Case Title: Omerod v. Heirs of Kainoa Kupuna Kaheananui. J. Levinson concurring in the results only.

Citation: 116 Haw. 239

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2007-11-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAWLISRABY

FOR PUBLICATION IN MESE’S HAWAI'I REFORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTERS**
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

a--o00--=

 

 

CLARA APIKI OMEROD, MARVALENE K. APIKI ADAMS,
BASIL APIKI, OR., ROWENA KAULIA, MARY L.K. PARIS,
‘and BERNADETTE SHIPLEY, Plaintiffs-Appeilant:

 

3
g
2

oats

HEIRS OF KAINOA KUPUNA KAHEANANUI,
Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs/ | _*
crogs-Clainents/Counter-Clainants/Cross-Appellants

  

and

SAMUEL K. KRLUNA, JR. RICHARD HALE KALUNA,
GARY POHA KALUNA, HARRIET A. MAMONE, ESTHER Kk.
BECK, YVONNE KE, LEINAALA SILVA, RAYMOND SILVA,
ROBERT SILVA, THOMAS SILVA, JR. MARIE AH YEE,
UBMES YOSHIDA, GARY NAPOLEON, RONALD KAHEE, JR.

‘SARAH ANN XAHEE, and SHELLY ANN NAPOLEON,
Defendants /Croes-Appellante

and
DELANO R, KEOHOKAPU, JUDITH KAUI_KOFFMAN,
LILY K. FARM, JOSEPH K. KEOHOKAPU, JR.
ADELINE KEOHOKAPU MANDAC, DOREEN MAKUAKANE,
EARBAR COX, AUDREY K. YARA, PETER KEOHOKAPU,
ARLENE WANDA IWALANI MCARTHUR and BENEDICT
ALITLOAOKAAINA SOLOMON, Defendants-Appellants,
and
C. BREWER AND COMPANY, LTD.; MAUNA KEA AGRIBUSINESS,
CO., INC.; KA'U AGRIBUSINESS CO., INC.; and
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, a District of Columbis
Non-Profit Corporation: Defendants-Appellees
and
STATE OF HAWAI'I; STATE OF HAWAII OFFICE OF
HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS; CLARENCE A. MEDEIROS, JR.,
whe Unknown Heirs and Resigns of the following
“APIKE, KEA; KALAKOLOME, IKIIKI, KAPEWA;
HELEHEWA, KEANC,

KAHUKU, PURI,
MANUBARIPO, MORNALUA, KAHOOIOT,

 

 

 
 

/+FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST! § HAMAI'T REPORTS ND FACIFIC REPORTER:

 

KAMANA, and MAHUKA; DOE PERSONS 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS
1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; ROE “NON PROFIT”
CORPORATIONS 1-10 and ROE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10;
THOMAS OKUNA; KA'U SUGAR, INC.; Unknown Heirs and Aesions
of the following: E. MOR PUHT, EMMA PAHOA, NAHUINA, JOE,
CHRISTINA KAPULANI, KOLU@AHINE, KEOHOKAPU, KAUWA, KEOHO,
KAOIWZAKA, KENUZ,”KAMAUU, KALALA, KAWELU, ANIA, KALEO,
KEKUA, KAHA NUAHEMA, KUAIWA, KAHULA, AWIHI, KAOO, KEKUPU,
KATLIKI, ANA, NAKOOKOO, KAAT, KAATHUILA, KAAIKUILA, LANAE,
‘OLIVER APIXI, LEIALOHA APIKI, CLEMENT APIKI, also known
as C.K. APIKI, also known as C.A. KAHOOMANAWANUI, KAHIONA
APIKI, BASIL K.'APIKI, KAMITLANI APIKI, MAGGIE KAHCOMANWANUI,
MALAKINA APIKI, GEORGE APIKI, STEPHEN K. APIKI, ONE KINO
APIKI, CAROLINE APIKI, ANNA APIKI, PAULINE MOANALUR,
SYLVESTER APIKI, PAULINA APIKI, JOSEPH ENAENA, CLEMENT
IAEA, CLEMENT ENAENA, MARGARET AHAKUELO, AGNES KAHIONA
LAPABLA, AGNES CLARK, | JENNIE ENAENA WRIGHT, RAPHAEL JOHN
KELII AHAKUELO, MARY LUDLOFF, C.J. (MARGARET) FETTE, ELAINE
LINDSEY, RAPHAEL APIKI, CLEMENT APIKI, BENEDICT K.  APIKI,
JEREMIAH KANAKANUI, JERENTAH K. KANAKANUI, JR., JAMES
KANAKANUI, JEREMIAH KAAPANA, JAMES KAAPANA, 'KEKELIA APIKI,
CECELTA APIKI, KAAEHAWAI? APIKI, RUFINA PAWAT APIKI, RUBY
ABIKI, STEPHEN APIKI, JR., CAROLINE APIKI, WILLIAM APIKI,
MARY APIKI, HAROLD ‘BENJAMIN H. BRIGHT, HAPPY H. HANOA,
KELLY H. HANOA, JR., KAINOA HANOR, INENOA HANOR, HARRIET
SIBONGA, RICHARD ENAEAN, ELSIE ASUNCION, CHRISTOPHER
KALEINAHEA, BENJAMIN HALETWAKER, KAREN NALANI PANU]
MULIWAZ, PRISCILLA KEALOHA PANUI WHITE, DARLENE WRIGHT
VINCENTE, ALEERT WRIGHT, BENJAMIN WRIGHT, ANNA LEINOMT
ABAKUELO NEVES, TANYA PINARD, VIOLET APIKI PUNAHELE,
LAURA MARIAI, HAROLDINE PUANANI BRIGHT MANUEL, ELSTON
LOUIS HOOPER, KATHERINE AH NEE, JOSEPH ENAENA, JR.,
BASIL K. AHAKUELO, DOREEN P. AHAKUELO, LOUELLA I. AHRKUELO,
MARGARET KAHITLANT ENAEAN, JOSEPH KAILII ENAENA, JR.,
ABRAHAM KALOA ENAENA, LUVONNE ULULANI ENAENA, FRANCINE HOKU
ENAENA, TANYA LYNN PITLANI ENAENA, TRACY KILAUEA IKI ENAEAN,
‘STACY MOHINA ENAENA, ROBERT X. AH NEE, JR., EDMUND AB NEE,
PATRICIA KAMALU, MELE KALUA, KALUA OPIO, MARIAMA KAHUAKALANE,
MARIAM AAUHANE LANE, RICHARD CAREY LANE, CATHERINE LANE,
CLARENCE K, LANE, SUNIUS E.K. LANE, ROCHELLE W.K. TOKUHARA,
LOT C. LANE, JUNIUS E. LANE, LONA K. URBSHOT, GERALD
KRNEKAWAIOLA URESHOT, JUNE L. TOKUHARA, THOMAS MASAO
TOKUHARA, MOANA GAIL LANE, KARA E. LANE, RICHARD LANE,
OR., MIRIAM K. LANE, NOAH NOBLE KAUHANE, MINNIE BOLSTER
KAUHANE, NOBLE HUSTACE KAUHANE, PHOEBE REUTER, PHOEBE REUTER
KAUHANE, AERAHAM HUBERT KAUMANE, BETTY ANN KAUHANE,
EETTY ANN KRAMER, KIRKLAND PATRICK KAUHANE, DWIGHT KRAMER
KAUHANE, KYLE D. KAUHANE, DONNA ANN LEINANI’ KAUHANE AQUINO,

