Opinion ID: 1264387
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pelosi I

Text: On August 26, 1988, Pelosi filed the complaint against WRE and Doe defendants that gave rise to the present appeal. The complaint alleged that: (1) WRE had breached the MM III restrictive covenant; (2) the building of a tennis court and roadway caused a nuisance; and (3) the tennis court and roadway posed a threat of irreparable harm to Pelosi. Pelosi alleged that he suffered and would continue to suffer from physical, mental, and emotional distress, as well as a diminution in value of Lot 28. Pelosi prayed for (1) general, special, and consequential damages, in an amount to be proven at trial, (2) punitive damages in a sum not less than $500,000.00, (3) declaratory relief that WRE's use of Lot 29 was not for residential purposes, (4) a preliminary injunction prohibiting the further use of Lot 29 as a roadway and a tennis court, and (5) a permanent injunction prohibiting the use of Lot 29 for a roadway and tennis court. WRE filed an answer on September 22, 1988. On April 17, 1989, Pelosi moved for certification of the individual defendants, the individual lot owners of Wailea Ranch who owned an undivided interest in Lot 29 (hereinafter, WRE and the individual defendants will be referred to collectively as the defendants). [3] On May 26, 1989, the individual defendants filed an answer and counterclaim. [4] Trial of the case commenced on September 24, 1990. The jury found that the defendants [5] were using Lot 29 for residential purposes, but that, inasmuch as the defendants' use of Lot 29 constituted a nuisance to Pelosi, Pelosi was entitled to $20,000.00 in damages. [6] Following entry of judgment by the circuit court, Pelosi filed a notice of appeal. In Pelosi I, the ICA concluded that the clear and unambiguous terms of the MM III Covenants, construed in accordance with their plain, ordinary, and accepted meanings, lead to but one conclusion: only one single-family dwelling and such buildings as are strictly accessory to the use of that dwelling may be constructed on an MM III houselot. Since Lot 29 contains no single-family dwelling, and the roadway and tennis court on Lot 29 are accessory to residences in a completely different subdivision, the restrictive covenant was clearly breached. [7] 10 Haw.App. at 437, 876 P.2d at 1327. The ICA remanded the case to the circuit court to determine whether mandatory injunctive relief or other damages should be granted to [Pelosi] as a result of WRE's breach of the MM III Covenants. Id. at 447, 876 P.2d at 1331. More specifically, the ICA instructed: If the trial court determines that Defendants deliberately and intentionally violated the MM III Covenants or intentionally assumed the risk of such violation, a mandatory injunction should issue forthwith, ordering Defendants to remove the roadway and tennis court on Lot 29. If, on the other hand, the trial court determines that Defendants did not intentionally violate the MM III Covenants or intentionally assume the risk of such violation, then the trial court may balance the equities in determining whether to grant injunctive relief by ordering removal of the roadway and/or tennis court. If the trial court concludes that the relative hardships to the parties preclude an award of injunctive relief, then the trial court shall hold a hearing to determine whether [Pelosi] is entitled to damages resulting from Defendants' breach of the MM III Covenants which are in addition to the $20,000 in damages already awarded to him for his nuisance cause of action. Id. (emphasis added).