Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Malulani Group, Ltd. v. Kaupo Ranch, LTC., No. 30509 (Haw. App. May 5, 2014)
The Malulani Group, Ltd. v. Kaupo Ranch, LTC., No. 30509 (Haw. App. May 5, 2014)
INTHEINTERMEDIATECOURTOFAPPEALS
OFTHESTATEOFHAWAI'I
---o0o---
THEMALULANIGROUP,LIMITEDfkaMAGOONBROTHERS,LTD.,
aHawaiicorporation,Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KAUPORANCH,LTD.,aHawaiicorporation;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESOF
HAMOLEAKAMARIAHAMOLE;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESOFKALEIMOMI
PIIMAUNAAKAROBERTKALEIMOMIPIIMAUNA;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESOF
KAWAIAKAHI;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESOFIPOALOHAKALALANIAKAIPO
KEKIWI;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESORBENJAMINKEKIWIAKABENJAMIN
KAHALEKEKIWI;SAMK.KAAWAAKASAMSONK.KAAWA;MAUREENLISA
BULLER;JEFFREYLOUBULLER;JEROMEPIIMAUNA;JEFFREYNOHUA
PIIMAUNA;ANDREWPIIMAUNA;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESOFJOSEPHN.
PIIMAUNA,JR.,AKAJOSEPHNAHALEPIIMAUNA,JR.;WALTERHIU,JR.;
BEATRICEKAHUILACHERRY;PATRICKKAHUILA;YOLANDAY.MATAAKA
YOLANDAY.HAUKI;EDWINAL.HIU;CLARENCEK.T.HIU;NANCYMISAO
KAHUILABONDAKANANCYM.MCDANIEL;LINDAA.CLARK;HEIRSAND/OR
DEVISEESOFABELWAILANIHAI;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESOFADAMSCOTT
HAI,SR.;AGNESKANALULUSMITH;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESOFJOHNE.
KAMAI;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESOFPALAONEA;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEES
OFJOSHUAAHULII;LUCINDAPUPUHI;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESOF
KAMAKALOHI;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESOFPUPUHI;HEIRSAND/OR
DEVISEESOFHOLI;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESOFA.KAWEAAKAANEKAWEA
andasANEKAULAINAMOKU;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESOFWAHINEAEA
andJOHNDOES1-100;JANEDOES1-100;DOEPARTNERSHIPS1-100;
DOECORPORATIONS1-100;DOEENTITIES1-100and
DOEGOVERNMENTALUNITS1-100,Defendants-Appellees.
NO.30509
APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTOFTHESECONDCIRCUIT
(CIVILNO.08-1-0501(3))
MAY5,2014
FUJISE,PRESIDINGJUDGE,LEONARDandGINOZA,JJ.
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
OPINIONOFTHECOURTBYGINOZA,J.
Plaintiff-AppellantTheMalulaniGroup,Limited,fka
MagoonBrothers,Ltd.,(Malulani)filedthisdeclaratoryaction
allegingthatitownspropertyinKaupo,Hana,Maui(Malulani
Parcel)andseekingtoestablishimpliedaccessandutility
easementsacrossadjacentproperty(KaupoParcel)inwhich
Defendant-AppelleeKaupoRanch,Ltd.(KaupoRanch)hasan
interest. Malulani'sFirstAmendedComplaintassertsthree
claims:(1)anaccesseasementimpliedbynecessity;(2)an
accesseasementimpliedbyprioruse;and(3)autilities
easementaspartofanaccesseasement.
TheCircuitCourtoftheSecondCircuit(circuit
1
court) grantedsummaryjudgmentforKaupoRanchonallof
Malulani'sclaimsandgrantedcoststoKaupoRanch. OnApril16,
2010,thecircuitcourtenteredaFinalJudgmentandDecree
(FinalJudgment)againstMalulani,fromwhichMalulaniappeals.
Forthereasonsdiscussedbelow,wevacatetheFinal
Judgmententeredbythecircuitcourtandremandforfurther
proceedings.
I. Background
TheMalulaniParcelconsistsofapproximately20.2
acresthatMalulaniassertsiswhollysurroundedandlandlocked
bytheKaupoParcel,whichinturnconsistsofapproximately118
acres. MalulanifurthercontendsthatrecordsintheBureauof
Conveyancescontainnoaccessorutilitieseasementsbetweenthe
MalulaniParcelandtheclosestgovernmentroad,Pi'ilani
Highway. However,MalulaniassertsthattheMalulaniParceland
theKaupoParcelwereinitiallyownedbytheKingdomofHawai'i,
thateachparcelwasconveyedbyrespectivelandgrantsinthe
1850s,andthatacontinuousandapparenteasementforaccess
betweentheMalulaniParcelandPi'ilaniHighwayexistsoverthe
KaupoParcel. Malulanithusclaimsanimpliedeasementoverthe
KaupoParcelinfavoroftheMalulaniParcelforaccessto
1
TheHonorableJosephE.Cardozapresided.
2
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
Pi'ilaniHighway. Malulanifurtherclaimsthatsuchaneasement
createsageneralright-of-wayforallreasonablepurposes,
includingutilityeasements.