 
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAMAL'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

—_—
EILEEN LOTA, NOBLEEN

DAVID BRIAN AQUINO, STUART KAUHANE,
FANNEMEL, FRANCIS KAUKANE, ELLA KAUHANE, FRANCIS KAUHANE, JR.,
BRENDA KAUHANE, DOROTHY AKANA, DOROTHY HENDERSON, PRISCILLA
HO, KATHERINE CHING, ARTHUR CHING, JR., LEONA ‘SPENCER,
KATHERINE CHANG, RICHARD MELVIN CHING, MARTHA AYAU, VIDA
PUALA SCHELL, ROBLEE JAMES CHING, EUNICE NOELANI DAVIS,
KEITH DAVIS, KATHY LOUISE LEE, DAVID KECHOKAPU, MARTIN
"AUPUNI KEOHOKAPU, DANIELLE KEOHOKAPU RICHARD, ANDREA
KEOHOKAPU, ROSE KAUHANE KILA, BEVEN LITLII KILA, SR.,
DAISY KALUAAPANA KILA HULAMA, EDWARD SONNY WISE, DAISEY
KALUAAFANA WISE, EDWARD WAIAU, ELIZABETH MIALA KAAHANUI,
EDWARD WAIAU WISE, GEORGE MOSEES HULAMA, DAISY K. HULAMA,
MELISSA ANN KAMALA HULAMA, BEVEN KILA, JR., BEVEN LIILIT
KILA, JR., JANE KEAMALU KILA, EVA LEILANI KILA, EVA LEILANT
‘LEONG, HERBERT AKANA LEONG, STEPHANIE NAOMI LEONG, MICHAEL
STEPHAN KALEIOPU, HUSERT AKANA LEONG, JR., SYLVIA YUK LAN
MAMO TONG LEONG, DENNIS MILTON LEONG, KAREN ANNABELLE LORDARL
LEONG, NADINE KEONT LEONG KAKALIA, DAVID KUPA KAKALIA, DANNY
DAVID KUPA KAKALIA,

AWANA KAKALIA, EVA LEILANI LEONG KAKALIA,
‘JR., EDWINA KAKALIA, JENNIE LEILANI KEKALIA, GEORGE MOSES

HULAMA LEONG, MIRIAM’ MANOHEALIT KILA, ROSE ILIMA KILA, RITA
KULAMIKA KILA, REBECCA LUCILLE K.K. KILA KAUO, EDWARD OPIO
KAUO, NOBLE HULBERT K. KILA, FOERT P. KILA, VELMAR O. KALUA,
ROBERT P. KILA, DOREEN BAPTISTE, CHERYL TUDOR; and ALL TO
WHOM IT MAY CONCERN; ALSO, Pursuant to the requirements of
§ 669-2(c) (1) HRS, the following are the owners, so far as
known, of the kuleanas end cther grants in those portions
of the Ahupua'a of Hilea where Plaintiffs cleim common law

property rights and/or Native Tenant PASH rights as identified
Heirs and assigns of NAWAHINE, Fatentee of Land

 

 

herein:
Commission Award (hereinafter “LCA") 10371:1; Heirs and assigns
‘Of LONOAHIHO, Patentee of LCA 9714-B; Heirs and assigns of
KAILIAWA, Patentee of LCA 9286:1, 2; Heirs and assicns of PUA,
Heirs and assigns of WA'APK,

Patentee of LCA 10685:1, 2
Patentee of LCA 10952:1; Heirs and assions of NAILIEKA,

Patentee of LCA 9212-C: 1, 2; Heirs and assigns of KUOAHA,
2; Heirs and assigns of KATINT,

Patentee OF LCA 9172: 1
Petentee of LCA 8592; Heirs and assigns of KAHOPONUI
Patentee of LCA 9086; Heire and assions of PUEO and Heirs
and sesigns of KAINOA KUPUNA, Patentees of LCA 10654: 1, 2
Heirs and assigns of KAIA, Fatentee of LCA 9125; Heirs ‘and
assigns of KEKA'A, Patentee of LCA 9091, Heirs and assigns of
MOR, Fatentee cf LCA 7733: 2, 3: Heirs and assigns of AKA,
Fatentee of LCA 11070; Unknown owner, TMK $-5-18-15, 10.932
acres; Heirs and assigns of ULUHANI, Patentee to LCA’ 10914:1;
Heirs and a: ‘cof MALUAE, Patentee of LCA 10190:2; Heirs
and aesigne of KANEHAILUA, Patentee of LCA $19; Unknown heirs
and eseigns cf unknown patentee of LCA 1006€; Heirs end
assigns cf MAHUKA, Patentee cf LCA 10073; Heirs and assigns

