Court Opinion

ID: 9398682
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 20:05:44.390406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:35.523554
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                                  Electronically Filed
                                                  Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                                  CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                  31-MAY-2023
                                                  08:48 AM
                                                  Dkt. 123 SO

    NOS. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, AND CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

                 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

                         OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

               NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION,
                     BY ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
           Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant-Appellee, v.
     ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE, Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant,
       YONG NAM FRYER, Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellee,
    and JOHN DOES 1-50; JANE DOES 1-50; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-50;
      DOE CORPORATIONS 1-15; DOE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-50;
                 and DOE ENTITIES 1-50, Defendants.

          APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                      (CIVIL NO. 1CC13-1-002161)

                      SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
   (By:   Leonard, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)

            Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant Angela S. Kaaihue

(Kaaihue), self-represented, appeals from the December 4, 2019

Judgment (Judgment) entered by the Circuit Court of the First

Circuit (Circuit Court).1       Kaaihue also challenges the Circuit

      1
            The Honorable Jeffrey P. Crabtree presided over the trial in this
case. The Honorable Jeannette H. Castagnetti presided over several of the
motions hearings in this case. The Honorable Gary W.B. Chang presided over
the related case filed in the Land Court of the State of Hawai#i (Land Court),
Case No. 1LD-17-1-002541.
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Court's October 18, 2019 Order Granting Plaintiff[/Counterclaim

Defendant-Appellee] Newtown Estates Community Association's

[(Newtown's)] Motion for an Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs

Against [Kaaihue] and [Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellee Yong

Nam Fryer (Fryer)2], as well as the Circuit Court's October 17,

2019 Order Granting [Newtown's] Motion for an Award of Attorney's

Fees and Costs Against [Kaaihue] and [Fryer]. (Orders Granting

Attorneys' Fees).

            This consolidated appeal stems from a dispute about

whether Kaaihue and Fryer's 82-acre property (Property) was

subject to the restrictions and conditions of Newtown Estates.

Newtown requires the homes in its community to comply with its

Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for

the Newtown Estates at Waimalu, Hawai#i (MDCCR).           Newtown had not

enforced the MDCCR against previous owners of the Property.              In

2013, Newtown filed suit to compel Kaaihue and Fryer (Kaaihue's

mother) to bring the Property into compliance with the MDCCR.

Kaaihue and Fryer brought various counterclaims alleging, inter

alia, that they had detrimentally relied on Newtown's

representations to Kaaihue that the Property was not subject to

      2
            Fryer did not file a Notice of Appeal in this case, and therefore,
is not an appellant. The Notices of Appeal in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX,
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX bear only Kaaihue's signature. Kaaihue
is not an attorney and is unable to represent Fryer's legal interests.
Kaaihue repeatedly attempted to sign documents on behalf of Fryer in the
Circuit Court; the Circuit Court properly denied such attempts and ordered
Kaaihue not to file any further pleadings on behalf of Fryer.

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

the MDCCR.    On January 30, 2019, a jury determined, inter alia,

that the Property was part of Newtown Estates and that the

Property was subject to the MDCCR.

             In the Opening Brief, Kaaihue did not identify her

points of error or specify where in the record the alleged errors

occurred and where the alleged errors were objected to and

preserved, as required by the appellate court rules.      See Hawai#i

Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4).      Nevertheless,

we interpret self-represented claims liberally and will address

Kaaihue's arguments to the extent we are able to discern them.

See, e.g., Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai#i 368, 380, 465 P.3d 815, 827

(2020).

             It appears that Kaaihue makes six arguments on appeal,

contending that:    (1) the Circuit Court did not have subject

matter jurisdiction over the litigation; (2) the jury erred in

concluding that the Property was subject to the MDCCR, at least

in part because Newtown did not act fairly in imposing the MDCCR

on the Property; (3) the jury erred in failing to conclude that

Kaaihue detrimentally relied upon the communications from Newtown

indicating that the Property was not part of Newtown Estates;

(4) the jury erred in failing to conclude that Kaaihue suffered

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress at the hands of

Newtown; (5) Newtown was required to defend Kaaihue in a separate

lawsuit involving the Property; and (6) the Circuit Court abused

its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees.

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

          Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to

the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we

resolve Kaaihue's appeal as follows:

          (1) Kaaihue argues that the Circuit Court did not have

subject matter jurisdiction over the litigation.          The Hawai#i

Supreme Court has held:

          Questions regarding subject matter jurisdiction may be
          raised at any stage of a cause of action. When reviewing a
          case where the circuit court lacked subject matter
          jurisdiction, the appellate court retains jurisdiction, not
          on the merits, but for the purpose of correcting the error
          in jurisdiction. A judgment rendered by a circuit court
          without subject matter jurisdiction is void.

Kellberg v. Yuen, 131 Hawai#i 513, 526, 319 P.3d 432, 445 (2014)

(quoting Lingle v. Haw. Gov't Emps. Ass'n, 107 Hawai#i 178, 182,

111 P.3d 587, 591 (2005)).

          Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 603-21.5(a)(3) (2016)

provides the circuit courts with subject matter jurisdiction over

"[c]ivil actions and proceedings".       HRS § 501-1 (2018)

establishes the Land Court and states, in pertinent part:

                §501-1 Court; jurisdiction; proceedings; location;
          rules; practice, etc. A court is established, called the
          land court, which shall have exclusive original jurisdiction
          of all applications for the registration of title to land
          and easements or rights in land held and possessed in fee
          simple within the State, with power to hear and determine
          all questions arising upon such applications, and also have
          jurisdiction over such questions as may come before it under
          this chapter, subject to the rights of appeal under this
          chapter.

