Opinion ID: 2617561
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Conspiracy Claims

Text: The Mauchs further argue that because Weinberg and the Blackwells knew of the 1981 Blackwell/Mauch agreement when they entered into the second Weinberg/Blackwell agreement but acted in complete disregard of the Mauchs' rights, Weinberg, therefore, conspired with the Blackwells to destroy the Mauchs' interests. This court, in Ellis v. Crockett, 51 Haw. 45, 57, 451 P.2d 814, 822-23 (1969), recognized that the tort of `conspiracy' has not been clearly defined. Nevertheless, we went on to state that it is clear that there can be no civil claim based upon a conspiracy alone. Therefore, ... [if a plaintiff does] not set forth any actionable claim based upon deceit, there can be no claim against any alleged joint tortfeasor based solely upon conspiracy to deceive. Id. (citation omitted). In the instant case, the Mauchs assert that Weinberg and the Blackwells conspired to destroy the Mauchs' right to cure. However, as discussed above, the Mauchs did not have a right to cure because Weinberg did not consent to this element of the Blackwell/Mauch assignment. The Mauchs have failed to set forth any actionable claim based upon deceit, and, therefore, the claim for conspiracy must fail.