Opinion ID: 2633331
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Arakaki's Arguments

Text: In its answering brief, Arakaki counters [3] that, [a]s the non-moving part[ies], [SCD and Carr] ha[d] the burden of showing ... that a genuine issue of [material] fact exist[ed], and that [SCD's and Carr]'s statement of no position coupled with their non-appearance at the hearing constitute[d] a waiver of objections to the granting of ... summary judgment. (Citing Cordeiro v. Burns, 7 Haw.App. 463, 776 P.2d 411 (1989).) Arakaki contends that the underlying contract between the parties merged into the settlement and that, `[a]s a general rule, a properly executed settlement precludes future litigation for its parties.' (Quoting Amantiad v. Odum, 90 Hawai`i 152, 161, 977 P.2d 160, 169 (1999).) Arakaki further notes that the language of the settlement shows the parties' agreement to bar any further claims in the present matter: [A]bsent bad faith or fraud in the settlement agreement neither party ... may rescind the agreement. None of the alleged newly discovered evidence constitutes bad faith or fraud related to the Settlement Agreement and hence there can be no rescission of the Settlement Agreement. (Citing Miller v. Manuel, 9 Haw.App. 56, 828 P.2d 286 (1991).) In addition, Arakaki asserts that the Appellants' motion for reconsideration did not meet the standard for newly discovered evidence warranting reconsideration: From 1995 through the present [SCD and Carr] owned the property, had control over the property and knew or should have known that Swift was continuing to access and work on the property.... The deposition of Swift ... put [SCD and Carr] on notice more than 8 months before the settlement conference and 17 months before ... Arakaki's motion for summary judgment that the property was used as a landfill. The Geolabs report simply confirmed the landfill as did the Commissioner's report. .... [SCD and Carr] did not exercise due diligence in discovering the notices of violation and landfills. The notices were public records from 1995-1996. (Capitalization altered.) Finally, Arakaki argues that SCD and Carr failed to preserve any error(s) for appeal, inasmuch as their motion for reconsideration concerned only alleged fraud in the underlying sale, not the settlement agreement. (Citing Pele Def. Fund v. Paty, 73 Haw. 578, 837 P.2d 1247 (1992).) In any case, Arakaki states, any mistake of fact about environmental conditions on the property [wa]s not basic or material to the settlement agreement because the settlement agreement makes no mention or consideration of the development value[] or condition of the property.