*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

1

SCAP-16-0000508

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI 

________________________________________________________________

THE MALULANI GROUP, LIMITED fka MAGOON BROTHERS, LTD., 

a Hawaiʻi corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

KAUPO RANCH, LTD., a Hawaiʻi corporation,

Defendant–Appellant,

and

HEIRS AND/OR DEVISEES OF HAMOLE AKA MARIE HAMOLE ET AL.,

Defendants–Appellees.

_______________________________________________________________

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT

(CAAP-16-0000508; CIV. NO. 08-1-0501(3))

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ., and 

Circuit Judge Crandall, in place of Nakayama, J., recused)

On interlocutory appeal, Defendant-Appellee Kaupo 

Ranch, Ltd. (Kaupo Ranch or the Ranch) challenges the Circuit 

Court of the Second Circuit’s June 8, 2016 “Order Granting 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Filed April 28, 

2016.” The circuit court granted partial summary judgment to

Plaintiff-Appellee The Malulani Group (Malulani Group or the 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCAP-16-0000508

21-MAY-2018

07:59 AM
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

2

Group) on remand from a decision by the Intermediate Court of 

Appeals (ICA) in Malulani Group’s favor on two issues relating 

to the existence of an implied easement from a landlocked parcel

on Maui to the nearest road. See Malulani Grp., Ltd. v. Kaupo 

Ranch, Ltd., 133 Hawaiʻi 425, 329 P.3d 330 (App. 2014). The

parcel1 is owned by the Malulani Group. The easement would run 

across property owned by the Ranch. We accepted transfer of 

Kaupo Ranch’s interlocutory appeal of the grant of partial 

summary judgment to Malulani. We affirm the circuit court’s 

grant of partial summary judgment on remand. Id. at 436, 329 

P.3d at 341

The ICA’s decision involved two issues. First, Kaupo 

Ranch had argued that only private ownership of the parcels 

prior to severance can satisfy the first element of an implied 

easement, not government ownership. In a case of first 

impression in Hawaiʻi, the ICA held that the “unity of ownership” 

element for an implied easement (also described as the common 

 

1 Whether the Malulani parcel is landlocked as a matter of fact is 

not before us. In other words, whether the Malulani parcel was landlocked at 

the time of severance, and remains so now, goes only to the fourth element 

for an easement implied by necessity, as well as the fourth element for an 

easement implied by prior use, not the first element at issue here. See Jon 

W. Bruce & James W. Ely, Jr., The Law of Easements and Licenses in Land § 4.6 

(2018)(describing the four elements for an easement by necessity); id. at §§ 

4.11-12(noting that the fourth element for an easement by necessity requires 

necessity at the time of severance and continuing necessity); id. at § 4.16

(stating that the fourth element of an easement by prior use requires the 

necessity at severance for the preexisting use to continue). The common 

grantor or “unity of ownership” requirement is the first element of both 

forms of implied easement. Id. at §§ 4.6, 4.16.
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

3

grantor requirement) may be satisfied by the Kingdom of Hawaii’s 

ownership of the two parcels prior to severance.2 Id. at 430-33, 

329 P.3d at 335-38. Second, the ICA held that the statute of 

limitations in Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 657–313 does not 

apply to implied easements, as Kaupo Ranch had urged, but only 

to easements by prescription, a form of easement not here at 

issue. Id. at 434-36, 329 P.3d at 339-41.

On remand, the Malulani Group moved for summary 

judgment on the issues of law decided in its favor by the ICA, 

namely, the unity of ownership and statute of limitations 

issues. Malulani Group argued to the circuit court that the 

ICA’s decision in its favor was the law of the case and that, in 

any event, the ICA opinion was properly decided. Kaupo Ranch 

argued that the ICA’s conclusion that the “unity of ownership” 

element for an implied easement may be satisfied by government 

ownership contradicted our precedents regarding the 

interpretation of royal patent grants, specifically, the use of 

parol evidence in construing them. In addition, Kaupo Ranch 

argued that there is a common law limitation period for bringing 

 

2 On the unity of ownership (or common grantor) element for implied 

easements, see Ass’n of Apartment Owners of Wailea Elua v. Wailea Resort Co., 

Ltd., 100 Hawaiʻi 97, 105, 58 P.3d 608, 616 (2002)(“All implications of 

easements necessarily involve an original unity of ownership of the parcels 

which later become the dominant and servient parcels.” (citation omitted)). 

3 HRS § 657-31 (“No person shall commence an action to recover 

possession of any lands, or make any entry thereon, unless within twenty 

years after the right to bring the action first accrued.”)
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

4

an action for interference with an easement, and that Malulani 

Group’s claim for an easement accrued more than twenty years 

before the complaint was filed. The circuit court rejected the 

Ranch’s arguments and granted Malulani Group’s motion for 

summary judgment on the “unity of ownership” and statute of 

limitations issues.

We affirm the circuit court’s grant of summary 

judgment on each issue. The ICA correctly decided that initial 

ownership of both parcels by the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi satisfies the 

“unity of ownership” or common grantor element for implied 

easements.4 Malulani, 133 Hawaiʻi at 429-34, 329 P.3d at 334-39. 

In addition, the ICA correctly held that no statute of 

limitations applies to implied easements and that HRS § 657-31 

governs easements by prescription, which involve the easement 

equivalent of adverse possession. Id. at 434-36, 329 P.3d at 

339-41.

The circuit court on remand from the ICA decision

properly granted summary judgment to Malulani Group on each of 

the two issues in accord with the ICA’s decision. We affirm the 

circuit court’s June 8, 2016 “Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Partial Summary Judgment Filed April 28, 2016.” We remand 

 

4 Malulani Group claims two forms of implied easement, an easement 

implied by necessity and an easement implied by prior use.
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

5

to the circuit court for proceedings consistent with this 

summary disposition order.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the circuit court’s June 8, 

2016 “Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment Filed April 28, 2016” is affirmed. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, May 21, 2018.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Virginia L. Crandall

Joachim P. Cox

Robert K. Fricke

Kamala S. Haake

Cox Fricke LLP

for Plaintiff-Appellee

Brian R. Jenkins

Jenkins & Jenkins

for Defendant-Appellant