Title: Jones v. Owners and Occupants of Adjoining Lands

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LAWLIBRARY

[NOT _FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
a
No. 25672 ofl
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'R=
a
TIMOTHY FOSTER JONES, 1

Plaintiff Counterclaim Defendant /Appelant /Cross-Agpel le

 

   

 

19309002

 

eztiny

OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS OF ADJOINING LANDS; STATE OF HAWAT'I,
Defendant /Appellee/Cross-Appel lant /Cross~Appellee,

HOWARD RUGGLES GREEN, WARREN JAY GUNDERSON and JAMES WALKER
AUSTIN, TRUSTEES OF THE JAMES WALKER AUSTIN TRUST DATED JUNE 7,
1985; RICHARD F. LERT and CARL B. YORK, JR., TRUSTEES OF THE
DANIEL J. FAIRBANKS III TRUST DATED OCTOBER 31, 1986; HOWARD
RUGGLES GREEN and WARREN JAY GUNDERSON, TRUSTEES OF THE SIANA
AUSTIN TRUST DATED JUNE 22, 1990 and TRUSTEES OF THE JAMES WALKER
‘AUSTIN ITI TRUST DATED JUNE 22, 1990,
befendants/Counterclaimants/Appellees/Cross-Appellants,

BURK W. JONES AND JOAN DIANE JONES, TRUSTEES UNDER THE BURK W.
JONES AND JOANIE D. JONES REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT DATED
JANUARY 15, 1993, Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
HEIRS AND ASSIGNS OF KAINIKI (k); HEIRS AND ASSIGNS OF
KALAWAIANUI (w); OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS; HEIRS AND ASSIGNS OF
ANNIE LEI WINCHESTER (including LOWELL THOMAS YOON, WESLEY KAINI
NUT YOON and FERN MAHEALANT YOON); HEIRS AND ASSIGNS OF MABEL
K.P. CUMMINGS (also known as Mabel G. Cummings and as Mabel Gahan
Cummings) ; HEIRS AND ASSIGNS OF MAPUANA NAILIMA (also known as

Mapuana Kishi); HEIRS AND ASSIGNS OF HELEN FULLER (also known as
Helen S. Fuller and as Helen Scott Fuller); and Heirs of persons

named above who are deceased, or persons holding under said
HRUNANT CAMPOS OLDS; MARTELENA R.

Heirs; HERBERT A.K. CAMPOS;
MEYER; CHARLES PILA; HARRY G. CUMMINGS, JR.; MARGARET 7.
CUMMINGS; IRENE MILILANI BISHAW, RUSSEL GEORGE KALEOLANI PHIFER,
JOHN K. PERREIRA aka JOHN KAWAI PERREIRA; DOE DEFENDANTS 4
‘THROUGH 100; and all persons or corporations unknown claiming any
right, title estate, lien or interest in the real property
described in Plaintiffs’ Complaint adverse to Plaintiffs’
ownership and TO ALL WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, Defendants.

 

  

 

BURK W. JONES AND JOAN DIANE JONES, TRUSTEES UNDER THE BURK W.
JONES AND JOANIE D. JONES REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT DATED
JANUARY 15, 1993, Plaintiffs/Counterclain
Defendants/appellants/Cross-Appellees,
 

** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

HOWARD RUGGLES GREEN, WARREN JAY GUNDERSON and JAMES WALKER
AUSTIN, TRUSTEES OF THE JAMES WALKER AUSTIN TRUST DATED JUNE 7,
1985; RICHARD F. LERT and CARL B. YORK, JR., TRUSTEES OF THE
DANIEL J. FAIRBANKS ITI TRUST DATED OCTOBER 31, 1986; HOWARD
RUGGLES GREEN and WARREN JAY GUNDERSON, TRUSTEES OF THE SIANA
AUSTIN TRUST DATED JUNE 22, 1990 and TRUSTEES OF THE JAMES WALKER
‘AUSTIN III TRUST DATED JUNE 22, 1990, Defendants/
Counterclaimants/Appellees/Cross-Appellants/Cross-Appellees,

OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS OF ADJOINING LANDS; STATE OF HAWAI'L,
Defendant /Appel lee/Cross-Appel lant /Cross~Appellee,

‘TIMOTHY FOSTER JONES,
Defendant /Counterclaim Defendant-Appel lant /Cross-Appellee,

