Title: Lathrop v. Sakatani.

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAMAT'Z

---000.

 

‘and as members of KIWI KAHALA

Limited liability company, and on behalf of @)

NAOTO LATHROP and GLENN NOBUKI MURAKAMI,

  
        

indiv:
LLC, ‘a Hawai’

KIWI KAHALA LLC, a Hawai'i’ limited liability
company, Plaintiffs-Appeliante,

MICHABL DAVID SAKATANI, individually and as a menber of

KIWI KAHALA LLC, a Hawai'i limited

Liability company,

and as the controlling person of 808 DEVELOPMENT LLC,
@ Hawai'i limited liability company; MICHAEL DAVID

SAKATANI and CHRISTINE MARIE

SAKATANI, as

husband and wife; and 808 DEVELOPMENT LLC, a
Hawai'i limited liability company, Defendants-Appellees,

and

TITLE GUARANTY ESCROW SERVICES, INC.

 

@ Hawai'i corporation,

as third-party Account Holder of Escrow No. Ad-105-0047,
established pursuant to that certain Account Control
‘Agreement, dated February 6, 2004; JOHN DOES 1-10;
JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOB

CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES 1-10;

 

and DOR’ GOVERNMENTAL

UNITS 1-10, Defendants.

wo. 27472

APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. NO. 05-21-0870)

AUGUST 21, 2006

MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, ACOBA, AND DUFFY, JJ.; AND CIRCUIT
SunGe'GRAULTY, IN PLACE’ OF NAKAYAMA, J., RECUSED

 

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

 

 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MOON, C.J.

The instant appeal is narrowly confined to whether the
plaintiffs-appellante Naoto Lathrop and Glenn Nobuki Murakami
(hereinafter, collectively, the plaintiffs], menbers of Kivi
Kahala LLC (Kiwi Kahala), are entitled to record a lis pendene
(4ie., a notice of an action pending against real property)! on
4908 Kahala Avenue, Honolulu, Hawai'i (the Kahala property or the
property), formerly owned by defendants-appellees Michael David
Sakatani (Michael), who is alec a member of Kiwi Kahala, and his
spouse, Christine Marie Sakatani (Christine) [hereinafter,
Michael and Christine are collectively referred to as the
Sekatanis). Briefly stated, thie litigation arises from a bitter
partnership dispute between the plaintiffs and Michael. The
plaintiffs principally alleged that Michael exerted unauthorized
control and management of Kiwi Kahala and fraudulently diverted
company assets to hinself, the Sakatanis, and/or 808 Development
LLC (808 Development), of which Michael ie the sole menber

(hereinafter, the Sakatanis and 808 Development are collectively

 

rred to as the defendants]. The plaintiffs also alleged that

the defendants then used Kiwi Kahala’s assete and monies for

 

3 an Hawas'S, the doctrine of Lis pendens is codified in Hawai'i Revised
Seatucen (ins) #5 501-151 (1993) (lane court registered property) and 634-51
(Supp. 2005) (non-registered land). HRS € 501-151 authorizes the filing oF
recording of 2 Lis pendant agsinst registered land for actions “affecting the
title co veal property or the use ang occupation thereof er the buildings
thereon{.]" similarly, HRS § 634-51 authorizes the recording of @ lis pendent
against non-registered land in the bureau of conveyances to provide
Constructive notice of the pendency cf the action to a future purenaser. The

me lis pendens, notice of the pending action, and notice of pendency of the
action are used interchangeably,

 

 

 

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

their real estate purchases and 608 Development's construction
projects. The plaintiffs sought, inter alia, the dissolution of
Kiwi Kahala, an accounting, and the return of Kiwi Kahala’s
assets, monies, and property.’ Subsequently, the plaintiffs
filed a Lie pendens upon the Kahala property. However, the
Circuit Court of the First Circuit, the Honorable Eden Elizabeth
Hifo presiding, expunged the lis pendens on August 30, 2005,
pursuant to its grant of the defendants’ motion to expunge the
notice of pendency of the action (the motion to expunge)