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 
 

‘++sPOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ S HAMAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER’

 

 

of MAKAPAHAWA, Patentee of LCA 10094; Heirs and assigns of
KALAKOLOHE, Patentee of LCR 87€0-C; Heirs and assions of
HELEHEWA, Patentee of LCA 9212-B; and ANNA E. SEARLE; C.
BREWER AND CO., LTD, as owners of TMK 9-5-16-35, which
includes portions of Grants 2481, 2943, 2645, 2647, 2651, 2645:
and as owners of TMK $-5-15-3; ‘and TMK 9-5-20, 22, including
portions of Grants 13500, §-13775 and 2153; THOMAS M. OKUNA,
as owner of Grant 2648; portion of LCA 9971:11; and Grant 993;
‘STATE OF HAWAI'I, as owner of TMK 9-$-19-1, 2, 28 and
TMK 9-5-18-19, Defendants

 

 

 

 

No. 27218

APPEAL FROM THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. NO. 03-1-226)

NOVEMBER 18, 2007

 

MOON, C.J., NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, JJ., AND CIRCUIT
JUDGE MARKS IN PLACE OF DUFFY, J., RECUSED:
WITH LEVINSON, J., CONCURRING IN THE RESULT ONLY

 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY ACOBA, J.
‘This appeal arises from a quiet titie action filed in
the circuit court of the third circuit! (the court) involving

numerous parties end several dispositions. To summarize,

 

Appellants’ cleim an undivided one-half interest in the ahupu

 

The Honorable Greg K. Nekenure presided.

 

+ the various Appellants in this action are Piesntsssey
Appellente/Cresevappelicer Clare Apiki Onerec, Marvelene RK. hpiks Acame, Basi
Apiki, or., Rowena Heulie, Mary L.K. Farie, and Eernacette Shirley
[eeliectively, Onerod Appellants cr Oneree}; (2) Defencnte/cree
Senve! Keclanavlee Kelone, Or. Ric Gary Fone K
ha Wanone, Eetner K. Beck, Yocnne Fes Rayncnd ftive,
ve, Tnénae Siive, ors, May An Yee, Janes Yeehias, Gory Nepeiech, Renal
Kehee, ore, ¢ nd Shelly Ann Nepelecr, [ecllectsvely, Kelone
Appeliants’ ex Defendante/thisé-Perty Figintifte/Crose=
Cefsente/cou ante Hesre cf Keines. Ropvns
(continued

      

            

     

 

 
 

s+0FOR PUBLICATION IN MEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER"

of Hitee Nui under the theory that Prince Lot Kanehaneha (Let)
and Chief Leleichoku (Leleichoku) were granted a cotenancy in a
single ahupus'a known as “Hilea” at the time of the Great
Nahele,* as opposed to receiving grants in fee simple of two
separate ahupua‘as, Hiles Tki and Hilea Nui. They contend that
Hilea Iki and Miles Nui actually represent ‘ilis, or
administrative divisions, of the single ahupue'a of Hilea
Appellants further maintain thet the cotenancy created between
Lot and Leleichok continues to the present, between Appellants
(Lot's successors in interest) and Appellees (Leleichoku' s
successors in interest).

on the other hand, the essence of Appellees’® ergunent

is that the Boundary Commission cf the Kingdon of Hawai'i

 

#(,. .continued)
Inereinafter, Kaneanenol Appellants or Kshesnenui Heirs): (4) Defendante/
Appellants Delene R. Kechotsps, dogith Keus Keffman, Lily K. farm, Joseph K.
Kechotapt, Jr-, Adeline Kechokzpu Mancec, Dereen Makuekane, Bartare Cox,
hoarey K: Yara, Peter Mechekepe Arlene Randa walent MeArchUr, and Benedict
Riiiiceckeaine Solomon collectively, Hechekspe Appellants ox Kechokapul

 

 

ho
mounteine to the =

 

1s were lerge lend divisions that typically ran from the
Wary Kewene Fukui & Sanvel H. Eibert,

 

Bicticnsry $ (rev. ed. 1986).

Manele is cefined generslly se portion or division. Id. at 219.
‘The Great Mehele ie the ane given to the lend division of JE4E, Ack,
Giecussed infre et 11-A.

 

 

‘The Appellees are Defendente-Appeliees C. Brewer & Company (Cs
Breyer], its subeidsariee, Msune Kes heribuciness, Co. (MMR) and Ke's

e(kats Agribusiness), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), ané
the Clecn Trust [olsen). INC snd Olson purchased portions of C. Brewer's
Unterest in Mises fui during the couree of thie Iitigetson. On Jancery 12,
2008, ceunsel for C, Brewer anc Cleon filed 2 stipulation Between Defencente
Gne freneferee for Entry cf Creer fer Substitution cf Transferee anc

eferee, reporting that Defendante MKA ane

Kew hgribuciness fad been merged inte ©. tng that C. Brewer hac
Conveyed the lend at seeue to Eamune C. 0: Trustee of the Olsen Tru
fhe gascsee stipuletes ther Cleen wovle be substituted es Defencent fer C
Erewe:, MA, ane Kev Agritusinest. However, it does not eppeer fren the
recore t sobetitution wae erderes,

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

          

   

   
“s++7OR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPCRTER**#

determined the relative boundaries of Hilea Iki and Hilea Nui in
1877, defining them ae two adjacent ahupua'as owned in fee
simple, and that the Boundary Commission’ s judgment cannot be
collaterally attacked by Appellants.

For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the
(1) November 30, 2004 Hawai's Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP)

Rule $4(b)‘ Partial Final Judgment (Rule 54(b) Judgment.

