Justia Hawaii Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's Haw. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion for relief from a judgment of foreclosure, holding that the lender, James B. Nutter Company (JBNC), committed fraud on the court and that the balance of equities weighed against foreclosure.JBNC brought the underlying foreclosure proceeding against Appellant for allegedly defaulting in the observance and performance of the terms, covenants and conditions of his mortgage by failing to make $500 worth of repairs. The circuit court granted JBNC's motion for summary judgment and decree of foreclosure, after which Appellant brought this motion for relief. The circuit court denied relief. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there were grounds for relief both on a fraud on the court theory and under the equitable principles governing foreclosure. View "James B. Nutter & Co. v. Namahoe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) holding that a plaintiff may not recover attorneys' fees under the private attorney general (PAG) doctrine from a private defendant even where the State voluntarily participated as a co-litigant in the case, holding that the ICA erred.Petitioners prevailed against Defendant Haleakala Ranch Company (HRC) in procuring the circuit court's judgment that the State of Hawai'i and not HRC owned a portion of the Haleakala Trail that ran over HRC's property. At issue before the Supreme Court was Petitioners' attempt to recover attorneys' fees from HRC under the PAG doctrine. The Supreme Court held (1) plaintiffs who recover attorneys' fees and costs under the PAG doctrine may also recover fees and costs reasonably incurred in litigating their initial claim for fees; and (2) a plaintiff may recover attorneys' fees under the PAG doctrine from a private defendant where the State voluntarily participated as a co-litigant in the case. View "Public Access Trails Haw. v. Haleakala Ranch Co." on Justia Law

In this case challenging the constitutionality of administrative rules governing access to Mauna Kea's summit under Haw. Const. art XII, 7, the Supreme Court answered questions reserved by the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit by holding (1) in a challenge to the constitutionality of administrative rules based on a violation of Haw. Const. art. XII, 7, the burden of proof does not shift to the government agency defendant and instead remains with the challenging party; and (2) the framework set forth in Ka Pa'akai O Ka'Aina v. Land Use Comm'n, 7 P.3d 1068 (Haw. 2000), applies to challenges to the constitutionality of an administrative rule based on an alleged violation of article XII, section 7, in addition to contested case hearings. View "Flores-Case 'Ohana v. University of Haw." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Land Use Commission (LUC) denying Petitioners' petition for a declaratory order challenging the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT), holding that Haw. Rev. Stat. 205-2(e) does not authorize the Commission to exclude or enforce certain land uses within conservation districts.Petitioners in this case sought to use the LUC's districting authority in a manner that would compel the removal of all astronomy facilities located within the Astronomy Precinct. The LUC denied the petition, and Petitioners appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) this Court had jurisdiction to directly review Petitioners' appeal; (2) the LUC correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to issue the requested declaratory orders; and (3) Petitioners were not entitled to relief on their remaining claims of error. View "In re Petition of Ku'ulei Higashi Kanahele" on Justia Law

In this foreclosure dispute, the Supreme Court held that Haw. Rev. Stat. 514B-146(n) provides a scheme for distributing rents following a lender's foreclosure against an association and that the Association of Apartment Owners of Elima Lani Condominiums (AOAO) may be entitled to all or some of the rent collected for Nationstar Mortgage, LLC in this case.AOAO foreclosed an a unit owned by Thomas and Sarah David for failure to pay common assessments. Thereafter, Nationstar filed a complaint for foreclosure of the Davids' unit, alleging that the Davids had defaulted on their mortgage. The circuit court entered summary judgment and a decree of foreclosure in favor of Nationstar after AOAO came into possession of the unit. Nearly eleven months later after the foreclosure sale of the unit, the circuit court confirmed the foreclosure sale. Before the Supreme Court was whether AOAO was entitled to rents that accrued from the unit during the period between summary judgment and the confirmation of sale. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's judgment to the extent it awarded post-foreclosure rents to Nationstar and remanded for a calculation of the amount AOAO was owed from post-foreclosure units, holding that AOAO may be entitled to all or some of the rent collected for Nationstar after summary judgment. View "Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Elima Lani Condominiums" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court overruled Maha-ulepu v. Land Use Commission, 790 P.2d 906 (1990), superseded by statute, 2005 Haw. Less. Laws Act 205, 2-3 at 669-71, which held that a use not permitted under Haw. Rev. Stat. 205-4.5(a)(6) could be authorized by special use permit, holding that it was incorrectly decided.At issue was Ho'omoana Foundation's proposed overnight campground development for unhoused and commercial campers on Class B land in an agricultural district in Maui could be authorized by special use permit or whether a district boundary amendment was required. The Supreme Court held (1) the specific exclusion of overnight camps from permitted uses in Haw. Rev. Stat. 205-4.5(a)(6) sets forth that the public and private recreation use of overnight camps is not permitted in Class A and B land in agricultural districts and cannot be permitted by special use permits; (2) Maha'ulepu is overruled; and (3) because the proposed campground project included a public or private recreational overnight camp use, the project required a district boundary amendment. View "Ho'omoana Foundation v. Land Use Comm'n" on Justia Law

