Title: DFS Group L.P. v. Paiea Properties

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LAW LIBRARY
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
No. 25662
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

DFS GROUP L.P., a Delaware limited partnership,
dba Hawaiian King Candies, Plaintiff-appellee,

300

|
PAIEA PROPERTIES, a Hawaii limited partnership
Defendant -Appellant.

 

yar ye

APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. NO. 02-1-2012)

 

Sho HY | aud 9000

sue

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, and Acoba, JJ. ;
and Circuit Judge Pollack, assigned by reason of vacancy)
Defendant-appellant Paiea Properties [hereinafter,
Paiea) appeals from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit‘s!
February 13, 2003 order confirming the appraisal report.* Paiea
contends that the circuit court erred in confirming the appraisal
report inasmuch as: (1) the appraiser exceeded the powers
conferred upon him by the lease; (2) the appraiser was partial
toward plaintiff-appellee DFS Group, L.P. dba Hawaiian King
Candies (hereinafter, DFS]; and (3) the terms of the report were

indefinite and uncertain and, thus, precluded confirmation

 

+ the Honorable Eden Elisabeth Hifo presided over the matters
pertinent to this appeal

+ We note that Paiea's notice of appeal indicates that Paiea
appeaied trom the February 24, 2003 notice of entry of judgnent. However, it
from the record thet Paiea actually seeks appellate review of the
2003 order confirming the appraiser's aeard. indeed, tan order
bitration avare ie 2 final judgeent from which sn appeal may
be taken. : 90 Hawas's 267, 173, 977 Bead
27s, "173 | (as98) (quotation sarke omitted) - Nonetheless, Falea’a notice of
appeal filed on February 2€, 2003 was timely.

 

 

   

Peruary
confirming

     

 

   
 

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION *
ee

thereof. Paiea additionally requests that, *[iJn the event this
(elourt {8 inclined not to reverse the judgment below,* this
court “issue an order clarifying the meaning of the [appraisal
report .)*

Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we
resolve Paiea’s contentions as follows:

(2) tn arguing that the appraiser exceeded his powers
and was partial toward DFS, Paiea essentially seeks vacation of
the xeport under Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 658-9(2)
and -9(4) (repealed 2001). However, we note that Paiea neither
moved the circuit court to vacate the report nor provided notice
to DFS of its intent to vacate the report pursuant to HRS
§ 656-11 (repealed 2002). Arbitration of the Bd. of Directors of

Ass'n of ere or, 73 Haw. 210,
213, 830 P.3d 503, 510 (1992) ("Chapter 658 provides that only
the courts may vacate, modify, or correct an award upon the
application of any party pursuant to HRS §§ 656-9 and 58-10, and
that notice of such motion mist be timely served upon the adverse

Party, pursuant to HRS § 658-11"); Gozum v. Am, Int’) Adjustment

2 We note that HRS chapter 658, entitled “Arbitration and Awards,
was repealed in 2001 and replaced with the Uniform Arbitration Act. codified
in BRS chapter SEA. Neverthelese, HRS chapter €5¢ ie applicable to the
instant case because the recodified chapter became effective after the partion
invokes the appraiesl Ses HRS § GSEA"3
(Supp. 2002) ("an agreenent to arbitrate that is nade befere July 1, 2002,
shall be governed by the state law in effect on the date the arb:

 

 

   

 

   

 
*** NOTFOR PUBLICATION ***

 

Cou, 72 Haw. 41, 44, 805 P.24 445, 446 (1991) (7A motion to
vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award must be served on
the adverse party within ten days after the award is made and

Paiea wae not

 

served." (Citing HRS § 658-11)). Therefore
entitled to a vacation of the report. Accordingly, we hold that
the circuit court did not err in confixming the appraisal report
rather than vacating the report.

(2) inasmuch as the appraisal report clearly and
definitely concluded that DFS’ proposed prevailing rental of
$0.90 per square foot per month was more correct, the appraiser
fulfilled his sole duty under the lease and no clarification of
the report was necessary. Thus, we hold that the cireuit court
did not err in confirming the report in thie regard. See Kayland
Lan Ine. eshice, 90 Hawai'i 417, 424, 978 P.2d
855, 862 (1999).

(3) Inasmuch as the appraisal report requires no
clarification, we decline to enter an order clarifying the
report. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the February 13, 2003 order

from which thie appeal was taken is affirmed.

 

DATED: Honolulu, Haw

on the briefs:
MacKinnon LLP), for hots) lee >

defendant -appel lant

+ Bpril 19, 2005.

Resnuns CR arm erey

 
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
James A. Stubenberg and
Jon A. Zahaby (of
Stubenberg & Durrett),
for plaintiff-appellee
(withdrew on 10/20/04)

Attorney of Record:

Paul Alton and
David A. Nakashina (of
Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing),
for plaintiff-appellee
(appeared on 10/20/04)

No. 25662 DES Group v, Paiea Properties

Disposition Order

 

Sunmary