 

(2) February 4, 2005 Order Denying (a) Omerod Appellents' Motion

© ance Rule S¢iB) (20041, woon sultipl ol ving
multinle carties, provides:
re than 8‘ fis or

 

mere bot few

elev a f

In the absence of Zoch determinstion ane
Erection, any order or ether form of cecision, however
Gesignates, which adsodicstes fever than all the claine or
the Fights and liabilities of fever then all the parties
Ghall not temminete the setion eu to any ef the claine or
ferties, and che order cr other form of decision is subject
Ee revigden at any tine before the entry ef Judgment
sciosiceting sll the clains ond the righte and iiebilities
of all the parties.

 

 

 

(emphaeie added).
7 the Role £44) suégnent certified for appeal severe) interlocutory
crders, including the (1) Janvary 16, 200¢ Order on Gefencants MMA's and Kau
Reribvcinese Co.'s. (Kay hgriboeiness) Moticn fer Protective Order (Protective
Gfderis_ 2] March 22, 2004 Decitlon and Order regarding (a) Defendent HKA'®
Sotien fer Summary 2udgnent, (b) TNC's Joinéer in Defendant MER’ s Motion for
Sommary.Sedgnent, fondant Mia’ # Motion fer Summary Judgnent Against
Kelune dppellanté, (¢) Onered Appellants’ Metion fer Soamary Jodgnent hgsinst
1G TNC, and. (e) Kelune Appellence’ Joinder in Cnered
Rppeliente’ Metion for’ Sonmary Jusment [Decieicn ane Craez); ané (3) Ssly 216,
fing in Fart ane Grestane in Part. (2) Onerce Appeliente’ Motion
In the Alternative, fer Role RCP S416) Certifical
Sci Final Sucgnent, (b) Kelone Appeliente! Motion fer Recensideratien
the Alternative, for en Order ef intericcutery Appeal Or, in the
tier fer Rule ARCE stip) Certification of Feytie! Final Juogent, (c)
ror Appellente’ deinoer in Creree Appellants” Motion £05
jGeretion (Recensicerstion Order)

 

 
     

    

 

 

 

 

é
 

[FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S BJWAI'T REFORTS ND PACIFIC REPORTER

ss
to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to HRCP Rules $9(e) (2007)*
and 60(b) (2) (2007)? and (b) Kaheananui Appellants’? Motion to
Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to HRCP Rules 59(¢) and
60(b) (2), ALL Supplements Thereto and All Joinders Thereto
(February 4, 2008 Order); (3) July 7, 2005 Order Denying
Defendant C. Brewer's Motion to Quash Subpoena Issued to John
cross (July 7, 2005 Order); and (4) July &, 2008 Order Denying
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to HRCP Rule
60(b) (2007) and For Sanctions (July 8, 2005 Order).
1h
omerod Appellants appeal from the (1) Rule 54(b)

Sudoment; (2) February 4, 2005 Order; (3) July 7, 2005 Order: and

 

* wnce Fule $9(@), Moticn te alter or amend iudanent, provides thet
s{alny notion se eiter er anenc @ sodgnent shell be filed ne Jeter than 10

Gaye afeer entry ef judgment”

 

+ nce Role 60(b) (2) veste the court with authority to “relieve

party or a porty'® Legel representative fren a fine) judgnent, order, oF
Proceesing fer the feliowing reasons (2) newly discovered evidence
Ehich by doe diligence could net have been discovered in time te move for «
jew teial onder [HECE) Role $8(b) G3) [.]"

 

% the Heize of Keince Kupuna Kaheanenci have been designeted
yarlously ss "Heirs of Kaince Nupur”, "Nesrs of Keinos Kupuna Piipeli", and
Sgeiss cf Kaince Kepune Kahesnenvs” throughout this litigetion. For purposes
of clarity ang consistency, they will be referred to as the “Kahesnanvs
Ripelients” cr “Keheananui Heirs” in thie epinien,

 

3 the portions of MRCP Rule €0(b! rele)
provige:

 

wnt to this particler motion

(b) Mistabes: inedvertence: excusable neclect: newly

discovered .

Te cannot be concluded that sunmary judgment is not an
appropriate avenue of disposition in this case, Onerod
appellants argue that they present Sesues of enctmous public
import because the source of the disputed title stems fron the
Manele. Inasmuch as all title to land in Hawai'i traces its
origins to the Nahele, this cennot ressonsbly be termed a case of
first inpression. Bennett, $7 Hew. at 202, $82 P.2d et 1368-65
(*Kenehanehe IIT. . . was in the fullness of the common aw
phrase ‘the universal lord ané original proprietor of #12 lends
jn bie Kingdom.’ He wae the source of title." (Quoting Carter y
gerritory, 14 Haw. 465, 470 (2902), rev'd en other rounds, 200
us. 255(1906)}). Furthermore, given that our case law treats
the Mehele end ite ramifications extensively, Onerod Appellents!
argunent thet the cutcone of this cese will heve @ profeund
effect on cur jurisprudence is not persvesive, Moloksi
ponesteaders clearly denonstrates thet summary judgment is
appropriate in this cese because Appellees have demonstrated that

the relevant facts regarding the Boundary Commission judgments

 

axe undisputed and the disputed facts are not materiel to the
desve of collatere) estoppel. 63 Haw. at 487-58, 629 F.2d at
138.

For the foregoing ressene, the Fule $4 (b) judgment as

relates to the Motion for Reconsideration is effizned.

 

eo
 

S*47OR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS OND PACIFIC REFCRTER*

 

xiv.
a.

(on Novenber 30, 2004, Omerod Appellants filed a Motion
to Alter or Anend the Rule 54(b) Judgment. In their supporting
memorandum, Onerod Appellants argued that the book of maps
including the 1902 Cridge mep discovered earlier that summer by
the archaeologist shoved Hilea ae @ single ahupue'a, thus
Girectly contredicting Appellees’ argunents that the Boundary
Commission defined the respective boundaries of LCA 7718 and LCA
9772 as two separate ahupua'es. Onerod Appellants contended that
the map created @ genuine issue of materiel fect that should have
precluded sunmary judenent, because the cartographer included in

his map the Boundary Commission's dividing line between Hilea Tki

 

and Hilea Nui, but “he did not put it in es an ahupua’
boundary.” Additionally, Omerod Appellants argued that the book

of maps should have been produced in response to their

 

interrogatory. The relevant interrogatory state:

Please stete specifically what your title is te the portion
cor portions of the land described in the Complaint, iieting
foreach porticn you claim the tax key, grant number,
alictnent! nunber, ‘netes and beunde cetcription, and sree,

  

PLERSE FRODUCE . . . ANY SURVEY MAPS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS IN
‘YOUR POSSESSION WHICH PERTAIN TO THE AECVE.