ThecircuitcourtresolvedallofMalulani'sclaimsby
grantingsummaryjudgmentforKaupoRanch. Theprimarybasisfor
thecircuitcourt'srulingwasthattheKingdomofHawaii's
originalownershipofboththeMalulaniParcelandtheKaupo
Parcelcouldnot,asamatteroflaw,satisfythe"unityof
ownership"requirementforimplyinganeasement. Additionally,
thecircuitcourtconcludedthatMalulani'sclaimswerebarredby
thestatuteoflimitationssetforthinHawaiiRevisedStatutes
(HRS)657-31(1993).
Initspointsoferrorraisedonappeal,Malulani
contendsthatthecircuitcourterredby:1)grantingsummary
judgmenttoKaupoRanchbasedonthecourt'sconclusionthatthe
KingdomofHawaii'scommoninitialownershipoftheproperties
couldnot,asamatteroflaw,satisfytheunityofownership
requirementfortheimpliedeasementclaims;2)concludingthat
theutilityeasementclaimfailsasamatteroflawbecauseit
derivesfromMalulani'simpliedeasementclaims;3)concluding
thatKaupoRanchwasentitledtosummaryjudgmentonthe
additionalbasisthatthestatuteoflimitationsinHRS657-31
barredMalulani'sclaims;4)findingthatKaupoRanchisthe
currentownerofanundividedinterestintheKaupoParcel;
5)enteringtheApril16,2010FinalJudgment;and6)awarding
coststoKaupoRanch.
Weholdthat,underthecircumstancesofthiscase,the
KingdomofHawaii'spriorownershipofboththeMalulaniParcel
andtheKaupoParcelsatisfiestheunityofownershiprequirement
foranimpliedeasementclaim. Further,weholdthatthestatute
oflimitationssetforthinHRS657-31doesnotapplytoan
impliedeasementclaimandthusdoesnotbartheclaimsinthis
case. SummaryjudgmentandthecostsawardedinfavorofKaupo
Ranchwerenotwarranted,andthecaseisremanded.
3
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
II. StandardsofReview
A.SummaryJudgment
"Onappeal,thegrantordenialofsummaryjudgmentis
revieweddenovo." FirstIns.Co.ofHawai'iv.A&B
Props.,Inc.,126Hawai'i406,413,271P.3d1165,1172
(2012)(citingNuuanuValleyAss'nv.City&Cnty.of
Honolulu,119Hawai'i90,96,194P.3d531,537(2008)).
Furthermore,
[S]ummaryjudgmentisappropriateifthepleadings,
depositions,answerstointerrogatoriesandadmissions
onfile,togetherwiththeaffidavits,ifany,show
thatthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfact
andthatthemovingpartyisentitledtojudgmentasa
matteroflaw. Afactismaterialifproofofthat
factwouldhavetheeffectofestablishingorrefuting
oneoftheessentialelementsofacauseofactionor
defenseassertedbytheparties. Theevidencemustbe
viewedinthelightmostfavorabletothenon-moving
party. Inotherwords,wemustviewallofthe
evidenceandinferencesdrawntherefrominthelight
mostfavorabletothepartyopposingthemotion.
Id.at41314,271P.3dat117273(citationomitted).
Ralstonv.Yim,129Hawai'i46,55-56,292P.3d1276,1285-86
(2013).
B. AwardofCosts
Wereviewanawardofcostsundertheabuseof
discretionstandard.Pulawav.GTEHawaiianTel.,112Hawai'i3,
10-11,143P.3d1205,1212-13(2006).
III.Discussion
A. ImpliedEasements
1. RequirementsUnderHawai'iLaw
Hawai'icourtshavelongrecognizedtheprinciplethat
easementscanbeimplied,dependingonthecircumstancesofthe
case. SeeAOAOofWaileaEluav.WaileaResortCo.,100Hawai'i
97,100,105-07,58P.3d608,611,616-18(2002)(holdingthatan
impliedeasementexistedforadrainagesystem);Nearyv.Martin,
57Haw.577,582-83,561P.2d1281,1284-85(1977)(holdingthere
wasnoimpliedeasementforaccesswherethetrialcourtfound
thatthepartiestotheconveyanceseveringthesubject
propertiesintendedtheconveyancetobefreeandclearofthe
allegedeasement);Tanakav.Mitsunaga,43Haw.119,124-25(Haw.
Terr.1959)(holdingtherewasnoimpliedeasementforarightof
4
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
waywherethetrialcourtfindingssupportedtheconclusionthat
thepriorownerofbothparcelsdidnotintendtoconveyan
easement);Stibbardv.Rego,38Haw.84,94(Haw.Terr.1948)
(holdingtherewasanimpliedeasementforuseofadriveway
wherethepreviousownerofthesubjectpropertieshadconveyed
parcelstoherchildrencontainingthedrivewayandhadcontinued
usingthedrivewaythereaftertoaccessaretainedparcel);
Kalaukoav.Keawe,9Haw.191,194(Haw.Prov.Gov.1893)
(recognizinga"wayofnecessity"createdbyimpliedgrantand
holdingthatthewidthofthewaywasthesameaswasusedfor
manyyearspriortotheconveyancethatimpliedlygrantedthe
way);HenmiApartments,Inc.v.Sawyer,3Haw.App.555,559-61,
655P.2d881,885-86(1982)(recognizingimpliedeasementsfor
pedestrianandutilitypurposes).
Akeyrequirementtoimplyaneasementisthatthere
musthavebeenaprior"unityofownership"ofthedominantand
servientproperties. TheHawai'iSupremeCourthasconsistently
reliedonthefollowingquotefrom3PowellonRealProperty
411,toexplainthetheoryunderlyinganimpliedeasement.
