest
ibiecticn under (Hawsi'i gules of Cluil Eroceaure CHRCE!

 

Egisad inp timely tsshion o©-it nay be aeened waives.
The IHRCP) apecity neither the procedure to be
utslizes when objecting that plaintiff is not the real party
in interest nor when such objection must be nade
Evigently, @ MRCP Rule 17(a) objection nay be made in
ti) “anaver az an affirmative defense or by 2

  

Seance with reasonable
Seine nes been waived by the delay.

(Emphases added.
‘senor FOR PUBLICATION***
eee
In accordance with Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure
Rule 35, and after carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and duly considering and analyzing the
law relevant to the arguments and issues raised by the parties,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court’s judgment filed on
August 28, 2002, from which the appeal is taken, is affirmed

DATED:

 

Honolulu, Hawai'i, May 2, 2006.

on the briefs:

actee OS tert ume

siaiam Cuil. garrett
for defendant-appellant
este 5. Pohunote fer 9

plaintiffs-appellees. re owas

  

RD nN .
‘WITH WHOM LEVINSON, J, JOINS

 

I concur in the result only.

Grr

Mac lowe