B.
Appellee C, Brewer argued that the 1902 map could not
change the Ecundary Commission boundaries, and the mepe in the

book were net intended “te desl with legal boundaries cr title.”

 

Appellee C. Brewer further argued that “[Cridge] wee net ercund

6
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S ]DMAL'T REFORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER

 

Sa

at the tine of the Boundary Commission Judgment and what he did
many years leter is totally irrelevant to what we're doing here
today and totally irrelevant to cur earlier motion for summary
judgnent . . . .” Finally, Appellee C. Brewer argued thet the
cridge map was not responsive to Onerod Appellants’ interrogetory
because it was not @ survey map, but rather, a “sugarcane field
map." Appellees Olson and TNC made essentially the same
argunents. Appellee Olson argued that the subpoenaed books were
“workbooks” and “what is drawn by @ surveyor doesn’t affect legal
rights.” Appellee TNC argued, “It’s a workbook, it’s a field
book, It is not @ survey... . Mr. Cridge was not competent to

change the decision of the monarchy's Boundary Commission. . .

 

[or] the Land Commission .

c.

The court heard the motion en January 13, 2008. At the
hearing, Appellee C. Brewer cbjected to the production of the map
book as irrelevant, but the court accepted it into evidence.
appellees also argued that the map "was not 2 survey,” but

rather, @ “field or plantation map.” They stated that it was not

 

the map's “intention to deal with legal boundaries.”
The court ultimstely denied the motion to alter or
anend the Rule $4(b) jedgrent. The court ruled, in pertinent
pert, thet
the nape er deve were 209
FEESCt. “phe nape st sesve ereere

Reunazy Cosnietien determination
te the level cf judgnente which would £upe

          

 
   

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST! HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER*

Fora i fo aiser the lelourt’=

epstier of Ja

   

(Emphasis added.)

Onerod Appellants contend that the court’s denial of
their Motion to Alter or Anend Judgment wes erroneous for four
reasons. First, thet the court erred because “the 1902 Cridge
nap vas clearly based on officiel surveys of @ District Judge and
the 1877 Boundary Commission judanents, and showed the latter did

not divide two shupua'es but rather created two ‘ilis or

 

administrative divisions within one Hilea shupua'a.” Second, the

court erred because “Appellants did not offer the Cridge map to

 

the trial court as ‘superceding judgment,’ but rather a2
admissible, extrinsic evidence of the nature of the 1877 Boundary
Commission judgnents, for purposes of determining issue
preclusion.” Third, that the “Cridge map either showed » lack of
identity between the clains adjudicated in the 1677 Boundary
Commission proceedings and the present case, or raised genuine
issues of fact as to this crucial conpenent of issue preclusion,
either of which required denial of summary judgment.” Fourth,
that the court “abused its discretion when it refused to impose
senetions fer C. Brewer's flegrant concealment of this crucial

and hi

 

evant Cridge map during discovery.”
gE.

Appellee INC responds that the court correctly denied

70
sssFOR PUBLICATION JN MEST’® HAWAI'I REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

OO

nothing in the

 

the motion to alter or amend judgment because “
Cridge Maps can successfully challenge the Boundary Commission’ s
. determination of the boundary between Hilea Iki and Hilea

Nui.” Appellee TNC further states that, “even if the Cridge maps

were of probative value, they do not meet the . . . definition of
‘material’ for withstanding summery judgment.” (Citing Durette
vs Aloha Plastic Recycling, Inc., 105 Hawai'i 490, 501, 100 P.3d

60, 71 (2004) ("A fact 4 material if proof of that fect would
have the effect of establishing cr refuting one of the essential
elenents of a cause of action or defense asserted by the

parties.” (Citations omitted.)). Appellee TNC contends that the

maps “do not refute any of the essential elements of TNC's

 

defense because the naps cennot eseeil the Lané Conmission awards
or the Boundery Commission judgments.”

appellees Olson and C. Brewer answer thet “[t]he maps
did not, and were not intended to, delineate the legal boundaries
of Hiles Nui and Hilea Iki." ‘They point out thet “[elven survey
maps are not proof of title.” (Citing Santos v. Ferreize, 2 Haw.
app 367, 393, 623 P.2d 1226, 1123 (1981) ("The persons who
prepared these survey naps [depicting disputed dirt read] axe
persons expert in the field of survey. They are not expert in
the fields of easenent, highwey end conveyencing law, which they
must be in order to render en expert opinion on the questiens
whether the road is legally © public road... .“)). Appellees

olecn end C. Brewer state thet the maps “could not change the
 

**4FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ § WAWAI'T REFORTS 280 FACIFIC REPORTER

 

legal results of the Land Connission and Boundary Commission
proceedings decades after the fect.”

Additionally, Appellees Olson and C. Brewer posit that
the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellants’
motion for sanctions because: (1) “C. Brewer's response to the

. « request for documents vas not incomplete or incorrect,
nor did it omit information that could have led to the discovery
of admissible evidence”; (2) “Appellants requested survey maps,
not field maps, or any other maps of the property” such that "C.
Brewer was not required to supplement its response under Rule

26(e)(2)"7 and (3) “the maps were not ‘material’ or relevant to”

the court's collateral estoppel enelysis.