On appeal, the plaintiffs raise 2 single point of
error, essentially contending that the circuit court erred in
expunging the lis pendens because the plaintiffe’ complaint
specifically sought partial title to, and partial possession of,
the Kehala property -- and not only money damages or equitable
relief -- as required by §. Utaunomiva Enterprises, Inc. v.
Moomuku Country Club, 75 Haw. 480, 510, 866 P.2d 951, 966 (1994)
(holding, inter alia, that the application of lis pendens ie

restricted to “actions directly seeking to obtain title to or

 

possession of real property" (emphasis omitted)).

Based on the discu

 

ion below, we hold that the

plaintiffs’ appeal be dismissed as moot because the Kahala

 

been gold.

 

property hi

Title Guaranty Escrow Services, Inc. (TGES) ie algo naned af a
defendant in the complaint inasmuch ae it 3 the holder of a certain sun of
tnonies in escrow for the Sa Which monies allegedly belong to Kivi
Kabala. GES, however, is not a party to this appeal

 

  

 

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

 

1. BACKGROUND

As previously stated, the plaintiffs and Michael are
members of Kiwi Kahala, a menber-nanaged Hawai't limited
liability company formed to purchase, develop, and sell real
estate. The plaintiffs and Michael hold @ one-third interest
each in Kiwi Kahala.

on May 31, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a complaint
against the defendants, The plaintiffs alleged that Michael
assumed “control over the books and records and the business,
financial, and investments affairs of Kiwi Kahala," without their
consent, and, inter alia, fraudulently diverted Kiwi Kahala’s
assets, monies, and property

into real estate purchases, transactions, and sales
including those of his personally and of the Sakatanie
perecnally and of 808 [Development] personally, and/or into
Construction projects of 608 (Development), including and/or
Snvelvingl,] for instance, ‘1908 Xahaia Avenue(-]

 

 

Consequently, the plaintiff:

 

as the majority members of Kiwi
Kahala, sought to dissolve Kiwi Kahala, pursuant to HRS §§ 428-

801 (4) (8) and -801(4) (B) (2004), and to wind up its affairs.

> was § 421

 

02 provides in relevant part:

A limited Liability company is dissolved, and ite
business shall be wound Up, upon the occurrence of any of
the felloving events

 

ia} Gn application by 2 menber or 2 dissociated
member, upon entry of a judicial decree that?

ip) " Another member has engaged in conduct
relating to the company’s business that
sakes it not reasonably practicable to
carry oh the conpany’s business with that
Benber; (ane)

 

(continued...)

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

‘The plaintiffs also aeserted claims against Michael of,
dnter alia, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and breach of
contract and prayed for, inter alia, an accounting. Moreover,
the plaintiffs asserted claims of fraudulent transfers and
conveyances against all defendants and sought an imposition of
constructive trusts as to “all monies and all personal and real
properties" that were allegedly wrongfully diverted to the
defendants.*

‘Thereafter, on June @, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of pendency of the action with the circuit court. The
notice provided that,

fon May 32, 2005, thie eivil action was filed by the
Ipliasnetten

‘The cutcone of this cage will affect title to the real
property situated at 4908 Kahala Avenue in the City
and county Ot Honolulu

 

 

2(. continued)
(B) The managers or members in contro} of the
company have acted, are acting, or will
act ina sanner that is illegei,
Gppressive, fraudulent, or untairly
prejudicial to the petitioner.)

+ tm anewering the complaint, the defendants algo counterclained
against che plaintiffs, essentially alleging similar claims ae the plaintiffs
of, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty to Kivi Kahala and ite menbere, the
Gigsolution of Kivi Kahala, fraud, and breach of contract, for whch they
Likewise seught an accounting.

