Opinion ID: 1154746
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The State and Kelley)

Text: The State argues that its motion for summary judgment concerning parcel 5 was properly granted by the circuit court because this court's decision in In re Kelley is res judicata as to Kelley and precludes him from relitigating ownership of parcel 5 in the State's ejectment action. We agree. Under the doctrine of res judicata, `[t]he judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction is a bar to a new action in any court between the same parties or their privies concerning the same subject matter, and precludes the relitigation, not only of the [claims that] were actually litigated in the first action, but also of all grounds of claim [and defense that] might have been properly litigated in the first action but were not litigated or decided.' Pele Defense Fund v. Paty, 73 Haw. 578, 599, 837 P.2d 1247, 1261 (1992) (quoting Morneau v. Stark Enters., Ltd., 56 Haw. 420, 422-23, 539 P.2d 472, 474-75 (1975) (citations omitted)); accord Silver v. Queen's Hospital, 63 Haw. 430, 435-36, 629 P.2d 1116, 1121 (1981). In deciding whether res judicata applies, three questions must be answered in the affirmative: `[First,] [w]as the issue decided in the prior adjudication identical with the one presented in the action in question? [Second,] [w]as there a final judgment on the merits? [And third,] [w]as the party against whom the plea [of res judicata ] is asserted a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication?' Morneau v. Stark Enterprises, Ltd., 56 Haw. 420, 424, 539 P.2d 472, 475 (1975) (citation omitted). Here, the answers to all three questions regarding the State, the Kelleys, and parcel 5 are in the affirmative. There is no doubt that In re Kelley and the present case involve identical issues. In the State's ejectment action, Kelley seeks to relitigate the issue of ownership of parcel 5, the identical parcel of land over which this court in In re Kelley had in rem jurisdiction. See In re Kelley, 50 Haw. at 568, 445 P.2d at 540. In addition, Kelley, the party against whom the State is now asserting res judicata, is in privity with his predecessors in interest, Roy and Estelle Kelley, who were parties in In re Kelley. Finally, the In re Kelley decision constitutes a final judgment on the merits regarding the ownership of parcel 5. Thus, the doctrine of res judicata applies. We find Kelley's attempt to avoid the preclusive effect of the In re Kelley decision unconvincing. Kelley argues that this court in In re Kelley made sua sponte declarations which his predecessors in interest were not given an opportunity to litigate fairly and fully, and that such declarations in effect divested them of parcel 5 without due process of law, if they acquired title to Parcel 5 by adverse possession. The three declarations classified by Kelley as sua sponte are: (1) the trustees ha[ve] abandoned the title to the land of which Parcel 5 is a part in 1885; (2) the Highways Act of 1892 ... operated retrospectively to divest the Trustees of vested title to the land of which Parcel 5 is a part, and vest the title in the Hawaiian government on the date the Highways Act of 1892 took effect; and (3) the land of which Parcel 5 is a part `was made the property of the Government by the Highways Act of 1892 and has not been abandoned by the Government by due process of law.' We first note that we have been presented with a limited record on appeal because we do not have the full evidentiary record from the In re Kelley appeal and the Kelley land court application (1768). However, we do have the State's opening brief in its appeal in In re Kelley, and it is clear that the State argued the issue of statutory dedication. Thus, Kelley's predecessors in interest had notice of and an opportunity to respond, if they chose, to the issue of statutory dedication and the Highways Act of 1892. Regarding their adverse possession claim, upon determining that parcel 5 belonged to the State, this court concluded that [w]hile the Kelleys reserved the issue of adverse possession in the trial court, the conclusion that the Government acquired the fee precludes them, in any case, from raising the issue. There is no adverse possession against the sovereign, in this case the Government, unless expressly provided for by statute. In re Kelley, 50 Haw. at 581, 445 P.2d at 547 (citations omitted). We also note that because of the scant record on appeal, we are unable to confirm whether the remaining alleged sua sponte declarations were actually sua sponte. It is elementary that an appellant must furnish to the appellate court a sufficient record to positively show the alleged error. State v. Hawaiian Dredging Co., 48 Haw. 152, 158, 397 P.2d 593, 598 (1964) (citation omitted); accord Union Building Materials Corp. v. The Kakaako Corp., 5 Haw. App. 146, 151, 682 P.2d 82, 87 (1984). Because Kelley has failed to provide a complete record to support his allegations, he has not positively shown the alleged errors. Furthermore, if Kelley's predecessors in interest were dissatisfied with this court's decision in In re Kelley, they failed to avail themselves of the remedy of filing a motion for reconsideration or appealing through available channels. See Kauhane, 71 Haw. at 463, 795 P.2d at 279. Assuming arguendo that this court in In re Kelley violated Kelley's due process rights, appeal to the United States Supreme Court was available. See 28 U.S.C. § 2101 (1977). Finally, Kelley's supporting citation to Robinson v. Ariyoshi, 753 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir.1985), for the proposition that constitutional challenges are timely presented when the state takes action to enforce a decision against parties who did not have a `full and fair opportunity' to litigate sua sponte declarations in the decision, or the Constitutional claims which arose from those sua sponte declarations[] is invalid. The United States Supreme Court vacated this Ninth Circuit court decision one year later. See Ariyoshi v. Robinson 477 U.S. 902, 106 S.Ct. 3269, 91 L.Ed.2d 560 (1986). We therefore hold that Kelley is precluded from relitigating ownership of parcel 5.