 

In reply, Onercd Appellants argue that C. Brewer
committed fravd on the court. The alleged fraud appears in the
Declaration of C. Brewer's Vice President of Real Estate, in

which he states that Cridge’s maps were based on “underlying maps

 

from some unknown source . onerod Appellants assert that
c. Brewer's counsel reiterated this allegedly fraudulent
statenent at the Jenvary 13, 2005 hearing, when he stated that
the maps used “some underlying map that nobody knows at this
point how ~ what critics were relying on... ." They then
point out the court relied cn this alleged fraud when it ruled
that “there is no evidence es te whet the cartegrepher relied
upon in drewing the maps. Therefore the naps do net create

sues cf materi

 

would cause the [c]ourt to

 

 
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S WAWAL'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER®+#
Se

alter the [cJourt's prior decision. Furthermore, Gnerod
Appellants argue that Appellee C. Brewer failed to offer any
counter-argunent to the fraud allegation, end thus’ ‘waived any
argunent regarding the freud contained in the December 30, 2004,
declaration.”

6.

1h notion made pursvant to HRCP [Rule] $9(e) to alter or
anend a judgment 1s reviewed under the abuse of discretion
standard. Goseiner, 73 Haw. at 425, 638 P.2d at 634. An sbuse
of discretion occurs when the trial court “exceeds the bounds of
reason of law of practice to the substantial detriment of @
perty.” Kewamete Farms v. United eri Prods, 86 Hewas's 214,
242, 948 P.2d 1055, 1082 (2997).

The court did not ebuse its discretion in concluding
that the 1902 Cridge mepe could not refute the 1877 Boundary
Commission judenents such thet the court should elter its
decision that the Boundary Commission judgnent precluded this
Jewsuit. This court hss steted thet “maps and surveys ere of no

greater value as evidence than the information on which they were

 

besed.” State by Kobavashi v. Midkiff, 49 Hew. 456, 473, 421
F.2d 880, 560 (1966) (citing Boundaries of Kapahulu, § Hew. 94

(1863)). According to the “Explenetion” on the Cridce maps, they
were based on “[s) plantation mep and new surveys by J.#.

Weipvileni[.]” Omerod Appelient

 

declare that J.H. Weipoileni

wes 8 Representative to the

   

gisleture in the late 1600s and &
   

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REFORTS 2ND FACIFIC REPORTER*

 

sitting District Court Judge of Ka'y at the turn of the twentieth
century.

However reliable Judge Waipuilani may have been, his
map and survey have not been shcwn to be “the expression of
original kamasina testimony or contemporary knowledge at or about
the time of the Nshele” or that they could affect the Boundary
Commission judgment. See Mickiff, 49 Haw. at 473, 421 P.2d at

560 (citing Boundaries of Pulehunui, 4 Haw. at 251; Boundaries of
Kahua 2, 20 Hew. 278, 285 (1910)). Accordingly, the map could

not create a genvine issue of meteriel fact regarding the
dispositive nature of the Boundary Commission judgment. Thus,
the court did not ebuse its discretion in refusing to alter or
amend the Rule 54(b) Judgment.

xv.

Appellants! various notices of eppesl clein to appeal
from the court's July 7, 2008 Order Denying Defendant C. Brewer &
Company, Ltd.'s Motion to Quash Subpoena Issued to John Cross, C.
Brewer § Company, Ltd., but their briefs do not address this
order in either the stetenents of iesves on appeal or arcument
sections. Argunents not presented in accordance with HRAP Rule
28 (b) may be disrecerced and thus will be disregerded on this

issue. #

 

P Rule 26(b) (4) ("Points not presented in accordance
with [HRAP Rule 26) will be disregarded, except thet the

appellate court, at its option, may notice @ plein error not

 

ec."); Spracue, 102 Hewei'i at 198, 74 F.3d at 1€ ("It is

 

74
 

sssf0R FUBLICASION IN MEST'S WAMAI' REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFCRTER'

 

ee
within the appellate court’s discretion whether to recognize

 

points net presented in accordance with HRAP Rule 28 (b) (4)
XVI.
a
on duly &, 2005, the court denied Omerod Appellants’
Motion for Relief from Judgment and for Sanctions under HACP Rule
60(b) (Rule 60(b) Motion). In that motion, Omerod Appellants
moved for
relief from the [Novenber 30, 2004 Rule $41b) Judgment), and
for sanctions sgaine: .. . C. Brewer ec upen newly
Efdcevered evscence and fraud, miarepresentation and other
Sieconevet Sy Cn etewe! se [Gnezed Appellants]
Gna this [clourt have relies upon: |. C. Brewer's spparent

Peos! Sitsepresentatiene, and ether misconduct which
Gltinately reevitea in eevere prejudice te [Onercd)

 

 

 

omerod Appellants’ nemorandum in support of the Rule

60(b) Motion set forth the beses of their request as follows:

 

c. Brewer hes always been axare thet B.C. Cridge drew &
Series of nape in 1902 for plantation porpe .
Uhree Cridge mape have the icenticel ceteil ¥

Boundaries ef Niles ee only one shupue's. C. Br

      

 

 

 

 

Ghete chet te recentiy discovered Large Avgust 1902 Crige
iipiwat Eeced cn shew surveys” Deceuse that is what st
Etecer cn the fece of the map! once

7 P

 

(emphasis added.) As discussed supra et 25, Onerod Appellants

also argued thet there was ancther map in C. Erewer’s possession
‘s+4FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST! RAAL'T REPORTS AND FACIFIC REPORTER

 

 

contradicting the court's finding that LCA 7715:14 to Lot was
synonymous with Hilea ki.
In its Memorandum in Opposition, TNC argued that relief

under HRCP Rule 60(b) should be denied because

Cemnlaeion's cecision regarding the exievence ef the two
Separate lands of Biles Iki and Biles Noi. Also, the new
ape connct serve af a basis for éwarding # new trial -
because the new maps offer nerely comblsvive evidence thst
vial pee change the outcene of the: (Rule S¢(b) Judgeent)

   

 

Finally, even “
donot nest the inwais Supreme Courts definition of
Seatertel™ Tera ra ane

 

Therefore the new ape de pot sostity thie leleart’s setting
aside the [Rule S4(b) Judgment)