Allimplicationsofeasementsnecessarilyinvolvean
originalunityofownershipoftheparcelswhichlater
becomethedominantandservientparcels. WhenAowns
Blackacre,itisnotpossibleforAastheownerofthewest
halfofBlackacretohaveatrueeasementwithrespectto
theeasthalfofBlackacre;butitisbothpossibleand
frequenttofindAusingtheeasthalfofBlackacreforthe
serviceofthewesthalfofBlackacre,asforexample,when
theeasthalfofBlackacrecontainsdrains,orsewers,or
irrigationditches,orroadwaysorstairwayswhichincrease
theusabilityofthewesthalfofBlackacre. Itisthen
possibletodescribeA'sutilizationofonepartof
Blackacrefortheserviceofanotherpartthereofasa
quasi-easement,andtospeakoftheservedpartasthe
quasi-dominanttenement,andoftheburdenedpartasthe
quasi-servienttenement.
Wheresuchaquasi-easementhasexistedandthecommonowner
thereafterconveystoanotherthequasi-dominanttenement,
theconveyeeisinapositiontoclaimaneasementby
implicationwithrespecttotheunconveyedquasi-servient
tenement.
AOAOofWaileaElua,100Hawai'iat105-06,58P.3dat616-17
(emphasisadded)(quotingNeary,57Haw.at580,561P.2dat
1283);Tanaka,43Haw.at122-23;seealso25Am.Jur.2nd
EasementsandLicenses19(2004)("Animpliedeasementnormally
5
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
arisesonlywhenthelandonwhichtheeasementissoughtwas
oncepartofthesameparcelthatisnowlandlocked.");JonW.
Bruce&JamesW.Ely,Jr.,TheLawofEasementsandLicensesin
Land4:7(2014);28AC.J.S.Easements112(2008)("Waysof
necessitycannotexistwheretherewasneveranyunityof
ownershipoftheallegeddominantandservientestates.");
4RichardR.Powell,PowellonRealProperty34.07[2],at34-49
(MichaelAllenWolf,ed.2013)(notingthatalthoughthereare
differenttheoriesforanimpliedeasement,"anoriginalunityof
ownershipofthedominantandservientparcelsmustbepleaded
andproved").
2
Iftherewaspriorunityofownershipofthe
properties,Hawai'icourtsthenfocusontheintentofthe
partiesatthetimethepropertieswereseveredtodetermineif
animpliedeasementexists. "Whetheranimpliedeasementexists
dependsontheintentofthepartiesasshownbyallthefacts
andcircumstancesunderwhichtheconveyancewasmade." Henmi,
3Haw.App.at559,655P.2dat885;seealsoAOAOofWailea
Elua,100Hawai'iat106,58P.3dat617("Theprimaryfactorin
determiningwhether...thegrantor[]retainedanimplied
easement...istheparties'intentatthetime[of
severance.]");Tanaka,43Haw.at123("[T]hebasisofanimplied
easementisthepresumptionofgrantarisingfromthe
2
AlthoughHawai'icourtshavenotexplicitlydiscussedthepublic
policybehindimplyinganeasement,Kelloggv.Garcia,125Cal.Rptr.2d817
(Cal.Ct.App.2002)providesagoodexplanationthatisconsistentwith
Hawai'ilawandwhichunderscoreswhyapreviousunityofownershipisa
requirement:
Awayofnecessityisofcommon-laworiginandissupportedbytherule
ofsoundpublicpolicythatlandsshouldnotberenderedunfitfor
occupancyorsuccessfulcultivation. Suchawayistheresultofthe
applicationofthepresumptionthatwheneverapartyconveysproperty,
heconveyswhateverisnecessaryforthebeneficialuseofthatproperty
andretainswhateverisnecessaryforthebeneficialuseoflandhe
stillpossesses. Thus,thelegalbasisofawayofnecessityisthe
presumptionofagrantarisingfromthecircumstancesofthecase. This
presumptionofagrant,however,isoneoffact,andwhetheragrant
shouldbeimplieddependsuponthetermsofthedeedandthefactsin
eachparticularcase.
Id.at823(emphasisinoriginal,citationsandinternalquotationmarks
omitted).
6
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
circumstancesofthecase. Suchpresumptionisoneoffact,
whichmayberebutted.");Kalaukoa,9Haw.at192-93("The
questionastowhatisgrantedorreservedisaquestionof
intentiontobeshownbycompetentevidence....Inthecaseof
animpliedgrantitisprovedbyallthecircumstancesofthe
case,andespeciallybytheconditionofthepropertyatthetime
ofconveyance.").
AsfurtherexplainedinAOAOofWaileaElua,
[t]hreefactorsareoftenusedasameansofindicating
intent. Itisoftensaidthat,inorderforapreviously
existingquasi-easementtoripenintoanimpliedeasement,
thequasi-easementmusthavebeen:(1)apparent;
(2)permanent;and(3)either(a)"importantforthe
enjoymentoftheconveyedquasi-dominantparcel,"or
(b)"strictlynecessary"fortheenjoymentofthedominant
parcel....[A]lthoughthethreeabove-mentionedgeneral
"requirements"forthecreationofanimpliedeasementwill
ordinarilyconstitutethe"test"bywhichcourtsshould
ascertainthepresenceofanimpliedeasement,theyarebut
onemethodofascertaining"thepresumptionofgrantarising
fromthecircumstancesofthecase,"Tanaka,43Haw.at123,
or"theintentofthepartiesasshownbyallthefactsand
circumstancesunderwhichtheconveyancewasmade,"Henmi,3
Haw.App.at559,655P.2dat885.