In this foreclosure proceeding, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirming the circuit court's order granting Deutsche Bank's motion for summary judgment on its complaint to foreclose a mortgage, holding that Deutsche Bank did not establish that it had standing to foreclose.In 2006, Blaine Yata executed a note and mortgage to New Century Mortgage Corporation. The mortgage was later assigned to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-NC4 (Deutsche Bank). When Yata defaulted on the note, Deutsche Bank brought a complaint to foreclose on the mortgage. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Deutsche Bank. The ICA affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's judgment on appeal, holding (1) the ICA misapplied U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Verhagen, 489 P.3d at 419 (2021) in determining that Deutsche Bank's documents were admissible; and (2) even if the documents were admissible, they would not establish that Deutsche Bank had possession of the note when it filed the complaint. View "Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Yata" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered two questions of law certified by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Hawai'i concerning a putative class action alleging wrongful foreclosure.Specifically, the Court answered (1) an action alleging a wrongful nonjudicial foreclosure of land court property that seeks only damages against the foreclosing lender is not barred by the entry of a transfer certificate of title to a buyer at a foreclosure sale; and (2) the pendency of a putative class action tolls the time during which a class member may commence an individual action, and the time for commencing an individual action is tolled until a clear denial of class certification. View "Yanagi v. Bank of America" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirming the order of the circuit court granting summary judgment against Jonah Ke'eaumoku Kapu and in favor of Makila Land Co., LLC on Makila's paper title claim to real property in Maui and denying Kapu's claim for ownership of the property by adverse possession, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion.At issue before the Supreme Court was whether a letter from Kapu should have been liberally construed by the circuit court as a motion for reconsideration of the order granting summary judgment to Makila Land Co., LLC, an order that resulted in Kapu losing his home. The Supreme Court agreed with Kapu on appeal, holding (1) Kapu's pro se letter should have been liberally construed as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to the Supreme Court's policy to afford pro se litigants equal access to justice; and (2) the circuit court erred in failing to provide Kapu an opportunity to be heard on the merits of that motion. View "Makila Land Co., LLC v. Kapu" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that class action tolling applies to Haw. Rev. Stat. 46-72 and that a class action complaint may therefore satisfy the statue's notice requirement and that the availability of class action tolling turns on whether the class action provided the defendant notice of the subject matter and potential size of the litigation at issue.Plaintiff Hakim Ouansafi filed a putative class action lawsuit against the City and County of Honolulu alleging that Honolulu's failure to inspect and maintain its storm and drainage system caused him and other Honolulu residents to be injured by the April 2018 flood. Ouansafi then settled on an individual basis with Honolulu. The district court denied class certification, after which individuals affected by the 2018 flood brought twelve separate actions against Honolulu. At issue was whether the' suits were timely. The Supreme Court held that class action tolling applied to the individual suits because the Ouansafi complaint satisfied tolled the statute of limitations applicable to the individual suits. View "Coles v. City & County of Honolulu" on Justia Law