(Emphases added.)
In its memorandum in opposition, C. Brewer argued that
Onerod Appellants sought to “dodge” the denial of the Motion to

Alter or Amend “with purp:

 

fel partial cites to the record and

increasingly virulent accusations, such as false sworn

 

declarations by C. Brewer Vice President John C. Cres:

 

being
fraud on the [Appellants] and the [clourt.” C. Brewer urged the
court to not only deny the Rule 60(b) motion, but to strike it

“es scandalous under [RCP Rules) 12 and 7“ and award C. Brewer
its costs in responding te the motion. C. Brewer contended thet

the Rule 60(b) motion should be denied beceusi

 

(1) “the three
maps are not survey maps and therefore were not responsive to

[omerod’s} discovery request”; (2) “even surveyor’s maps have no

legal significence in disputes over titles or boun

 

ies"; and

 

) “the ‘new evidence’ . . . cannot elter or amend the cle:

 

 

unambiguous Boundary Conmission Judgnents issued in the 1870s.”

16
“sseFoR PUBLICASION IN WEST'S HAMAI'T REPORTS AND PACHFIC REPCRTER***

Sn

ke to the issue of discovery abuse, C. Brewer asserted
that “[t)he [e]ourt has not ordered C. Brewer to do anything that
c. Brewer hasn't done. (Onerod Appellants] cite the Kawamata
opinion on (HRCP Rule] 37(b) (2) senctions, when there was no
order entered herein requiring the discovery now moved on.
lonerod Appellants] want to skip right to sanctions." Finally,
G. Brever reiterated its contention that “accusations of false
statements by John C. Croes are ‘scandalous’ as defined by [HRCP]
pole 12... end made applicable to Motions by (HRP) Rule
74b) (3).

In its oral ruling, the court first addressed the
allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, steting that it

would have anticipated even with that... first

Iieeteegtety an segvest for prouuicn sat Fe ieee

Bhs ha et bad Siar Sametnine
Rua sag neecec te be ceased tssaeee Simtites trang cot

[Nroule neve Fepee that These thinge would have been
produced earlier:

(Emphasis added.)

 

 

 

As to the issue of whether the Rule $4(b) Judgment
should be set aside, the court reiterated that the maps “would

not make a difference in regard to the [c]ourt’s prior analyst

 

the maps do not rise to the level of judgments which would

supersede the Boundary Commission judgments.”

 

A triel court's disposition of 2 motion brevght under

 

 

5 reviewed for ebvse of ciscretion. Greene v.

 

Greene, € Haw. App. 888, 5€9, 815 F.26 26, 32 (1981) (citing

 
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER'#*

 

Paxton v, State, 2 Hew. App. 46, 625 P.2d 1052 (1982); Haveshi v
Hayashi, 4 Haw. App. 286, 290-91, 666 P.2¢ 171, 175 (19€3)). on
appeal, Onerod Appellants argue that the court abused its
discretion in that it “should have imposed sanctions and/or
vacated its prior order of judgnent” because “C. Brever viclated
the discovery rules and intentionally withheld relevant
evidence{.)" They argue that under this court's precedent in
Kawamata Farms and Matsuura v. E.l. DuPont, 102 Hawai'i 149, 73
P.3d 687 (2003), “where nondisclosure due to fraud,

 

nisrepresentation or misconduct occurs, eenctions should be
Amposed equal to the benefit obtained by the errent party.”
Onercd Appellants characterize C. Brewer's trial

strategy as an attenpt to convince the court that Appellants!
single ahupua's theory was @ “recent construct." Then, they
argue that: (1) when C. Brewer argued this “recent construct”
theory “that its cun 10-year-old maps” supported the Appellants’
single ahupua'e theory: (2) C. Brewer “clearly intended both [the

court] and Appellants to rely on its ‘recent construct’

 

concealment strategy until this lewsuit was dismissed”; and
(3) the court and Appellents “relied on this strategy and
Appellants! cleims were dismissed.” Omerod Appellants claim that
this wes “clearly fraus” uncer Shoppe v. Gucci Am, Inc., 94

Hawai'i 368, 386, 14 F.3d 1048, 1067 (2001) (setting forth the

 

   

elements of fraud es: “(1) false representations . nade by
Gefendants, (2) with knowledge of their falsity (or without
knowledge of their truth or feleity), (3) in contemplation of
 

 

[FoR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HPMAI'I REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

oo
plaintiff's reliance upon these false representations, and
(4) plaintiff did rely upon them”). Omerod Appellants eso
contend that even if C. Brewer's conduct did not rise to the
jevel of fraud, “it was at least intentional misrepresentation or
misconduct that justified the strongest sanctions. . . .”
omerod Appellants additionally filed e Citation to
Supplenental Authority on May 24, 2006, citing to our decision in
Arakaki v. SCD-Olanani Corp,, 110 Hawai'i 1, 129 P.3d 504 (2006),
for the propesition that grants of summary judoment should be

ersed when the preveiling party “fraudulently concealed from

 

the trial jucge before sunmary judgment crucial facts... -""

     

pppeliee Olsen respended te Onered Appellante’ May 24, 2006 letter
stating that the ergunents contained therein shevle be stricken Eeceuse they
SUSACE CUnpay sith WRAP Rule 26() (2006). That role provider in pertinent
fort that perties may

 

 

bring te the appellate court's attenticn pertinent end
significant suthoritier publiched after s party's brief hee
fein filed, but before e decision... . The letter shell
Eietide feferences co either the pagels) of the brief cr to
Figeine ergoed craliy te which the citations pertain. The
Setter shells withect ergunent, state the ressens fer the
aupplenental citations.

