Title: Kilohana Resident Council v. Justice

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

"* NOT_FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
No. 26412

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT‘T

 

vs
f
KORENA K, JUSTICE, Defendant-Appellant, g#~

and

We 6- Yd¥ LOZ

CONCHITA C. SOMERA, Defendant.

a
‘aohi¥a w

   

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT couRT oF THE Frast cracHlr
(CIVIL CASE NO. 1RC02=1-6802)

(By: Hoon, ¢.9., Levinson Makayane, Reobe, and Duffy, 39.)
Defendant-Appeliant Korena K. Justice (*Korena*)
appeais tron the judgment of the District Court of the Firet
Circuit (“district court”) filed September 18, 2003, pursuant to
hich a writ of summary possession against her iesued.? On
appeat, Korena argues that the district court erred by failing to
credit her affirmative defense to sunmary possession, which vas
chana Resident Council (*KRC*)

violated certain provisions of the federal Fair Housing

thet Flaintiff-appellee

 

Amendments Act of 1988 (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and

Hawat’

 

Revised Statutes ("HRS") Chapter 515 (relating to

discrimination in real property transactions) by refusing te

  
 
  
   
   

svegnent
to Flaines#!

the appea

y ane effective to appee! both
3008

sosment

 

 

 

oad
 

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

permit @ chihuahua named Biker to remain in her apartment as an
emctional-support aninal to alleviete her mental illness.

upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the argunents advanced and the issues raised, we hold as follows:

(2) Assuming without deciding that Korena may present
en affirmative defense to summary possession by demonstrating
housing discrimination under the FHAA, Korena hae not
demonstrated @ violation of the FHAA, because she did not show
that Biker’s presence was necessary to afford her an equal
opportunity te use and enjoy her dwelling.

ie first note that Korena asserts that the following
portion of the district court's oral ruling is an erroneous

conclusion of law subject to the right/wrong standard of review:

 

timony, that's defendant
the reports of beth gocters, the
fet is helpful, but not #
ropriate to create an
‘Such exception would
oF tervice dog.

See Aluminum Shake Roofing, Inc. v. Hiravasu, 110 Hawai'i 248,

252, 131 P.3d 1230, 1234 (2006). MWe disagree, and hold that the

  

[clourt
medical
exception
Sheluae

 
   

district court's ruling is a conclusion of law presenting mixed
Questions of fact and law because, inter alia, the district
court's ultimate conclusion that Biker was “not a medical
necessity nor reasonably appropriate te create an exception to
the no pet [house rule] was intrinsically dependent upon the

facts end circumstances of the case. Thus, the appropriate

 

tandard of review is the clearly erroneous standard.

 

luminum Shake Rooting, id.

We observe that the U.S. Court cf Appe:

 

for the Ninth

 

Circuit has adopted @ four-prong test for determining whether @
 

‘++ NOT_FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *
landlord has failed to reasonably accommodate a “handicapped”
tenant under FHAA.’ Pursuant to United States v, California
Mobile Hone Park Momt, Co., 107 F.3d 1374, 1380 (9th Cir. 1997)
("Mobile Home 11"),
Lin oxcer} [e)e establish her claim, (Kerena] [was) required to
show thet: (1). (Korena] suffers from a bandicap as defined in 42
Grsrc. $ $602 (hb) [ (2000) 7! (2). IKRC) knew of {Korena’s] handicep
of should reasonably be expected te know of it; 3] accommodation

eLine handicap “may be necessary” to afford [Kcrenalan equal
Scpertunity to-tse snd entoy the auellings and (4) MRC] refosec
fo nake such acconmedaticn

(Emphases added.) (Footnote added.) (Citing, inter alia, 42
U.S.C. § 3604(£) (3) (B) (2000) and quoting the “may be necessary”
language therefrom.) As to definition of “necessary,” the Mobile.
Hone II court approvingly quoted the Sixth Circuit, which
interpreted “necessary” “to mean that [claimants] ‘must show
that, but for the accommodation, they likely will be denied an
equal opportunity to enjoy the housing of their choice(.)'” Ide

 

‘The following FHAA provisions axe relevent to this appesl.

