Opinion ID: 3008906
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: This case involves a title dispute between Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee Ka‘upulehu Land LLC (“KLL”) and Respondents/Defendants-Appellants Heirs and Assigns of Pahukula, et al. (collectively “Defendants”), stemming from KLL’s “Complaint to Quiet Title” to the following property: All of that certain parcel of land (being all of the land(s) described in and covered by Royal Patent Number 6667, Land Commission Award Number 8723, Apana 1 to Kahoiwai) situate, lying and being at Mahukona, District of Kohala, Island and County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, bearing Tax Key designation (3) 5-7-002:004, and containing an area of approximately 11.746 acres, more or less. (“Property”).1 Despite having obtained the Property through paper title derived from a common grantor, KLL claims that it and Defendants’ title to the Property is defective because the common grantor had actually sold the Property prior to his death. KLL claims that neither it nor Defendants received valid title to the Property. KLL claims that it is therefore entitled to one-hundred percent (100%) of the Property through adverse possession. In the alternative, KLL claims that if title to the Property descended to the common grantor’s heirs, it is a cotenant with Defendants. Defendants, on the other hand, argue that they and KLL are cotenants because they both received their interests in the Property through a series of conveyances stemming from the common grantor. We hold that the evidence presented by KLL was not sufficient to establish that the common grantor was not vested with title to the Property when he died. Therefore, title to 1 The acreage differs slightly from the description in the “Certificate of Title” prepared by Title Guaranty of Hawaii, Inc. (“Title Guarantee Certificate”), which described the Property as containing “11.300 acres, more or less.” 2 the Property descended in accordance with the law in effect at the time of the common grantor’s death to his heirs. We further hold that Defendants and KLL are cotenants, having received interests in the Property through mesne conveyances stemming from the common grantor. Accordingly, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”) erred in finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the existence of a cotenancy. We therefore vacate the ICA’s January 9, 2014 Judgment on Appeal and the circuit court’s March 25, 2010 Final Judgment, and remand this case to the circuit court for a determination of interests in title to the Property.