(Emphasis added.)

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

             The supreme court has stated that "[t]he circuit courts

are courts of general jurisdiction[.]          Thus, the circuit court

has jurisdiction over all civil causes of action unless precluded

by the State Constitution or by statute."           Sherman v. Sawyer, 63

Haw. 55, 57-58, 621 P.2d 346, 348-49 (1980) (internal citations

and footnotes omitted).       Similarly, this Court has previously

held that,

             [R]egardless of whether the land court enjoys exclusive
             jurisdiction over amendments or alterations to a certificate
             of title, the circuit court has concurrent jurisdiction
             under HRS § 501-1 to determine matters regarding title to
             land court property as recognized by [Iaea v. Iaea, 59 Haw.
             648, 586 P.2d 1015 (1978)]. As such, the Circuit Court had
             jurisdiction . . . to determine the scope of [the easement
             at issue in that case], but did not have jurisdiction to
             order an amendment to the . . . certificates of title.

Childs v. Harada, 130 Hawai#i 387, 405, 311 P.3d 710, 728

(App. 2013) (footnote omitted); see also Waimea Falls Park, Inc.

v. Brown, 6 Haw. App. 83, 85 n.5, 712 P.2d 1136, 1138 n.5 (1985)

(holding that "[HRS] chapter 501 does not contemplate that, after

registration, every controversy involving registered land must be

decided by the land court[]" and noting that "[w]e find nothing

in the statutes or our case law indicating that the land court

has exclusive jurisdiction over matters affecting registered

land.") (internal citations omitted).

             As properly determined by the Land Court and the

Circuit Court, the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to determine

whether the Property was subject to the MDCCR.            The only relief

that would exclusively lay within the jurisdiction of the Land

Court would be a request to modify the certificate of title.
                                       5
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Newtown did not seek to amend the certificate of title.

Kaaihue's Counterclaim prayed for general, special, and punitive

damages, equitable relief, and costs and attorneys' fees; it did

not request that the Circuit Court modify the certificate of

title.   Accordingly, the Land Court's exclusive jurisdiction was

not invoked, and the Circuit Court had jurisdiction over this

litigation.

          (2)     Kaaihue makes multiple challenges to the

sufficiency of the evidence and the jury's factual

determinations.

          However, HRAP Rule 10 requires appellants to request

transcripts that are not already part of the record, as they deem

necessary for their arguments.      HRAP Rule 10(b)(1)(A).       If an

appellant deems it unnecessary to have transcripts prepared, or

if an appellant decides to order fewer than all of the

transcripts, notice is required to be filed and served on the

appellee(s).    HRAP Rule 10(b)(2); (4).

          Kaaihue did not order trial transcripts in this matter.

Instead, in her Reply Brief, Kaaihue referenced HRAP Rule 10 and

stated, inter alia, that:

          The jury special verdict form asked the Jury to make a
          ruling whether or not the Appellant's property was subjected
          to the MDCCR's of Newtown Estates. In addition to the
          special verdict, multiple other verdicts were also rendered
          simultaneously. This was all presented in the Opening
          Brief, The Answering Brief, along with the final order, and
          therefore, the Appellant deemed it unnecessary to seek
          transcripts.

                  . . . .

                                    6
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

          The appellant deemed unnecessary to detail the transcripts,
          when Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to hear a case
          regarding "cloud on title", and "adverse possession". Many
          related documents are already on file including the Jury's
          verdict for the Appellant [sic] Court to Review. The case
          is simple, Land Court is exclusively reserved for special
          issues including "clouds on title & adverse possession".
          Therefore Appellant followed all rules of the HRAP.

          Without transcripts of the trial proceedings, this

Court is unable to review Kaaihue's arguments challenging the

jury's verdict.

          (3)     Kaaihue does not specify which attorneys' fees she

believes were unlawfully imposed by the Circuit Court.           Rather,

she argues that Newtown's "abuse of authority" precluded it from

seeking fines, costs, and attorneys' fees.        She further argues,

without factual or legal support, that $570,000 in fines and fees

was "outrageous" and "would inflict emotional distress upon any

reasonable and sensible person."        Kaaihue identifies HRS

chapter 421J as authority for her argument, but she does not

explain or argue which section applies, or how the Circuit

Court's Orders Granting Attorneys' Fees were inconsistent with

the statute.    We decline to search the record or otherwise

attempt to discern factual and legal bases for Kaaihue's

assertion on appeal.    See Hawaii Ventures, LLC       v. Otaka, Inc.,

114 Hawai#i 438, 480, 164 P.3d 696, 738 (2007) ("This court is

not obligated to sift through the voluminous record to verify an

appellant's inadequately documented contentions.") (citation

omitted); see also Lindner v. Durkee, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX &

No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2022 WL 2134319, at *9 (Haw. App. June 14,

                                    7
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

2022) (mem. op.) (declining to search the record for factual or

legal bases where the appellant did not specify which additional

fees were unlawful under HRS § 421J-10).

          For these reasons, the Circuit Court's December 4, 2019

Judgment is affirmed.

          DATED:   Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 31, 2023.

On the briefs:                        /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
                                      Presiding Judge
Angela Sue Kaaihue,
Defendant/Counterclaimant-            /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Appellant, pro se.                    Associate Judge

Phillip A. Li,                        /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Tyler A. Tsukazaki,                   Associate Judge
(Li & Tsukazai), and
Carol A.L. Rosenberg,
(Motooka Rosenberg Lau &
Oyama),
for Plaintiff/Counterclaim-
Defendant-Appellee.

                                  8