 

 

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

 

The Lis pendens wae immediately recorded at the State of Hawai'i
Bureau of Conveyances against the Kahala property,’ which the
Sakatanis owned as tenants by the entirety.'

fon August 18, 2005, the defendants moved to expunge the
is pendens, on the grounds, inter alia, that the plaintiffs, in
their complaint, did not claim to have any interest concerning or
affecting the title or possession of the property, as required

under Hawai'i case law and HRS § 634-51.” In other words, the

 

+ ag previously stated, Hawai't law authorizes the filing of notice of
pendency of lawsuit, or Lis pendens, to render constructive otice of the
Suit to purchasers of real property. HRS § 634-51 provides in relevant parts

a1 property or affecting
on’ of real property, the
Plaintiff, at the tine of filing the complaint... may"
Fecord in'the bureau of conveyances a notice of the pendency
of the action... . Fron and after the time of recording
the notice, a person who becoses purchaser or incumbrancer
of the property affected shall be deeued to have
constructive notice of the pendency of the action and be
ound by any judguent entered therein if the person elaine
through a party to the action|.

 

 

+ In mid-2005, the Sakatanie ved over $4,000,000 on the property and
were making monthly interest-only paymente of $93,275.26.

  

> thie court interpreted HRS § 624-51 in
Anc._v, Moomuks Country Club, 75 Waw. 480, 66

TA) is pendens may only be filed in connection with an
action (2) *eencersing esl property,” (2) "aftecting title"

S.Uteunoniva Buterprises.
Ta ssi (1394), and held that:

 

 

to reat property, or (3) "affecting | . . the right of
possession of real property." ens Tower Dev
Gorm,, 72 Haw. 267, 269-70, 914 P.2d 396, 397 (198i) (eiting

ns § 634-81)

Ad. at 505, 866 P.24 at $64 emphasis and ellipsis in original). Therefore,
“the doctrine of lig pendens protect |e) = plaintiff fron having his or her
claim to the property defeatea by the subsequent alienation of the property to

Dona fide purchaser during the course of the laweuit." id, at s0b, 666 F.2d
at 965 (citation onitted) ; gee algo TEA Int'l ind. v. shiniai Corp., 92
Hawai'i 243, 266, 990 7-26 713, 736 (1999) Thin court, consequently.
‘concluded chet

 

   

     

che lis pendens etatute must be strictly construed and that

the application of Lie nendent action

 

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

 

 

defendants averred that the instant lawsuit was not an action for
which @ lis pendens could be filed and that ite filing
constituted an improper attempt to obtain prejudgment attachnent.
Further, because the defendants had contracted to sell the
property to @ third-party buyer and the escrow closing was set
for August 20, 2005, Michael stated in his declaration that:

If my wife and I do not close the escrow because of
the Notice of Pendency of Action, we will have to continue
paying the carrying coses on thia property until this
Titigacion is finalized.

‘on April 16, 2006, my Promieeory Note . . . will be
due, and{,) if thie litigation se not resolved(,j T will be
unable to refinance that mortgage and will go into default.

 

 

A hearing on the motion to expunge was held on August
24, 2005. Om August 30, 2005, the circuit court granted the

defendants’ motion to expunge. On the next day, the plaintiffs
filed their notice of appeal. That sane day, August 31, 2005,

the plaintiffe filed with thie court, and recorded at the state

(continued)
‘diss
property,

of res

 

| 75 Haw, at 510, 666 P.24 at 966 (some emphasis

Added and tone in original)

 

+ an order expunging a lis pendent is immediately appealable as a final
order under the collateral order doctrine. Such an order

conclusively resolves whether the lis pendens should or
should not be cancelled because nothing further in the uit
Gan affect the validity of ene notice. The order cancelling
the lis pendeng does not address the merite of the
Underlying claim. And if the movant had to wait until final
Jusonent on the underlying claim, the realty could be sold
before the ieeue was resolved, thereby rendering the order
unreviewsble.