IRENE MILILANI BISHAW; RUSSEL GEORGE KALEOLANI PHIFER; JOHN K.
PEREIRA (also known as John Kawai Perreira); HEIRS AND ASSIGNS
OF NAKOKO (k); HEIRS AND ASSIGNS OF A. ROSA; OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN
AFFAIRS; HEIRS AND ASSIGNS OF THEODORE DUDOIT (also known as
Theodore Nawahine Dudoit); HEIRS AND ASSIGNS OF ANNE LET
WINCHESTER (including LOWELL THOMAS YOON, WESLEY KAIWI YOON and
FERN MAHEALANI YOON); HEIRS AND ASSIGNS OF MABEL K.P. CUMMINGS
(also known as Mabel G. Cunmings and as Mabel Gahan Cummings) ;
HEIRS AND ASSIGNS OF NAPUANA NAILIMA (algo known as Mapuana
Kishi); HEIRS AND ASSIGNS OF HELEN FULLER (also known as Helen S.
Fuller and as Helen Scott Fuller); and Heirs of persons named
‘above who are deceased, or persons holding under said Heirs;
HERBERT A.K. CAMPOS, 'HAUNANT CAMPOS OLDS, PATRICK CAMPOS,
MARIELENA R. MEYER, CHARMAINE D. ARMITAGE; DOE DEFENDANTS 6
through 100; and all other persons or corporations unknown
claiming any right, title, estate, lien or interest in the real
property described in Plaintiffs’ Complaint adverse to
Plaintiffs’ ownership and T0 ALL WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, Defendants.

 

 

APPEAL FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. NOS, 98-0355 and 98-0358)
(ey: Moon, ¢.., ‘Mevinson, Nakayama, Aeoba, and Duty, JJ.)
Plaintiff /Counterclaim Defendant /Defendant/
Appellant /Cross-Appellee Timothy Foster Jones ("Tin") and
Plaintitts/counterclain Defendants/Defendants/Appellants/Cross-

Appellees Burk W. Jones and Joan Diane Jones, in their capacities
"S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

   

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WES:
as Trustees Under the Burk W. Jones and Joanie D. Jones Revocable
Living Trust Agreement Dated January 15, 1993 (collectively
“Burk")! jointly appeal from the June 6, 2003 order of the
Circuit Court of the Second Circuit? (“circuit court”) granting
in part and denying in part Defendants /Counterclaimants/
Appellees/Cross-Appellants’ Trustees of the Daniel J. Fairbanks
III Trust Dated October 31, 1986, Trustees of the Siana Austin
‘Trust Dated June 22, 1990, and Trustees of the Janes Walker
Austin Trusts Dated June 7, 1985 and June 22, 1990 (hereinafter

 

collectively referred to as “the Austin and Fairbanks Trust
or “the AGF Trustees”)? joint motion for costs and prejudgment
interest. The circuit court awarded a total of $19,214.75 in
costs, but no pre-judgment interest, pursuant to its June 6, 2003
order.

on appeal, Tim and Burk argue that: (1) the circuit
court erroneously dened the A&F Trustees the prevailing parties
in this Litigation because they prevailed on what the circuit
court determined to be the “main issue” in the case. Tim and
Burk claim that they would have been declared the prevailing
parties had the circuit court “balanced all of the claims

presented[;]” (2) alternatively, “the question of who is the

 

'  pecause (2) Burk Jones was named “individually” (without specific
mention of Joan) as 4 captioned plaintsf#/sefendant at. various points in the
Pleadings and in the record on appeal itself, and (2) Burk attended and
Participated in various proceedings (e.g. in depositions), while 1t appea
Ehat Joan did not, we will use the shorthand “Burk” to refer to both Burk and
Joan as trustees of their revocable living trust for purposes of expediency
Gnd clacity, despite the technical snaccurecy

 

           

 

+ the Honorable Shackley F. Raffetto presided.

 

> the parties as well as the circuit court referred to the AGF
Trustees as the "Austin Defendants” throughout the course of litigation,
omitting mention of the Fairbanks Trustees

   

3
   

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
prevailing party is . . . too close to call [such that] the
parties should bear their own costs{]” (boldface emphasis
omitted) (capitalization omitted); and (3) even assuming that the
AGF Trustees had been properly deemed the prevailing parties to
this litigation, the AGF Trustees’ motion for costs was
Amproperly granted due to the movants’ failure to remove certain
submitted coats that had been waived due to a settlement
agreement disposing of, inter alia, Tim and Burk’s access and
utility easement claim, where costs related to the settled clains
were expressly to be borne by the parties.