 

appetiee Olsen contends thet Onered Appellants “improperly re~
argue!) points feised in [thelr] briefs end nakel) false ong inflensatory
Scdusations ef, freudulent conceainent! nttippeiiee c.
Brewer ww hppeliee Oise! thet the Cstatien te
Supplencntal Aucherity 38
feat poblishee on. Feb:
before’ Onered Appel?
Wsthevt Feeelvang the 3
Sth MRAP Rule Ze1})s we note thet eur cecisien in Arekeks
First, we dig net hele that fraudulent conc
y coule Be’ impel her euccesser=sneinte
tne grant cf summery 3 aks wee vacates because
opperted By

 

   

    

 

nes corrected on March 1,
tn Maren 26, 2006.

 

   

   
 
  

  

 
   
  
 

 

 

    

fecte” eufticie
Jeendec Cenplesnt, namely, Appellente! clei te an intel
Bie ce Their iteerest ie Lea 7758:26. See Se
“+#FOR PUBLICATION I WEST'S HAKAZ"T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*#*

 

In answer, Appellee TNC argues that the court correctly

denied the Rule 60(b) Motion

 

cause the Cridge Mape were not
credible evidence and could not affect the outcone of the case.
INothing in the Cridge maps can successfully challenge
the Boundary Commission's [nJineteenth (century determination of
the boundary between Hiles Iki and Hilea Nui.” Appellee TNC
repeats its contention thet the maps “are neither ‘credible’ nor
‘of such @ material and controlling nature 2s will probably
change the cutcome’” of the Rule 54(b) Judgment. (Citing
Kawamata Farms, 86 Hawai'i et 251, 948 P.26 at 1092.) (Emphasis
omitted.) It asserts thet the Cridge maps are not “naterial” as
Gefined by this court inasmuch ex they “do not refute any of the

essential elements of TNC’s defense because the maps cannot

 

assail the [LCAs) or the Boundary Conmission judgnents.”
In response, Appellees Olson and C, Erewer contend that
the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b)
Notion since the Cridge maps “were not relevant or ‘naterial’ to”
the issue of collatersl estoppel decided by the court because
they “did not, and were not intended to, delineate the legal
boundaries of Hilea Nui and Hilea Iki.” Appellees Olson and C.

Brewer point out thet “[e]ven survey maps are not proof of

 

title.” (Citing Ferreira, 2 Haw. App. at 393, 633 P.2d at 1123.)

They maintain that Cridge and J.H. Waipuilani “could not change

 

the legal results of the lend Connission and Bcundery Conmission

 

proceedings decades after the fect.” Lastly, Appellees Olsen and

 

C. Brewer contend that the court dié not err in denying Onerod

fg
ssePoR FUBLICATION IN WEST'S WOKAI'T REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

NN
hppellante’ relief besed on the alleged fraud and
miszepresentation because: (1) the maps “were not
naterial/relevant to proving or disproving official acts of the
Kingdom of Hawas'i" and (2) C. Brewer's conduct “did not rise to
the level of fraud, misrepresentation and misconduct justifying
such relief.”
ce.

The court's decision not to impose discovery sanctions
is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Stender v. Vincent, 92
Hawai'i 388, 362, 992 P.2d $0, $7 (2000). It cannot be concluded
that the court abused its discretion. In its oral ruling, the
court implicitly found thet C. Brewer's interpretation of the
discovery request wes reasonable when it stated, “I cen see where
Mr. Cross might have taken the position thet [the Cridge map)
xesn't sonething thet wae needed to be produced because st wasn't
a survey nap." Based on this finding, the court did not sbuse
ite discretion in determining that sanctions were not warranted

in this case.

 

When a motion for relief is brought under HRCP Rule
60(b) (2), @ new trial

6 provides the evigence neets the fellewing
fa) dt most be previeusly uncieccvered even
‘enereited; (2) st must be

 
  
 

 

 

contreaict 2 witnes!

 

e€ Hewei's at 251, 946 P.2d at 1092 (emphasis

a
 

‘FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ 5 AWAL' REPORTS 24D FACIFIC REFORTER

   

 

added). Applying this standard, it cannot be concluded that the
court abused its discretion in refusing to overturn the Rule
$4(b) Judgment. As pointed out by the Appellees, the maps could
not successfully attack the Boundary Comission judgnents
inasmuch as those maps were made a quarter of a century after the

Boundary Commission settled the boundaries of Hilea iki and Hilea

 

Nui. It ie irrelevant to the dispositive nature of the Soundary
Commission judgments that decades later, C. Brewer and its agents
might have thought that C. Brewer hed @ larger interest than it
aia.
xvi.

For the reasons set forth, we effizm the court's:
(2) November 30, 2004 Rule 54(b) Judgment, (2) February 4, 2008
order denying Appellants’ Motion to Alter or hnend and for
Sanctions: (3) July 7, 2008 Order denying Appellees’ Motion to
Quash: and (4) July 6 Order denying Appellants’ Motion for Relief

under HRCP Rule 60(b) and for Sanctions.

On the briefs: "
Stanley S. Roehrig and
Andrew P. Wilson (Roehrig, esas OT ane) BL

seer ilace) aoheet' 8.
EES dcterioton mitier Pan <s
seer ieeleneni? end Peter VX. ;

MONEE Por tpieinedetecappelionce, Za y

Dwayne Stephen Lerma and
Je Anne E. Goya (Lerma & Goya):
and Alfred P. Lerma, Jr. for
Keheananu: Appellants.

 

 

Sherry F. Broder f
Keluna Appellants.

 

 
ssePoR PUBLICATION IN MEST’S DDNAI‘I REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

es

Gary G. Grimmer (Carlsmith
Ball) for Defendants~Appellees
C. Brewer & Co. and co-counsel
for The Edmund C. Olson Trust 2.

Paul Alston and Lea Hong
(Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing),
co-counsel for The Edmund’ C.
Olson Trust 2.

Robert Bruce Graham, Jr. and
Michael W. Gibson (Ashford 6
Wiriston) Zor Defendant-Appellee
‘The Nature Conservancy.

Sheryl L. Nicholson and Colin A.
Yost (Paul Johnson Park &
Niles) for Defendant State of
Hawai'i Office of Hawaiian
Affairs.

SONCURRENCE BY LEVINSON, J.

I concur $

 

the result only.

Ric Phtincen