100Hawai'iat106n.8,58P.3dat617n.8(originalbrackets
omitted).
Therearethusavarietyofissuesinvolvedinwhether
animpliedeasementexists. Inlightofthecircuitcourt's
summaryjudgmentruling,thisappealreachesonlythe"unityof
ownership"requirement.
3
Eveniftheunityofownership
3
Malulani'sFirstAmendedComplaintclaimsaccesseasements"implied
bynecessity"and"impliedbyprioruse." BasedonMalulani'sdescriptionof
thesetwoclaimsintheFirstAmendedComplaint,theonlydifferenceappears
tobewithregardtothethird"test"forintentdescribedinAOAOofWailea
Elua--thatis,whetherthepreviouslyexistingquasi-easementwas"strictly
necessary"orrather,"importantfortheenjoymentoftheconveyedquasi-
dominantparcel." 100Hawai'iat106n.8,58p.3dat617n.8. Hawaii's
appellatecourtshavedeclinedtodeterminewhetheronlya"strictly
necessary"easementcanbeimplied,orwhetheraneasementcanbeimplied
merelywhenitis"importantfortheenjoymentoftheconveyedquasi-dominant
parcel,"astheseconceptssimplyreflectamethodofascertaining"theintent
ofthepartiesasshownbyallthefactsandcircumstancesunderwhichthe
conveyancewasmade[.]" Id.(citationandinternalquotationmarksomitted).
Thisissuewasnotraisedinthesummaryjudgmentmotionoraddressedbythe
circuitcourt,andthusitisnotbeforeusinthisappeal.
Likewise,thisappealdoesnotaddressMalulani'sclaiminits
FirstAmendedComplaintthatanimpliedaccesseasementwouldcreateageneral
(continued...)
7
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
requirementismet,theotherrequirementsmustalsobemet.
"Whether[animpliedeasement]claimwillbeeffectivedepends
uponthesatisfactionofcertaintestsestablishedbythecases."
Tanaka,43Haw.at123(quoting3PowellonRealProperty411);
Neary,57Haw.at580,561P.2dat1283.
2. UnityofOwnershipbyaGovernmentalEntity
Thisappealpresentsanissueoffirstimpressionin
Hawai'i,whethertheKingdomofHawaii'spreviousownershipofthe
subjectpropertiescansatisfytheunityofownershiprequirement
foranimpliedeasementclaim. Underthecircumstancesofthis
case,weconcludethatitcan.
ItisundisputedbetweenMalulaniandKaupoRanch,and
theevidenceintherecordestablishes,
4
thattheKingdomof
Hawai'ipreviouslyhadunifiedownershipoftheMalulaniParcel
andtheKaupoParcel. Theundisputedevidenceshowsthattitle
totheMalulaniParceloriginallyderivesfromRoyalPatent
No.2340issuedinFebruary1857,inwhichtheKingdomofHawai'i
grantedfeesimpletitletoT.C.Wilmingtonfor$20.25. The
evidencealsoshowsthattitletotheKaupoParceloriginally
derivesfromanotherlandgranttwoyearslater,RoyalPatent
No.2577issuedinMay1859,inwhichtheKingdomofHawai'i
3
(...continued)
right-of-wayforallreasonablepurposes,includingeasementsforutility
lines. Thepartiesdidnotlitigatethescopeofanyclaimedeasementandthe
circuitcourtdidnotruleonanysuchissue. Rather,thecircuitcourt
grantedsummaryjudgmentforKaupoRanchonallofMalulani'seasementclaims
basedontheunityofownershiprequirement,aswellasonstatuteof
limitationsgrounds.
4
Wenotethatthecircuitcourtmadecertain"findingsoffact"as
partofitsJanuary4,2010ordergrantingsummaryjudgmenttoKaupoRanch.
However,becausethecircuitcourtwasaddressingasummaryjudgmentmotion,
anddidnotholdanytypeofevidentiaryhearing,weapplytheusualsummary
judgmentprinciplesandarenotboundbythecircuitcourt'sfindings,
regardlessofwhetherthosefindingsarechallengedonappealornot. Thus,
interalia,wereviewthecircuitcourt'ssummaryjudgmentrulingdenovo,
considerwhetherthereareanygenuineissuesofmaterialfact,andalsoview
theevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothenon-movingparty. See
Ralston,129Hawai'iat55-56,292P.3dat1285-86;Hawai'iRulesofCivil
ProcedureRule56. "[I]nreviewingsummaryjudgmentdecisions,anappellate
courtstepsintotheshoesofthetrialcourtandappliesthesamelegal
standardasthetrialcourtapplied." KogaEng'g&Const.Inc.v.State,122
Hawai'i60,78,222P.3d979,997(2010)(citationsandoriginalbrackets
omitted).
8
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
grantedfeesimpletitletoPali_Ohule_WahapuuandNahaCharlotte
Harbottlefor$118. Forpurposesoftheimpliedeasementclaims
inthiscase,wefocusonthe1857conveyance,atwhichpointthe
propertiesweresevered.