 

 

v, Foote, 102 Hawai'i 82, 65, 63 P.3¢ 388, 383 (2003) (citations
omitted) tholding that an order expunging @ lig pendeng is  co}lateral order,
fang, thus, ehie court has juriediction over the appeal).
*** FORPUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

Bureau of Conveyances, a second lis pendens on the Kahala

 

property. In response, the defendants filed ancther motion to
expunge with this court, which was granted on November 21, 2005.

IT, STANDARD OF REVIEW

sWhether 2 lie pendene should be expunged is =
question to be resolved in the exercise of the trial court's
Giseretion; accordingly, the trial court's decision ts
Feviewed for an abuse of that discretion.” S. Uteunoniva v
Moomuku Country Club, 75 Naw. 480, 504, 066 Pad 951,964
(iss) (citations omitted). “in deteraining the validity of
a Lig pendens, courte have generally restricted their review
fo the face of the complaint.” id. at S05, S66 Pad at 36s
(citations omitted).

 

Knauer, 101 Hawai‘ at 83, 63 P.3d at 291; see also TSA Int’)
Lids, 92 Hawai'i at 253, 990 P.2d at 723. “The [circuit] court
abuses its discretion if it bases ite ruling on an erroneous view
of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence."
vw, wy, 103 Hawai'i 26, 30, 79 P.3d 119, 123
(2003) (citation omitted). stated differently, an abuse of
discretion occurs where "the [circuit] court has clearly exceeded
the bounds of reason or has disregarded rules or principles of
law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party
litigant." Roxas v, Marcos, 89 Hawai'i 91, 115, 969 P.2d 1209,
1233 (1998) (citation and internal quotations marke omitted).
IIT. DUSCUSSION

As previously stated, the plaintiffs maintain that the
Lis pendens was valid under Hawai'i law and, thus, the circuit
court erred in granting the motion to expunge. Specifically, the
plaintiffs argue that their complaint clearly indicates that they

are not seeking only money damages or equitable relief, but also

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

 

 

partial title to and partial possession of the Kahala property to
the extent that their partnership monies purchased the aforesaid
property and/or the construction materials that are now a part of
the property. In response, the defendants contend that: (1) the
plaintiff’ appeal is moot inasmich as, during the pendency of
this appeal, the Kahala property was sold, thereby preventing
this court from granting any effective relief; and (2) the
circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it expunged the
is pendens because the plaintiffs’ complaint does not concern
title to or possession of real property, and there is no
allegation that Kiwi Kahala owned the property. The plaintiffs,
in their reply brief, counter that the sale was fraudulent.
Moreover, they argue that, even assuming that the sale renders
moot the issue presented on appeal, this court nevertheless
should decide the matter because it falls within an exception to
the mootness doctrine.

“thie court has long held that jurisdiction is the
base requirement for any court resolving a dispute because[,]
without jurisdiction, the court has no authority to consider the
case.” ISA Int'] Ltd., 92 Hawai'i at 265, 990 P.2d at 735
(internal quotation marke and citations omitted). Further,

[eIhe duty of thie court, ae of every other judicial
tribunal, a to decide actual controversies by = juagment
hich can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions
Spon noot questions or abstract propositions, or te declare
principles or rules of law which cannot affect the water in
Tesue in the case before it
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

Courte will not consume tine deciding abstract
propositions Of law or moot cases, and have no jurisdiction

 

Wong_v. Bd. of Recents, Univ. of Hawai'i, 62 Haw. 391, 394-95,
616 P.2d 201, 204 (1980) (citations omitted). Thie court further
reasoned that “the objection to deciding moot cases wae that the

judgment of the court could not be carried into effect, or that

 

ble to grant.” Id, at 395, 616 P.2d at 204.
Inasmich as this court does not have jurisdiction to “decid{e]

abstract propositions of law or moot cai

 

"dd. (citation
omitted), we examine the mootness question in light of the
defendants’ argument, i.e., whether the sale of the Kahala
property renders the plaintiffs’ appeal regarding the removal of
the lie pendens moot .

