Court Opinion

ID: 9397644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-25 19:11:07.13884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:26.475884
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                             Electronically Filed
                                             Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                             CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                             25-MAY-2023
                                             07:57 AM
                                             Dkt. 122 SO

                        NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

                IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

                      OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

ASSOCIATION OF OWNERS OF ORCHID MANOR, by its Board of Directors,
            Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee,
                                 v.
    EUGENE GEORGE WARNER, Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant,
                                and
   UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII;
      JOHN DOES 1-5; JANE DOES 1-5; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-5; DOE
      CORPORATIONS 1-5; DOE ENTITIES 1-5 and DOE GOVERNMENTAL
                       UNITS 1-5, Defendants

         APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                       (CASE NO. 3CC171000164)

                     SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
  (By:   Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Nakasone, JJ.)

          Self-represented Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant
Eugene George Warner appeals from the: (1) order denying his
motion to strike the complaint filed by Plaintiff/Counterclaim
Defendant-Appellee Association of Owners of Orchid Manor, entered
by the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit on August 28, 2018;
(2) order denying his motion to dismiss the Association's
complaint, entered on December 31, 2018; (3) amended order
granting the Association's motion for summary judgment and
interlocutory decree of foreclosure, entered on May 11, 2020;
(4) amended foreclosure judgment, entered on May 11, 2020; and
   NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(5) order dismissing his counterclaim, entered on July 25, 2018.1
For the reasons explained below, we affirm (1), (2), (3), and
(4), but vacate (5) and remand for further proceedings on
Warner's counterclaim.
          Warner owned unit 306 of the Orchid Manor condominium.
On May 22, 2017, the Association filed a complaint for
foreclosure, alleging that Warner failed to pay common expenses
and assessments. Warner answered the complaint, asserted a
counterclaim, and moved to strike the complaint. The motion to
strike was denied.
           The Association moved to dismiss the counterclaim. The
motion was heard on June 27, 2018.2 The circuit court orally
granted the motion. Warner moved for reconsideration on July 9,
2018. A written order granting the Association's motion was
entered on July 25, 2018. The record doesn't reflect a
disposition of Warner's motion for reconsideration.
           Warner filed a motion to dismiss the Association's
complaint on September 13, 2018. The motion was denied.
           The Association moved for partial summary judgment and
an interlocutory decree of foreclosure on May 13, 2019. Warner
filed a memorandum in opposition on May 28, 2019. The motion was
heard on July 12, 2019. The circuit court orally granted the
motion. Warner filed a notice of appeal in the circuit court on
August 9, 2019. On September 27, 2019, the circuit court entered
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order granting the
Association's motion, and a foreclosure judgment. Warner's
notice of appeal is deemed to have been filed on that date. See
Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 4(a)(2).
          While this appeal was pending we temporarily remanded
the case for entry of an amended order and amended judgment,
pursuant to Life of the Land v. Ariyoshi, 57 Haw. 249, 252, 553

      1
            The Honorable Henry T. Nakamoto presided.
      2
            The record on appeal contains no transcripts of any hearings held
before the circuit court.

                                      2
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

P.2d 464, 466 (1976). On remand, the circuit court entered the
"Amended Findings of Fact, Amended Conclusions of Law, and
Amended Order Granting Plaintiff Association of Owners of Orchid
Manor's Motion for Summary Judgment Against All Named Defendants,
for Interlocutory Decree of Foreclosure, and for Entry of Final
Judgment" (Foreclosure Order) and the "Amended Judgment on
Amended Findings of Fact, Amended Conclusions of Law, and Amended
Order Granting Plaintiff Association of Owners of Orchid Manor's
Motion for Summary Judgment Against All Named Defendants, for
Interlocutory Decree of Foreclosure, and for Entry of Final
Judgment" (Foreclosure Judgment) on May 11, 2020.
          Warner's opening brief doesn't comply with HRAP
Rule 28. However, to promote access to justice, we interpret
pleadings prepared by self-represented litigants liberally and
attempt to afford them appellate review even if they don't comply
with court rules. Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai#i 368, 380-81, 465
P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020). We address Warner's arguments to the
extent we are able to discern and understand them.
          (A) Warner contends that the circuit court erred by
failing to dismiss the Association's complaint. A circuit court
order on a motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo. Flores v.
Logan, 151 Hawai#i 357, 366, 513 P.3d 423, 432 (2022). "A
complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim
unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no
set of facts in support of his or her claim that would entitle
him or her to relief." Id. (citation omitted). "Our review is
strictly limited to the allegations of the complaint, which we
view in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and deem to be
true." Id. (cleaned up). The allegations in the Association's
complaint, if true, would entitle the Association to legal relief
against Warner. The circuit court did not err in denying
Warner's motion to strike or his motion to dismiss.
          (B) Warner contends that the circuit court erred by
granting the Association's motion to dismiss his counterclaim.
The counterclaim, viewed in the light most favorable to Warner,

