Justia Hawaii Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of Counts VI and VIII in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. 709-906(1) and (5). The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed, ruling (1) regarding Count VI, the self-defense and defense of others jury instructions were not plainly erroneous; and (2) regarding Count VIII, the circuit court properly refused the time-specific elements instruction and did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion for judgment of acquittal. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the ICA’s judgment as to Count VI, holding that the circuit court properly gave the relevant jury instructions; but (2) vacated the lower courts’ judgment as to Count VIII, holding that the circuit court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss, as the trial testimony of the complaining witness created a material time variance from the State’s response to the notice of alibi, thus undermining the defense that Defendant prepared. View "State v. Yang " on Justia Law

Lanric Hyland appealed from a county clerk decision to the local board of registration for the County of Hawaii. The local board determined that Hyland mailed his appeal within ten days of service of the county clerk’s decision based in part on its determination that October 13 was a holiday, thus tolling his appeal deadline for that day. Nevertheless, the board ruled that his appeal was untimely because the board did not receive his appeal until after the deadline, and therefore, it was without jurisdiction to review the appeal. The intermediate court of appeals affirmed, but also determined that Hyland did not mail his letter within the ten-day filing period because the second Monday in October - recognized by the federal government as Columbus Day - is not a Hawaii state holiday. The Supreme Court vacated the decisions below, holding (1) the board had jurisdiction to consider the merits of Hyland’s appeal because the appeal letter was mailed within ten days of service of the county clerk decision; and (2) the second Monday in October is a holiday for purposes of the computation of time as to when an act is to be done under Haw. Rev. Stat. 1-29. Remanded. View "Hyland v. Gonzales" on Justia Law

This case arose from a divorce proceeding between Husband and Wife. At issue in this appeal was Husband’s cross-appeal, in which he argued that the family court erred in failing to award him any Category 3 credit for gifts and inheritance, denying his request for Haw. R. Civ. P. 68 attorney’s fees, and awarding Wife attorney’s fees and costs. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) vacated in part and affirmed in part, concluding (1) the family court erred in denying Husband any Category 3 credit; (2) as to the award of attorney’s fees under Hawaii Family Court Rules Rule 68, the matter must be remanded for further proceedings; and (3) the family court properly awarded attorney’s fees to Wife. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the ICA correctly ruled that the issue of Category 3 credits must be remanded, but, upon remand, the issue must be addressed pursuant to the supplemental instructions in this opinion; and (2) the ICA erred in vacating the family court’s denial of Husband’s Rule 68 motion, as Rule 68 is inapplicable in divorce cases. Remanded. View "Brutsch v. Brutsch" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was found guilty of disorderly conduct. The district court sentenced Defendant to six months of probation, seventy-five hours of community service, and $105 in fees and assessments. Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction because the evidence failed to prove that she engaged in “tumultuous behavior” within the meaning of the disorderly conduct statute. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed the conviction, concluding that the prosecution presented substantial evidence to show that Defendant engaged in tumultuous behavior. The Supreme Court reversed the ICA’s judgment and the district court’s order, holding that the State did not present substantial evidence that Defendant’s conduct was “tumultuous” within the meaning of the disorderly conduct statute, and therefore, there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. View "State v. Teale" on Justia Law

Bank of America, N.A. filed a complaint seeking to foreclose on Homeowner’s property. Homeowner asserted numerous defenses, including that the Bank was not the lawful holder of the note and mortgage and therefore was not entitled to foreclosure. Homeowner also asserted four counterclaims. The circuit court granted Bank of America’s motion to dismiss Homeowner’s counterclaims. Thereafter, the court granted Bank of America’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the Bank was the “current holder” of the note and mortgage and was therefore entitled to foreclosure of the mortgage and sale of the property. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s judgment on appeal and vacated the circuit court’s judgment to the extent it granted summary judgment to Bank of America, holding (1) the circuit court erred in granting Bank of America’s motion for summary judgment; and (2) the ICA erred in determining that it did not have jurisdiction over the circuit court’s order granting the Bank’s motion to dismiss Homeowner’s counterclaims. Because the ICA did not reach the merits of Homeowner’s appeal with respect to the dismissal of her counterclaims, the case must be remanded to address the merits of Homeowner’s appeal of the dismissal of her counterclaims. View "Bank of America, N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a non-judicial foreclosure conducted pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. Chapter 667 Part I, which was repealed by the legislature by Act 182. Russell Hungate, the property owner, filed a complaint and first amended complaint alleging that Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Deutsche Bank) and David B. Rosen and his law office (collectively, Rosen), the attorney hired by Deutsche Bank to conduct the foreclosure of Hungate’s property, violated statutory, contractual, and common law duties and committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The circuit court granted Rosen’s motion to dismiss and then granted Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court vacated in part the circuit court’s orders, holding (1) the circuit court erred in dismissing the majority to Hungate’s claims alleging Haw. Rev. Stat. Chapter 667 Part I violations against Deutsche Bank; (2) Duetsche Bank must use reasonable means to obtain the best price for a foreclosed property; and (3) the circuit court erred in dismissing Hungate’s unfair or deceptive acts or practices claim against Deutsche Bank, but property dismissed Hungate’s claim against Rosen. View "Hungate v. Rosen" on Justia Law

The Association of Apartment Owners (the AOAO) filed a notice of default and intention to foreclose a unit of the Century Center condominiums. The AOAO purchased the property at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale and then filed a complaint for summary possession against Respondents. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction under Haw. Rev. Stat. 604-5(d), which provides that the district court “shall not have cognizance of…actions in which the title to real estate comes in question.” The district court denied the motion and, after a hearing, filed a judgment for possession and a writ of possession in favor of the AOAO. Respondents appealed, arguing that because they established that title over the property was in question, the district court erred in exercising jurisdiction over the case. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) agreed, vacated the district court’s judgment, and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Respondents’ affidavit asserting claim of title satisfied District Court Rules of Civil Procedure 12.1 and that the ICA did not err in considering as part of its analysis the quitclaim deed attached to the AOAO’s complaint. View "Association of Apartment Owners of Century Center, Inc. v. An" on Justia Law