Title: Douglas v. State

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

No, 27060

i

Met ana
an

2

i

WS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAAS

 

SEI lid €2 634 092

  

KEITH SCOTT DOUGLAS, trustee, and BONNIE
DOUGLAS, trustee, Plaintiffs-Appellante,

ve.

STATE OF HAWAI'I; EAST MAUI IRRIGATION COMPANY, INC.,
a Hawai'i corporation; Defendants-Appe! lee:

 

and

JOHN DORS 1-20) JANE DOES 1-20; DOB PARTNERSHIPS 1-10;
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES 1-10; AND
DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-10; Defendant:

APPEAL FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. No. 02-1-0006(3))

WY DISPOSITION ORDE

(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)

 

‘The instant appeal arises out of a quiet title action

involving disputed boundaries of adjoining parcels of real
property owned by plaintiffs-appellants Keith scott Douglas and
Bonnie May Douglas, as trustees of the Keith and Bonnie Douglas

Living Trust (hereinafter, collectively, the Douglasesl,
(the State), and defendant

defendant-appellee state of Hawai'i

East Maui Irrigation Company (EMI)
Following a jury-waived trial, the

on the north shore of the

sland of Maui, Hawai'i
Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, the Honorable Joseph &.

ams
*** NOTFOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

Cardoza presiding, entered final judgment on November 4, 2004 in
favor of the state.

The Douglases appeal from the final judgment,
challenging the trial court’s July 27, 2004 findings of fact
(Fors) and conclusions of law (CoLe). The Douglases also appeal
from the trial court's Decenber 2, 2004 order denying their
motion to alter or amend the final judgment. on appeal, the
Douglases essentially contend that the trial court erred in its
determination of the boundaries of the Douglases’ parcel of real
property that adjoins the State’s parcel of real property.

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

(2) The Douglases challenge FOF No. 3 (relating to the
cultivation of taro on the subject property (i.e., the property
awarded pursuant to Land Commission Award (LCA) 6510 U, apana
2)), claiming that this finding is erroneous because “the native
and foreign testimony describe the land as both kalo and kula
(taro and pasture).* However, there is substantial evidence,
which the trier of fact found to be credible, that “kula’
describes a “field for cultivation” and not a pasture for

See Ince Doe, 95 Hawai'i 183, 196-97, 20 P.3d 616,

 

629-30 (2001) (stating that testimony of a single witness, if

 
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

found credible by the trier of fact, suffices as substantial
evidence to support an FOF).

(2) The Douglases next challenge FOF Nos. 7, 9, and 10
(relating to the peninsula). Inasmich as “[ilt is well-settled
that an appellate court will not pass upon issues dependent upon
the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence(,]"
Eisher v. Fisher, 111 Hawai'i 41, 46, 137 P.3d 355, 360 (2008)
(internal quotation marke and citation omitted), and the
foregoing findings are dependent upon credibility and the weight
of the evidence, we conclude that FOF Nos. 7, 9, and 10 are not
clearly erroneous.

(3) The Douglases also claim that FOF No. 18 (relating
to Registered Map No. 2377) is clearly erroneous. FOF No. 15,
however, is supported by substantial evidence in the record
Moreover, ‘it is axiomatic that reconciling conflicting testimony
is beyond the scope of appellate review[.]" naka v. Onaka, 112
Hawai'i 374, 384, 146 P.3d 89, 99 (2006) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, FOF No. 15 is not clearly erroneous.

(4) The Douglases argue that FOF Nos. 27 and 18
(relating to the correct location of the poalima) are clearly
However, there is substantial evidence in the record

to support the trial court’s findings that (1) the correct

jure John Gower's metes

 

location of the poalima is needed to me
and bounds description of the subject property on the ground (FOF

No. 17) and (2) the correct location of the poalina is its

 
*** NOTFOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

See Inte

 

location as depicted on the 1926 EMI map (FOF No.
Poe, 95 Hawai'i at 196-97, 20 P.3d at 629-30; aee also Shoemaker
v. Takai, 57 Haw, 599, 601-02, 562 P.24 1286, 1288 (1977)
(concluding that expert testimony of a land surveyor constituted
substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding with
respect to a boundary determination). Accordingly, POP Nos. 17
and 18 are not clearly erroneous.