Generally,thereisasplitofauthoritywhetherthe
"unityofownership"elementforimplyinganeasementcanbe
satisfiedbypriorgovernmentownership. SeeBruce&Ely,supra,
4:7,at4-21to-22("Controversyexistsastowhether
governmentalownershipofbothtractsmayfulfilltheunity-of-
titlestandard.");4Powell,supra34.07[4],at34-59("Special
problemsconcerningeasementsbynecessityareencounteredwhere
theonlyunityoftitlewastheoriginalownershipbythe
government.").
Somecourtshaveheldthataneasementcannotbe
impliedwhentheonlyunityofownershipwasheldbythe
government. SeeUnitedStatesv.Rindge,208F.611,619(S.D.
Cal1913);BullyHillCopperMining&SmeltingCo.v.Bruson,87
P.237,238(Cal.Dist.Ct.App.1906);Guessv.Azar,57So.2d
443,445(Fla.1952);Backmanv.Lawrence,210P.3d75,80(Idaho
2009);Cont'lEnters.,Inc.v.Cain,296N.E.2d170,171(Ind.
Ct.App.1973);Thomasv.Morgan,240P.735,737(Okla.1925),
overruledinpartonothergroundsbyPearsonv.Hasty,137P.2d
545(Okla.1943);Pearnev.CoalCreekMining&Mfg.Co.,18S.W.
402,404(Tenn.1891).
Anumberofthesecasesareofoldervintageand
providelittleexplanationfortheadoptedposition. SeeBully
Hill,87P.237;Thomas,240P.735;Pearne,18S.W.402. In
Rindge,thecourtexpressedaconcernaboutthepotentialbreadth
ofimplyingeasementsbasedoncommonownershipgoingbacktothe
government. 208F.at619. Morerecently,inBackman,theIdaho
SupremeCourtendorsedasimilarviewthat
[i]twouldberuinoustoestablishtheprecedentcontended
for,sincebyiteverygranteefromtheearliesthistoryof
theState,andthosewhosucceedtohistitle,wouldhavean
impliedrightofwayoverallsurroundingandadjacentlands
heldunderjuniorgrants,eventotheutmostlimitsofthe
State.
9
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
210P.3dat80(quotingGuess,57So.2dat444-45). TheBackman
courtrejectedtheargumentthatimpliedrightswouldbelimited
bytherequirementofnecessity,discountingtheargumentby
simplystating"therewouldbelittlereasontohaveaunityof
titleelementifitcouldbesatisfiedbycommonownershipinthe
UnitedStates." Id.
Themoderntrend,however,appearstotakeadifferent
view,recognizingthatpriorownershipbythegovernmentcan
servetomeettheunityofownershiprequirement,particularly
whenaneasementbynecessityisimpliedagainstthegovernmental
entityoroverlandwhichwasheldbythegovernmentatthetime
thepropertiesweresevered. SeeMcFarlandv.Kempthorne,545
F.3d1106,1111(9thCir.2008);Kinscherffv.UnitedStates,586
F.2d159,161(10thCir.1978);UnitedStatesv.Dunn,478F.2d
443,444n.2(9thCir.1973);Fitzgeraldv.UnitedStates,932F.
Supp.1195,1202(D.Ariz.1996);Mont.WildernessAss'nv.U.S.
ForestServ.,496F.Supp.880,885-86(D.Mont.1980);Kellogg
v.Garcia,125Cal.Rptr.2d817,826(Cal.Ct.App.2002);
Mooresv.Walsh,45Cal.Rptr.2d389,391(Cal.Ct.App.1995).
5
OneoftheprimarycasesthatMalulanireliesuponis
Kellogg,whereasKaupoRanchcontendsthatKellogghaslimited
valueandshouldhavenoapplicationtothiscase. InKellogg,
theKelloggsfiledaquiettitleactionclaiminginteraliaan
impliedeasementforaccessoverneighboringpropertyownedby
theGarcias. 125Cal.Rptr.2dat820-21. Thefederal
governmenthadoriginallyheldunityofownership,butin1878
conveyedthepropertythattheKelloggseventuallycametoown
andretainedthepropertythattheGarciaseventuallycameto
own. Id. Atthetimeofseverance,theconveyedpropertywas
surroundedbythepropertyretainedbythefederalgovernment.
Id.at820. ThetrialcourtreliedonBullyHillandruledthat
5
TheRestatement(Third)ofProperty2.15cmt.c(2000)statesthat
"[s]ervitudesbynecessityariseonconveyancesbygovernmentalbodiesaswell
asbyothergrantors." SeealsoKitrasv.TownofAcquinnah,833N.E.2d157,
164n.5(Mass.App.Ct.2005)(adoptingtheRestatement'sapproachandstating
"[t]hereappearsnocompellingmodernreasonheretodistinguishbetween
governmentalandprivategrantors,andweadopttheRestatement'sapproach").
10
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
theunityofownershiprequirementhadnotbeenmetbecausethe
originalownerofthepropertieswasthefederalgovernment. 125
Cal.Rptr.2dat824.
OnappealinKellogg,theCaliforniaCourtofAppeal,
ThirdDistrict,reversedandheldthatunityofownershipcould
beestablishedbythefederalgovernment'spriorownershipofthe
properties. 125Cal.Rptr.2dat825-26,829. Thecourtnoted
thatBullyHillwas"inconflictwiththecurrenttrendinthe
law"aswellasthethen-recentdecisioninMoores,whichhad
beendecidedbyanotherCaliforniaappellatecourt,the
CaliforniaCourtofAppeal,FirstDistrict.