It is well-established tha

 

 

doctrine is said to encomps
Gestroy the Justicsability of
previously suitable for determination. Put
Suit sust rensin alive throughout the course of litigetion
to the movant of final appellete disposition. ite chief
purpose ie co sasure that the adverssry system, once eet in
‘operation, renains properly fueled. The doctrine sens
appropriate vnere events subsequent to the judgment of the
trial court have so affected the relations between the
parties that the two conditions for jurticiabiiiey relevant
Ga appeal -- adverse interest and effective renedy —~ nave
been conpromie

Id. at 394, 616 P.2d 201, 203-04 (1980); see algo Okada Trucking
So. v, Bd, of Water Supply, 99 Hawai'i 191, 195-96, 53 P.34 799,
803-04 (2002); Kona Old Hawaiian Trails Group v. Lyman, 69 Haw.

62, 87, 734 P.2d 162, 165 (2967)

     

 

 

 

In the instant cai

 

, the defendants insiat that

-10-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

the doctrine of moctness precludes this court from deciding this
appeal because the Kahala property was sold to a third-party
purchaser, and, thus, “there is no longer an effective remedy

available to the [plaintiffs] or an adverse interest between the

 

parties." Specifically, the defendants argu

First, assuming arguendo, [the plaintiffs] vere to prevail,
the only renegy aveilable to then would be to allow (the
plaintiffs) to file a 148 pendens egainet the Sakatani
Kahala property. Because, however, the sakatanis’ Kahala
Property wes sold, that renedy is ho longer available.
Becond. because the Sakatanie no longer evn the property,
they ave no longer in confiiet with (the plaintiffs) over
fhether of not a 142 pendens should be placed on the Kanale
property,

 

 

Although the plaintiffs do not dispute the fact that the property

has been sold, they maintain that “[the] sale was merely to a

 

etraw buyer, constituting yet another fraud on [the plaintiffs]
land now on this [court.]* They argue that the sale was “phony”

and we

 

entered into by the defendants in an attempt to defeat
the plaintiffe’ recovery while looking for real buyers.”

Tesues surrounding the sale of the property --
fraudulent or not -- are not before this court in this appeal.
‘The only iesue before this court is whether the circuit court
erred in expunging the Lis pendens. See State v. Harper, 1 Haw.

App. 481, 484, 620 P.2d 1087, 1090 (1980) (*the scope of the

 

* an support of this argunent, the plaintiffe attached to their reply
brief a letter, dated April 20. 2006, from the thiré-party buyer who was also
fnvolved in another foreclosure cage, to the circuit court. The third-party
buyer stated that the property hae been sold and that he no longer had say
Tnterest in the property. The aforementioned letter, however, is not part of
the record and cannot be consigerea by this court simply because it is
attached toa brief, HRS § 661-2 (Supp. 2005) ("Every appeal shall be taken
Gn the record, and no new evidence shell be introduced in the euprene
court")

 

 

 

are
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

eview of appellate courts is limited to iesues preserved and
raised on appeal"). Even assuming, but not agreeing, that the
circuit court erred in granting the defendants motion to expunge,
the plaintiffs would not be able to record another lis pendens
upon the Kahala property inasmuch as the property has been sold
and the Sakatanis do not hold title to it. See Chizeo v. Gateway
Qaks, LLC, 384 F.3d 307, 308-09 (6th Cir. 2004) (dismissing the
plaintiff’s appeal of the removal of his lis pendens upon the
defendant’s condoniniun because “the selling of [the defendant‘s]
condominium(] renders the lis pendens issue moot"), Accordingly,
the sale of the property prevents the appellate court from
granting any effective relief. See Chaney v. Minneapolis Cnty
Dev. Agency, 641 N.W.2d 228, 335 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002)
(dismissing the appeal as moot because “the property [the
plaintiffs] seek is owned by others unaffected by the[]
proceedings”) .