(5) The Douglases challenge FOF No. 19 (relating to
Bruce Lee's depiction of the poalima). Hawai'i Rules of
Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 26 (2006) provides in relevant
part that “[ploints not argued may be deemed waived.* RAP Rule
28(b) (7). Here, the Douglases do not elaborate as to how “sub-
findings” A through B of FOF No. 19 are clearly erroneous. There
is no mention of FOF No. 19 in the Douglases’ “argunent* section.
Consequently, we conclude that the Douglases’ contention with
respect to FOF No. 19 is deemed waived.

(6) The Douglases challenge FOF No. 20 and COL No. 7
(relating to the movement of the subject property's boundaries as
shown on the 1926 EMI map). As the State points out in its
answering brief, however, it appears that the Douglases’
arguments regarding FOF No. 20 and COL No. 7 were made for the
first time in the Douglases’ motion to alter or amend the final
judgment (motion to amend). Indeed, the Douglases do not dispute
such in their reply brief. tt is clear that their arguments made

in the motion to amend “could and should have been presented by

 
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

[the Douglases] at trial.” At trial, the parties presented
extensive, conflicting expert testimony regarding the precise
location of the subject property. During re-cross examination,
Randall Hashimoto testified that the northern boundary of the
subject property “falls very close to the top of the sea cliff.”
At that point, the Douglases’ counsel could and should have
developed Hashincto’s testimony as to the exact location of the
northern boundary. Cf, State v. Hashimote, 47 Haw. 185, 210, 389
P.2d 146, 159-60 (1963) (stating that cross-examination is “a
leading and searching inquiry of the witness for further
disclosure touching the particular matters detailed by him in his
Girect examination, and it serves to sift, modify, or explain

what has been said, in order to develop new or old facts in a

 

view favorable to the cross-examiner") (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). Moreover, the parties presented
conflicting expert testimony as to the paraneters of Hanawana
Stream, which concerned the location of the western boundary of
the subject property. Consequently, the Douglases’ argunents
relating to FOF No, 20 and COL No. 7 were untimely made for the
firat tine in their motion to amend. Accordingly, their
challenge to FOF No. 20 and COL No. 7 fails.

(7) Lastly, the Douglases contend that the trial court
erred in denying their motion to anend. Although not entirely

clear, the Douglases appear to argue that the State improperly

 
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

changed its position during the trial and that the state is
judicially eatopped from changing ite position.

We have previously noted that a purported motion to
amend is “a de facto motion for reconsideration,” when such
motion fails to raise (1) any new arguments that could not have
been presented or made in the earlier proceeding or (2) newly
discovered evidence. Leslie v. Estate of Tavares, 91 Hawai'i
394, 396 n.1, 984 P.2d 1220, 1222 n.1 (1999) (citations omitted).
However, “(t]he purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to
allow the parties to present new evidence and/or arguments that
could not have been presented during the earlier adjudicated
motion." Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Hawai'i
85, 114, 839 P.2d 10, 27 (1992) (citations omitted). Moreover,
“[rleconsideration is not a device to relitigate old matters or
to raise arguments or evidence that could and should have been
brought during the earlier proceeding." Sousarie v. Miller, 92
Hawai'i 505, 513, 993 P.2d 539, 547 (2000) (Zootnote and
citations omitted)

Here, the Douglases are utilizing their purported
motion to amend as a device to relitigate old matters and to

raise arguments that could and should have been brought during

 

the earlier proceeding. First, the Douglases had previously
raised the argunent that the State "should not attempt to proffer
evidence implicating that it is entitled to any affirmative

relief in this action” in their fourth motion in limine prior to

 
*** NOTFOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

trial. The trial court, however, already fully addressed the
Douglases’ contention at the hearing on the Douglases’ fourth
motion in limine, essentially stating that it was unnecessary for
the State to have filed a counterclaim in order to defend its

position in the instant quiet title action initiated by the

 

Douglases. Second, as the State points out, the Douglases failed
to object to Hashinoto’s testimony on moving the subject property
seventy-three feet eastward on the basis of judicial estoppel.
Consequently, the Douglases are utilizing their purported motion
to amend as a device to raise an argument that could and should
have been brought during the earlier proceeding. Accordingly, we
hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying
the Douglases’ motion to amend. Therefore,

IT IS HBREBY ORDERED that the trial court's Novenber 4,
2004 final judgnent and December 21, 2004 order denying the
motion to amend are affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, rebruary 23, 2007.

on the briefs:

Janes P. Brumbaugh and
Brien R. Jenkine, for .
plaintiéfe-appeliante Bt Ph canis

Pamela K. Mateukawa and Santa or ares
Sonia Faust, Deputy “

Attorneys General,
for defendant -appellee

state of Hawai
men €. Buty