Title: Gonsalves v. Ikei

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

47 Haw. 145 (1963) 384 P.2d 300 JOSEPH GONSALVES AND ANGELINE S. GONSALVES v. KANATO IKEI. No. 4256. Supreme Court of Hawaii. July 22, 1963. TSUKIYAMA, C.J., WIRTZ, LEWIS AND MIZUHA, JJ., CIRCUIT JUDGE DYER, IN PLACE OF CASSIDY, J., DISQUALIFIED. Samuel Landau for plaintiffs-appellants. Genro Kashiwa for defendant-appellee. Per Curiam. Plaintiffs-appellants, Joseph Gonsalves and Angeline S. Gonsalves sought specific performance of a lease (on the site of a dairy farm), a bill of sale (on dairy equipment and animals) and a consent to mortgage (the lease of dairy property) against defendant-appellee Kanato Ikei. The trial judge denied specific performance. Plaintiffs assign as error the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the trial court, contending that it should have been found and concluded that Higa was acting as agent for defendant and not for plaintiffs, that Higa was not acting fraudulently in obtaining the signature of Ikei to the bill of sale, the lease, and the consent to mortgage, and that therefore, these instruments were valid and could be specifically enforced for the benefit of plaintiffs. The trial judge found: H.R.C.P., Rule 52(a), provides that "Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses. * * *" On the *148 record before this court we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed by the trial court in any material aspect. We affirm the findings that Higa was not the agent of the defendant and that he acted fraudulently. These findings were not "clearly erroneous." Filipino Federation of America, Inc. v. Cubico, 46 Haw. 353, 380 P.2d 488; Peine v. Murphy, 46 Haw. 233, 377 P.2d 708; Miller v. Loo, 43 Haw. 76; Lima v. Tomasa, 42 Haw. 478; Lum v. Stevens, 42 Haw. 286; Hawaii Builders Supply Co. v. Kaneta, 42 Haw. 111. As to the finding that Higa was the agent of the plaintiffs, this is not necessary to the result reached. In any event, there was evidence from which the trial judge could find as he did that Higa was not the agent of the defendant at the time he fraudulently secured her signatures to the documents. The fraud which was committed by the real estate broker Higa, upon defendant Ikei, in securing her signatures to the lease, bill of sale and consent to mortgage, is the type of fraud known as fraud in the factum or fraud in the execution. For distinction in the types of fraud and the effect thereof, see 16 Am. Jur., Deeds, § 30. The fraud perpetrated on defendant Ikei went to the nature of the document and not mere details, and therefore, all of the documents were void and not merely voidable. Erickson v. Bohne, 130 Cal. App. 2d 553, 279 P.2d 619; 26 C.J.S., Deeds, § 68 (b) (1). Cf., Bryce v. O'Brien, 5 Cal. 2d 615, 55 P.2d 488. See also Dixon v. Kaufman, 79 N.D. 633, 58 N.W.2d 797. The trial judge properly concluded as a matter of law, that plaintiffs were not entitled to specific performance under these documents as they were fraudulently obtained. Judgment affirmed.