Opinion ID: 3160197
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the ICA commit grave error of fact and is its

Text: summary decision inconsistent with Hawaii case and statutory law by finding — in direct contradiction to the district court’s determination of bifurcation and record of proceedings— that the district court afforded Petitioner the opportunity to present affirmative defenses pursuant to HRS 521-42 and HRS 521-64, as they concerned repairs made and/or reported, that went unresolved and unpaid? C. Did the ICA commit grave error of fact by wrongfully affirming the denial of a rent trust fund and incorrectly asserting that Petitioner’s request for establishment of a rental trust fund was improper? For the reasons discussed herein, the ICA erred in affirming the district court’s Judgment for Possession and Writ of Possession based on an October 6, 2012 45-day notice to 2  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  vacate. Furthermore, there were no grounds to remove Cedillos based on a failure to pay rent for November 2012.