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, we resolve Tim and

 

Burk’s arguments as follow:
(2) Tim and Burk challenge the circuit court’s finding
of fact “that the accretion claims were the main issue in dispute
in the case and since [the AsF Trustees] prevailed on those
claims, they are the prevailing parties even though they did not
prevail on all claims{]” on the grounds that the circuit court
should have instead balanced all of the disputed claims in the
case. Tim and Burk allege that based upon their prevailing on
all decided claims except for the accretion claim, they were, on
balance, the prevailing parties in this case. Upon review, we
observe that: (1) the circuit court set forth a reasonable,
legitimate rationale for declaring the A&F Trustees the
prevailing parties consonant with this court’s caselaw (see
Tradewinds Hotel v, Cochran, 8 Haw. App. 256, 269, 799 P.2d 60,
68 (1990) (citing Food Pantry v. Waikiki Business Plaza, Inc., 58
4
 

[NOT_FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAM REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER,
Haw. 606, 620, 575 P.2d 869, 879 (1978); and (2) Tim and Burk
have arguably demonstrated (as they did below) a second, equally
reasonable and legitimate rationale by which the circuit court
could have instead deened Tim and Burk the prevailing parties for
purposes of awarding costs. However, this does not constitute an

abuse of discretion by the circuit court, because the circuit

 

court's selection of one of these two equally reasonable theori

advanced by the parties (in this case, the A&F Trustees’) was, by

 

definition, well within the bounds of reason. See, e.g,
Stanford Carr Dev, Comp, v. Unity House, Inc,, 111 Hawai'i 286,
297, 141 P.3d 459, 470 (2006) (quoting Hong v. Takeuchi, 88
Hawai'i 46, 52, 961 P.2d 611, 617 (1998) (citation omitted)), and
Via Enters., Inc. v, Del Rosario, 111 Hawai'i 484, 489, 143 P.3d
23, 28 (2006); see also Food Pantry, 58 Haw. at 620, 575 P.2d at
879 (1978). We therefore hold that the circuit court did not
abuse its discretion when determining that the AGF Trustees were
the prevailing parties in the litigation, nor did it abuse its
discretion in awarding costs to the A&F Trustees. See Stanford
Carr Dev. Corp, Wong, and 7 Enters., Inc., supra.

(2) Because we hold that the circuit court did not
commit an abuse of discretion when awarding costs, we also hold
that Tim and Burk’s alternative argument that the case was “(t]oo
[ellose (t]o [clall” (such that no costs should be awarded) is
unavailing.

(3) We lastly address Tim and Burk’s final argument
that the circuit court abused its discretion by awarding costs
despite the ASF Trustees’ failure to exclude certain costs

associated with the access and utility easement claim or claims

5
‘#1 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
in the case, because the parties had entered into a settlenent
agreenent expressly providing that all attorney's fees and costs
as to the access and utility easement claim (among others) would
be borne by the parties. Specifically, Tim and Burk contend that
the circuit court abused its discretion in awarding costs
inasmuch as: (a) the AGF Trustees’ request for costs was
inappropriately premised upon a “cut-off” date of costs incurred

(November 13, 2002), rather than an actual apportionment of costs

 

related to particular claims; and (b) certain deposition

and

 

transcript cost items were clearly in relation to the ace:
utility easements claim, yet were nonetheless submitted by the
AGF Trustees to the circuit court in derogation of the settlement
agreenent.

After careful review, we hold as follows. First, as to
the general apportionment of claims, Tim and Burk have, at most,
pointed out the existence of an ambiguity (as to whether the AGF
Trustees either (1) apportioned costs using a “cut-off date," or
(2) conducted a proper apportionnent of costs on a certain date),
which is insufficient to overcome the strong presumption that the
AGP Trustees, as the prevailing parties in this case, are
entitled to their costs. See Pulawa v, GIS Hawaiian Tel, 2006 WL
2632326 at *15, 112 Hawai'i 3, 143 P34 120, --- (Sept. 14,

   

2006); see also Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure Rule $4(d) (1)
(2000). Finally, as to Tim and Burk’s assertion that the AsF
Trustees improperly included costs related to the settled access
and utility easement claim, we find that Tim and Burk have not
Provided us any meaningful record citations to deposition

transcripts, court reporter invoices, or other supporting

‘
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

material on the record for their claim. Therefore, this argument
is waived. See e.g, HRAP Rule 28(b) (7) (2004).

Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the circuit
court is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, December 13, 2006.
on the briefs:

Michael R. Marsh and
Seth R. Harris (of Case Bigelow & Gfpr~
Lombardi) for Plaintiffs/Counterclain
Detendants/befendanta/Appel lants/

Cross-Appellees Tinothy Foster Jones BeBe

sna’ Burk'W. Sones end Joan Diane
Sones, Trustees Under the Bure W.

Jones’and Joanie D. Jones Revocable Nut Arestieny ome
Living Trust, Agreenent Dated

Janueey 15,3993

Michael A. Lilly and Valerie M. A <

aco. (of Wing Lilly & Jones) for
Defendants /counterclasmants/ Coen Duty th
Appeliees/Cross-appellants

Mustees of the daniel J.

Fairbanks tT Trust. (bated

Sceober “Si, 1986), Teustees

Of the Siana Austin Trust

{Gates June 22, 1990) and

Trustees of the Janes’ Walker

Rustin Trusts” (oated dune 9,

1985 and June 22, 1990)