42 0.8.0. § 3608(£) (1) (2000) (relating to, inter alia,
‘riminaticn in the fentel or sale of mousing) makes’ Sf uniawfar

   

[tle Giscrininate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise
unevastebie er ceny, 9 swelling to ony buyer cx renter be
handicap of

   

   

(A) that buyer or renter,

(8) 8 person resieing in er intending te reside in chat
ouelling efter it ie so e016, rentes, or mede available: or

 

 

irs

 

¥y perscn aesccistes with thet buyer or renter.

MEephacis edded.) 42 U-8.c. § 360¢(4)(

ake reasonable acccamodet i

cefines “ctecrinination”
es, policies, practices, or
‘eftora Such person

    
   

     

 
 

 

+ NOT _FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER,

(quoting vie parenthetical Smith § Lee Assocs., Inc, v, City of
Taylor, 102 F.3d 781, 795 (6th Cir. 1996)) (emphasis added) .

Turning to the third Mobile Home II prong (necessity of
the reasonable accommodation), Korena argues that allowing Biker
to remain in her household at the Kilohana Apartments was
necessary to afford her an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the
apartment because “the benefit to Korena of being allowed to keep
Biker in her home was immense given the undisputed fact that
Biker substentially ameliorated the effects of Korena’s
disabilities.” However, assuming arguendo that this benefit to
Korena was both “undisputed” and “immense,” said benefit is
irrelevant to the question of whether Biker’s presence was
“necessary” under the FHAA. In other words, Korena’s argument
does not suffice as a showing that but for Biker being allowed to
live at the Kilohana Apartments, Korena will likely be denied an
equal opportunity to enjoy the housing of her choice. Mobile
Home 11, 107 F.3d at 1380 (quoting via parenthetical City of
Tayler, 102 F.3d at 795)

Moreover, Korena does not challenge the following
findings of the district court:

The [clourt further notes] that (Biker) came into the
Eictive only tho yeare age. Eases on Or, Marvit's testimony that

   

the dog cr fet is Not reasonably of medically a necessity,
futher, nis seeeSSony chee the liners
(Emphasis added.) The district court expressly credited Marvit’s

testimony and found that Korena’s mental illness (ise., her

Gisebility) was responsive to medication with or without Biker.
   

(OT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

These unchallenged findings are binding on this court, and the
district court’s finding of fact that Korena’s treatment did not
depend on Biker’s presence negates the element of necessity under
the FHAA. We are therefore not left with a firm and definite
conviction that a mistake has been committed. See Aluminum Shake
Roofing, 110 Hawai" at 252, 131 P.3d at 1234, Inasmuch as the
district court did not clearly err as to the aforementioned

conclusion of law pr

 

inting @ mixed question of law and fact,
S82 GuDKA at 2, we therefore hold that Korena’s first argument is
without merit.

(2) After careful review, we hold that Korena’s state
law point of error (ostensibly based upon HRS Chapter 515) is
waived. Korena’s azgusent on appeal is in all material aspects
entirely premised upon her federel, FHAA claim. On the other
hand, Korena does not present any discernible argument relating
to her state law claim. See HRAP Rule 26(b) (7) (2004) (argunent
must contain “the contentions of the appellant on the points [of
error] presented and the reasons therefor, with citations to the
authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on{)” or the

 

predicate point of error may be deemed waived)

 

Citicore Mortasce, Inc. v. Bartolome, 94 Hawai'i 422, 433, 16
P.3d 627, 838 (App. 2000) (“[e]n appellate court does not have to

address matters for which the appellant has failed to present

discernible argune:

 

(citations omitted)). Therefore, the
dist:

 

 court’s judgment for possession filed September 18, 2003

is affirmed.

» thet ave net

 
 

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

 

(2) Because (a) we affirm the district court’s
judgnent for possession filed September 18, 2003, and (b) Korena
presents no challenge to the district court’s judgment filed
January 15, 2004 awarding KRC attorney's fees and costs, we hold
that the district court's January 15, 2004 judgment awarding KRC
attorney's fees and costs is affirmed. Therefore,

IT 1S HEREBY ORDERED that (1) the district court's
judgnent for possession filed Septenber 18, 2003 is affirmed, and
(2) the district court’s judgment avarding KRC attorney's fees
and costs filed January 15, 200¢ is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 9, 2007.

on the briefs:

Michael , Kalish
(of Legal Aid Society of Hawai'i)

for Defendant-Appellant

Korena K. Justice tiraRCeccuse

Alvin 7, Ito

for Plaine tt-nppellee Been 6 Teaco one
Kiloha

Resident Council