6
Id.at825. The
Kelloggcourtfurtherpointedtocommentatorswhohadexpressed
theviewthatallowinggovernmentownershiptosatisfytheunity
ofownershiprequirementisconsistentwithunderlyingtheories
forthe"easement-of-necessityconcept." Id.at825-26. That
is,"[i]tfurthersthepublicpolicyofpromotingproductiveuse
oflandandalsoisinharmonywiththepresumptionthatthe
partiesintendedtograntortoreserveaneasementtobenefit
thelandlockedparcel." Id.(citingtoBruce&Ely,TheLawof
EasementsandLicensesinLand4:7(2001);4PowellonReal
Property34.07[4](2001);Tiffany,TheLawofRealProperty
793(3ded.1939)).
7
KaupoRancharguesthatKelloggisunderminedbyMurphy
v.Burch,205P.3d289(Cal.2009),alaterdecisionbythe
CaliforniaSupremeCourt,andthatMalulani'srelianceonKellogg
6
InMoores,thepropertiesinvolvedwereoncejointlyownedbythe
federalgovernment. 45Cal.Rptr.2dat390. TheCaliforniaCourtofAppeal,
FirstDistrict,rejectedtheargumentthat"commonownershipmustbebyother
thanthefederalgovernment"tosatisfytheunityofownershiprequirementand
insteadrecognizedthat"[a]neasementbynecessitymayexistacrosslands
ownedbythefederalgovernment." Id.at391n.1. Thecourtultimatelyheld,
however,thattheclaimedeasementbynecessity,foraccesstothelandlocked
parcel,hadbeenextinguishedbecausethenecessityrequirementcouldno
longerbemet. Id.at391-92.
Asnotedearlier,andsimilartoHawai'icaselaw,Kelloggalso
recognizesthatthepresumptionofagrant"isoneoffact,andwhethera
grantshouldbeimplieddependsuponthetermsofthedeedandthefactsin
eachparticularcase." 125Cal.Rptr.2dat823(emphasis,citationsand
internalquotationmarkomitted).
11
7
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
ismisplaced. WedisagreewithKaupoRanch. Rather,asMalulani
contends,Murphydoesnotestablishabrightlinerulethat
governmentownershipcanneversatisfytheunityofownership
requirement. Moreover,andimportantly,Murphydistinguished
Kelloggbasedonthedifferingcircumstancesinthosecases.
ThiscaseissimilartoKellogg.
InMurphy,theplaintiffMurphyandthedefendants
Burchessoughttoquiettitleastowhetheranimpliedeasement
existedovertheBurches'propertytobenefitMurphy'sproperty.
205P.3dat291. Bothpropertieswereoriginallyownedbythe
federalgovernment. Whenthefederalgovernmentseveredthe
properties,itconveyedthequasi-servientparcel(thatthe
Burcheseventuallyowned)tovariousprivateowners,andretained
thequasi-dominantparcel(thatMurphyeventuallyowned). Id.at
292. Becausetherewasnoexpresseasementovertheconveyed
quasi-servientparcel,thequestioninMurphywaswhetherthe
federalgovernmenthadimpliedlyreservedanaccesseasementby
necessityoverthequasi-servientparcelithadconveyed. Id.
TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtnotedthat"[i]ncontrast
toprivatepartyconveyances,...conveyancesinvolvinga
sovereignasthecommonownertypicallydonotgiveriseto
impliedreservationsofeasementsorotherpropertyinterestsin
conveyedland." Murphy,205P.3dat294(italicsinoriginal,
underlineemphasisadded). Thecourtexplainedthatthe
considerationsforthisresultincludethat"anumberofcourts
expressreluctancetointerferewiththecertaintyand
predictabilityoflandtitlesconferredbyasovereignwithout
anyexpressreservationofrights[;]"that"somecourtswarnthat
thecommon-ownershiprequirementwouldbemeaninglessunless
strongershowingsarerequiredforimplyinganeasementby
necessityincasestracingbackto[government]patents[;]"and
that"somecourtsrecognizethatstrictnecessitydoesnotexist
inthecaseofthesovereignasinthecaseoftheprivate
landowner,becausethesovereigncanexercisethepowerof
12
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
eminentdomaintoobtainanyandallreasonablerights-of-way."
Id.
TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtthusadoptedthefollowing
approach:
[A]lthoughweneednotanddonotpresentlyimposea
categoricalbartoalleasement-by-necessityclaimstracing
commonownershiptothefederalgovernment,weholdthatthe
specialconsiderationsabovemustinformthedetermination
whethersuchaneasementarisesbyimplication. Thismeans
that,consistentwithexistingCaliforniacommonlaw,an
easementbynecessitymayarisebyimplicationbasedonthe
inferredintentofthepartiestothepropertyconveyance,
asdeterminedfromthetermsoftherelevantinstrumentand
thecircumstancessurroundingthetransaction. Strict
necessityandcommonownershipremainrequiredshowings,but
whenaclaimanttracescommonownershipbacktothefederal
governmentandseekstoestablishanimpliedreservationof
anaccessright-of-way,theintentofCongressisparamount
andthegovernment'spowerofeminentdomainalsobears
significance. Giventheuniquehistoricalandlegalnature
oflandpatents,extremecautionmustbeexercisedin
determiningwhetherthecircumstancessurroundinga
governmentlandgrantaresufficienttoovercomethe
inferencepromptedbytheomissionofanexpressreference
toareservedrightofaccess. Insuchcases,theeasement
claimantbearstheburdenofproducingevidenceonthe
issuesregardingthegovernment'sintenttoreservean
easementandthegovernment'slackofpowertocondemn.