Moreover, “it is appellant's burden to seek a stay if
post-appeal transactions could render the appeal moot." In re
Gotcha Int'l L.P., 313 B.R. 250, 255 (B.A.P, sth Cir. 2004)
(citing In-xe Filtercorp., Inc., 163 F.3d 570, 576-77 (sth Cir.
1996)); see also In xe Onowli-Kona Land Co,, 846 F.2d 1170, 1174
(sth Cir. 1988) [hereinafter, Qnouli-Kona] (also noting that
“It]he burden of obtaining a stay pending appeal . . . falls on
[the] individual parties*). In Qnouli-Kona, a bankruptcy case,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held

<12-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

that a notice of Lis pendens does not serve the same function as
fa stay and does not preserve the requirement of a live case or
controversy. Id, at 1175. In that case, which challenged the
confirmation of a foreclosure sale, the Ninth Circuit determined
that the sale of the property during the pendency of the appeal
rendered the case moot, despite the filing of a notice of lis
pendens because “filing of li pendens does not substitute for
[glebtor’s failure to obtain a stay." Id.; see also In re the
Brickyard, 795 F.2d 1154, 1158 (9th Cir. 1984), implicitly
overruled on other rounds by In re Sweet Transfer & storace
Inc., 896 F.24 1189 (1990).

In this jurisdiction, Hawai‘i Rules of civil Procedure
(HRCP) Rule 62 (2004) provides the means for an appellant to
obtain a stay pending appeal. HRCP Rule 62 states in relevant

part

 

(c) Injunction pending appeal. when an appeal is
taken from an interlocutory oF final Judgment granting,
Giseolving, or denying an injunction, the court in ite
Siseretion may suspend, modify, restore, or grant an
Snjunction during the pendency of the appeal upon such terms
je to bond or otherwise as it considers proper for the
Security of the rignte of the adverse party-

(@)" stay upon ampeal. when an sppeai ic taken(,] the
ppellant by giving a supersedeas bond nay obtain a
stay ‘The sond may be given at or after the tine of
filing the notice of sppeal or of procuring the oréer
Allowing the appeal
effective when the supersed

   

  

 

 

      

and ne
asoveale not Lisited. The provisions in this role do not
[inte any power of the suprene court or of the intermediate
court of sppesie or of a justice or jucge thereof to stay
proceedings during the pendency of an appeal or to s\

fore, or grant an injunction during the
‘OF make any order appropriate to pre!

 

 

       

-13-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

status quo or the effectiveness of the judgment subsequentiy
fo'be entered.

 

(underscored emphases in original.) (Bold emphases added.)
Here, the plaintiffs failed to seek a stay on the execution of
the circuit court’s order expunging the lis pendens pending the
disposition of the appeal. In addition, the plaintiffs were
aware that 2 sale transaction had been scheduled. See, 2.g.,

B =. Certain Rea! longing to
Hayes, 943 F.2d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir, 1991) (failure to request a
etay of execution pending appeal or to post supersedeas bond,
combined with subsequent sale of the property to third-party
deprived the court of in xem jurisdiction); Chun v, Bd of Trs, of
Employees’ Ret, Sys, of the State of Hawai'i, 106 Hawai'i 416,
429, 106 P.3d 339, 352 (2005) (the defendant sought a stay of
proceedings to enforce post-judgment order pending appeal) ; MDG
Supply. inc. v. Diversified inve., inc., $1 Haw. 480, 482, 463
P.2d 530, 532 (1969) (the defendant moved, pursuant to HRCP Rule

62(g), for a stay of the foreclosure sale pending app

 

2);. Such

failure permitted the 4

 

ndants to proceed with the

 

transaction.” Consequently, the completed sale rendered the

plaintiffs’ appeal moot.

 

Alternatively and assuming this court holds that the
issue presented by this appeal is moot, the plaintiffs urge this

court to consider the exceptions to the moctness doctrine.