                                  3
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

alleged that the Association: breached a contract to repair
Warner's unit and limited common elements; failed to abate
asbestos in the walls and ceilings of Warner's unit; and
tortiously interfered with his contract with his tenant. If
true, Warner could be entitled to legal relief. Accordingly, the
circuit court erred by granting the Association's motion to
dismiss Warner's counterclaim.
          (C) Warner contends he is entitled to "subrogation,"
but fails to establish to whose rights he is subrogated, or the
nature of the Association's alleged liability to the alleged
subrogor. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Pac. Rent-All, Inc.,
90 Hawai#i 315, 328–29, 978 P.2d 753, 766–67 (1999) (explaining
equitable/legal and conventional subrogation).
           (D) Warner contends he was deprived of due process.
He filed an opposition to the Association's motion for partial
summary judgment and interlocutory decree of foreclosure. He
attended the hearing on the motion and presented argument. His
contention that he was deprived of due process is without merit.
Warner also argues that the circuit court failed to make findings
of fact and conclusions of law. The circuit court is not
required to enter findings or make conclusions when ruling on
motions to strike or dismiss. See HRCP Rule 52.
          (E) Warner makes a number of contentions about
rescission of contract, fiduciary fraud, fraud on the court,
false claims cover-up, corruption, human rights violations, and
other misconduct by the Association. But his brief cites no
evidence in the record supporting his arguments, and lacks any
coherent legal argument. We disregard his contentions.
          (F) Finally, Warner argues that the circuit court
erred by granting the Association's motion for partial summary
judgment. We have jurisdiction to review the Foreclosure Order
and Foreclosure Judgment under HRS § 667-51(a)(1) (2016). Warner
fails to articulate the applicable legal standard or explain how
it wasn't met by the Association in this case.

                                  4
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

          Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party
is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Nozawa v.
Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, 142 Hawai#i 331, 342, 418
P.3d 1187, 1198 (2018). The party moving for summary judgment
has the burden to show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter
of law. Id. Once the movant has satisfied its initial burden,
the party opposing summary judgment must "demonstrate specific
facts, as opposed to general allegations, that present a genuine
issue worthy of trial." Id. (citations omitted). A fact is
material if proof of that fact would have the effect of
establishing or refuting one of the essential elements of a cause
of action or defense asserted by the parties. Id.
          The Association's motion established that Warner was in
default of maintenance fees and assessments owed to the
Association. Warner's response admitted he was in arrears, but
didn't show that he was entitled to any of the remedies provided
by HRS § 514B-146 (2018) or HRS § 667-19 (2016). The circuit
court did not err by granting the Association's motion for
partial summary judgment or by entering the Foreclosure Judgment.
          For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the: (1) "Order
Denying Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Eugene George Warner's
(1) Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Complaint Filed May 22, 2017,
Filed June 20, 2018, and (2) Motion to Compel Filed June 5, 2018"
entered on August 28, 2018; (2) "Order Denying Defendant/
Counterclaim Plaintiff Eugene George Warner's Second Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Claim for Fraud upon the Court and Second
Motion to Reinstate Defendant/Counter Claimant's Claim for Harm
Due to Gross Negligene [sic], Bad Faith and Loss of Business
Filed September 13, 2018" entered on December 31, 2018;
(3) "Amended Findings of Fact, Amended Conclusions of Law, and
Amended Order Granting Plaintiff Association of Owners of Orchid

                                  5
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Manor's Motion for Summary Judgment Against All Named Defendants,
for Interlocutory Decree of Foreclosure, and for Entry of Final
Judgment" entered on May 11, 2020; and (4) "Amended Judgment on
Amended Findings of Fact, Amended Conclusions of Law, and Amended
Order Granting Plaintiff Association of Owners of Orchid Manor's
Motion for Summary Judgment Against All Named Defendants, for
Interlocutory Decree of Foreclosure, and for Entry of Final
Judgment" entered on May 11, 2020. We vacate the "Order Granting
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Defendant/
Counterclaim Plaintiff Eugene George Warner's Verified
Counterclaim Against Association of Owners of Orchid Manor Filed
November 6, 2017, Filed on June 8, 2018" entered on July 25,
2018, and remand for further proceedings on the counterclaim.
          DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 25, 2023.

On the briefs:
Eugene George Warner,                 /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Self-represented Defendant/           Presiding Judge
Counterclaimant-Appellant.
                                      /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Christopher Shea Goodwin,             Associate Judge
Robert S. Alcorn,
Ann E. McIntire,                      /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
for Plaintiff/Counterclaim            Associate Judge
Defendant-Appellee.

                                  6