Id.at295-96(emphasisadded,internalcitationsomitted).
UnderMurphy,therefore,unityofownershipbythegovernment
doesnotpersebarthepossibilityofanimpliedeasement,but
specialconsiderationsapplytoestablishanimpliedreservation
ofaneasementbythegovernment.
Significantly,theMurphycourtaddressedKelloggand
distinguishedit,stating:
Unlikethesituationhere,Kellogg...didnot
concernaclaimofanimpliedreservation. Rather,the
plaintiffsinKelloggsoughttoestablishthatwhenthe
federalgovernmentmadeagrantoflandlockedproperty,the
governmentalsoimpliedlygrantedarightofaccessforthat
propertyoverthelanditretained. Becauseexerciseofthe
government'spowerofeminentdomaincouldhavehadno
effectonaccesstotheconveyedlandlockedproperty,itis
hardlysurprisingthatKelloggmadenoattemptto
distinguishtheauthoritiesholdingthatsuchpowernegates
theelementofstrictnecessitywhenanimpliedreservation
claimisatissue. Asonetreatiseobserves,wherethe
governmentisidentifiedasthecommongrantor,"aneasement
ofnecessitymaybecreatedagainstthegovernment,butthe
governmentagencycannotestablishaneasementbynecessity
overlandithasconveyedbecauseitspowerofeminent
domainremovesthestrictnecessityrequiredforthe
creationofaneasementbynecessity."
13
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
205P.3dat297(italicsinoriginal,underlineemphasisadded,
internalcitationsomitted). Thus,Murphydidnotoverrulenor
callintoquestiontheholdingsinKelloggorMoores. Rather,
MurphyrecognizedthatKelloggaddressedadifferent
circumstance,i.e.inKellogg,atthetimeofseverance,the
governmenthadconveyedthequasi-dominantparcelwhichwould
benefitfromtheclaimedeasement,whileretainingthequasi-
servientparceloverwhichtheeasementwastobeimplied,and
thusthegovernment'seminentdomainpowerswereirrelevantand
thequestionwaswhethertherewasanimpliedgrantofan
easementbythefederalgovernment.
TheinstantcasebetweenMalulaniandKaupoRanchis
similartoKellogg. TheKingdomofHawai'ihadoriginalunified
ownershipofboththeMalulaniParcelandtheKaupoParcel. The
parcelswereseveredinFebruary1857,whentheKingdomof
Hawai'iconveyedtheMalulaniParceltoT.C.Wilmingtonunder
RoyalPatentNo.2340andretainedtheKaupoParcel,which
allegedlysurroundedtheMalulaniParcel. Thus,atthetimethe
propertiesweresevered,theKingdomofHawai'iconveyedthe
quasi-dominantpropertywhichwouldbenefitfromtheclaimed
easementandretainedthequasi-servientpropertyoverwhichthe
easementisclaimed. Theultimatequestiontheniswhetherit
canbeimpliedthattheKingdomofHawai'iintendedtograntan
easementinfavoroftheconveyedpropertyovertheKingdom's
retainedproperty. Inthiscircumstance,anyeminentdomain
powersheldbytheKingdomofHawai'iwouldnotaffectthe
"necessity"requirementbecausetheprivatepartygrantee,and
nottheKingdomofHawai'i,wasallegedlyinneedoftheeasement
atthetimeofseverance.
Weconcludethatthemoderntrendismostconsistent
withHawai'ilaw. Therefore,weholdthatthe"unityof
ownership"requirementforimplyinganeasementcanbesatisfied
bypriorgovernmentownershipoftheparcelswhenthequestionis
whetherthegovernmentimpliedlygrantedaneasement,i.e.atthe
timeofseverance,thegovernmentconveyedthequasi-dominant
14
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
parcelwhichwouldbenefitfromtheclaimedeasementandretained
thequasi-servientparceloverwhichtheimpliedeasementis
claimed.
8
Becausethiscaseinvolvesthequestionwhetherthe
KingdomofHawai'iimpliedlygrantedanaccesseasementoverthe
KaupoParcelthatitretainedatthetimeofseverance,the
circuitcourterredingrantingsummaryjudgmentforKaupoRanch
basedonitsviewthattheKingdomofHawaii'spriorownership
couldnot,asamatteroflaw,satisfytheunityofownership
requirement.
Thecircuitcourtalsograntedsummaryjudgmenton
Malulani'sutilityeasementclaimasaconsequenceofitsruling
ontheunityofownershipissue. Onthatbasis,summaryjudgment
wasnotwarranted.
Havingaddressedtheunityofownershipissue,it
remainstobeseenwhether,onremand,theotherrequirementsfor
theclaimedimpliedeasementscanbemet.
9
B. StatuteofLimitations
KaupoRanchalsobaseditssummaryjudgmentmotionon
theassertionthatMalulani'sclaimswerebarredbythestatute
oflimitationsinHRS657-31. Malulanididnotopposethis
partofthemotioninitsoppositionmemorandum,butdidargueat
thesummaryjudgmenthearingthatthestatuteoflimitationsdid
notapplytotheclaimsassertedinthiscase. Thecircuitcourt
appearstohaveruledthat,becauseMalulanididnotopposethe
statuteoflimitationsargumentinitsoppositionmemorandum,
8
WedonotreachtheissueaddressedinMurphy,whethergovernment
ownershipcansatisfythe"unityofownership"requirementwhentheclaimis
thatthegovernmentimpliedlyreservedaneasement,i.e.atthetimeof
severancethegovernmentconveyedthequasi-servientparceloverwhichan
impliedeasementisclaimedandretainedthequasi-dominantparcelwhichwould
benefitfromtheclaimedeasement.