© the plaintiffs could have aleo sought an injunction to prevent the
eale if, a they allege, the sale was fraudulent; they di¢ not.

 

wade
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West’s Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

‘There ie a well settled exception to the rule that appellate
Courte will not consider most questions. When the question

ely if the nature of things chat similar questions

satiate on

be made. the exception is invoked.
Johnston v. Ing, 50 Haw. 279, 381, 441 P.2d 138, 140 (1968)

   

(emphasis added). In cther words, the case must involve
questions that affect the public interest and are “capable of
repetition, yet evading review.” Carl Corp. v. State of Hawai'i.
Rep't of Educ,, 93 Hawai'i 155, 165, 997 P.2d 567, 577 (2000)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

 
 

criteria considered in determining existence of
fare the public or

public officers, and the likelinood of future recurrence of
The question.

Okada Trucking Co., 99 Hawai'i at 196-97, 53 P.3d at 804-05
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Here, the plaintiffe argue that the issue whether they
are entitled to file a lis pendens on real property to which they

 

king only partial title and partial possession (1) affects

the public interest becat

 

there “is [a] need to clarity
the . . . doctrine* as announced in §, Utaunomiva Enterprises;
and (2) “is likely to reoccur and to become moot again and again
without appellate consideration becoming possible." The
plaintiffs, however, do not advance any reason for this court to
clarify S$. Utsunomiva Enterprises. The plaintiffs simply state

that such clarity is necessary to “protect those cases like thie

nase
 

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

 

 

that fall in between the broad common law doctrine and the
restrictive view adopted in [S. Uteunomiva Enterprises). We
fail to see how the question posed here is of public concern when
this court in §. Utgunomiva Enterprises has provided the clear
guidance that “the application of lis pendeng should be limited
actions direct) in title to or possession of
real property[,]”" 75 Haw. at 510, 866 P.24 at 966 (some emphasis
added and some in original), and such holding has been followed
by subsequent cases, see, ¢.c., Knauer v. Foote, 101 Hawai'i 81,

63 F.3d 389 (2003

 

TSA Int’) Ltd v. Shimueu Corp., 92 Hawai'i
243, 990 P.2d 713 (1999); In ye 2003 and 2007 Ala Wai Blvd. cit

and County of Honolulu, 85 Hawai'i 398, 944 P.2d 1342 (App
1997), overruled on other grounds by Knauer v. Foote, 101 Hawai'i

81, 63 P.3d 389 (2003).

Further, with respect to whether the issue is “capable
of repetition, yet evading review,” Car] Corp,, $3 Hawas‘i at
165, 997 P.2d at 577 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted), this court has stated that

elhe phrase, “capable of repetition, yet evading review,"
means that "a court will not dismiss @ case on the grounds
(Of moctnese where s challenges governmental ection woula
evade full review Because the passage of time would pr
Guy single plained! from remaining subject to the
Featriction complained of for the period necessary to
complete the laweuie.*

 

 

   

 

Id. (some internal quotation marks and citation omitted). as

 

previously discussed, the plaintiffs permitted the sale of the

property te go through by failing to either seek a stay of the

-16-
*** FOR PUBLICATION ***
in West's Hawai'i Reports and the Pacific Reporter

 

 

August 30, 2005 order expunging the lis pendens or an injunction
to block the gale of the property based upon their allegations of
fraud. Had they done so, the issue before this court would not
have evaded review. However, because they did not avail
themselves of the mechanisms that would have preserved the issue
for review, we are compelled to hold that the issue is moot and
the exceptions to the mootness doctrine do not apply.
IV. CONCLUSTON
Based on the foregoing, we dismiss the plaintiffs’

appeal as moot.

on the briefs: Z
Gary Victor Dubin, Gi
for plaintiffe-appellants Bhi Gdhorinenn

arin 1. Holna and
Arava Harrell (of Bays, JP
Beever, Lung, Rose Baba),

for defendants-appeliees Grrr, Ducegs +

“types tl,

a7