9
Itappearsfromtherecordthat,inopposingKaupoRanch'smotionfor
summaryjudgment,Malulanifiledacombinedoppositionandcross-motionfor
summaryjudgment. Onappeal,Malulanirequestsnotonlythatsummaryjudgment
forKaupoRanchbevacated,butalsothatthiscourtgrantsummaryjudgmentin
favorofMalulani. Malulani'scross-motionforsummaryjudgmentwasnot
expresslyadjudicatedbythecircuitcourt,butinanyeventtherecordat
thisjuncturedoesnotcontainevidencetosupportsummaryjudgmentfor
Malulanigiventhefurtherrequirementsforanimpliedeasement.
15
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
summaryjudgmentwasalsoproperbasedonthestatuteof
limitationsinHRS657-31.
10
Malulanichallengesthisruling
andweconcludetherulingwasinerror.
Malulani'sfailuretoopposethestatuteoflimitations
argumentinitsoppositionmemorandumwasnotfatalinthiscase.
Malulanididargueatthehearingthatthestatuteoflimitations
didnotapply. Moreover,asthesummaryjudgmentmovant,Kaupo
Ranchhadtheinitialburdentoestablishthat
nogenuineissueofmaterialfactexist[ed]withrespectto
theessentialelementsoftheclaimandthat,basedonthe
undisputedfacts,[itwas]entitledtojudgmentasamatter
oflaw. Onlyoncethemovingpartyhassatisfiedits
initialburdenofproductiondoestheburdenshifttothe
non-movingpartytoshowspecificfactsthatpresenta
genuineissuefortrial.
Gurrobatv.HTHCorp.,SCAP-12-0000764,2014WL714693,at*12
(Haw.Feb.25,2014)(emphasisadded,internalcitationomitted)
(citingFirstIns.Co.ofHawai'iv.Sariaslani,80Hawai'i491,
493,911P.2d126,128(App.1996)). Here,KaupoRanchdidnot
carryitsinitialburdentoshowthatitwasentitledtosummary
judgmentasamatteroflawonstatuteoflimitationsgrounds.
Indeed,asarguedbyMalulaniatthehearing,thestatuteof
limitationsinHRS657-31doesnotapplytotheimplied
easementclaimsassertedinthiscase.
HRS657-31providesthat"[n]opersonshallcommence
anactiontorecoverpossessionofanylands,ormakeanyentry
thereon,unlesswithintwentyyearsaftertherighttobringthe
actionfirstaccrued." (Emphasisadded). "Aneasementisa
10
Thecircuitcourt'srelevantconclusionoflawstates:
3. TheCourtconcludesthatunderthecircumstances
presentedbythiscaseandtheundisputedfactsnotedabove
and,notwithstandingMalulani'scounsel'sargumentsmadeon
therecordatthehearingonDecember16,2009,basedon
Malulani'slackofoppositiontoKaupoRanch'sMotionfor
SummaryJudgmentonthegroundsthat...theComplaintwas
filedaftertheexpirationoftheapplicablestatuteof
limitationsassetforthinHRSSection657-31andits
predecessorstatutesthatjudgment,asamatteroflaw,
shouldbeenteredinfavorofKaupoRanchonallthree
causesofactionsetforthintheComplaint.
16
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
nonpossessoryrighttoenteranduselandinthepossessionof
anotherandobligatesthepossessornottointerferewiththe
usesauthorizedbytheeasement." MarvinM.BrandtRevocable
Trustv.UnitedStates,134S.Ct.1257,1265(2014)(emphasis
added,internalquotationmarksomitted)(quotingRestatement
(Third)ofProperty1.2(1)(1998));seealsoNihoav.Chow,57
Haw.172,173n.2,552P.2d77,79n.2(1976)(notingthat
easementsare"interestsinland,albeitincorporeal,
nonpossessoryinterests")(emphasisadded). Furthermore,as
explainedinSylvav.WailukuSugarCo.,19Haw.681(Haw.Terr.
1909),theterm"entry"asusedinapredecessorstatuteto
HRS657-31isbasedonthecommonlawmeaningoftheword,
which"wastheextrajudicialremedyforthewrongdonebyousting
theownerofthefreehold,whetherbyabatement,intrusionor
disseizinandappliesonlyincases'whenanotherpersonwhohath
norighthathpreviouslytakenpossessionoflandsor
tenements.'" Id.at682(quoting3WilliamBlackstone,
Commentaries,168,174). Thus,HRS657-31addressesrecovery
ofpossessionoflandanddoesnotapplytoclaimsseekingto
implyaneasementonanother'sland.
HRS657-33(1993)setsforthwhenanactionaccrues
underHRS657-31andfurtherillustratesthatimpliedeasements
arenotsubjecttothestatuteoflimitationsinHRS657-31.
HRS657-33states:
657-33Actionaccrueswhen. Intheconstructionof
thispart,therighttomakeanentryorcommenceanaction,
shallbedeemedtohavefirstaccruedatthefollowing
times:
(1) Whenanypersonisdisseised,hisrightofentry
oractionshallbedeemedtohaveaccruedatthe
timeofthedisseisin.
(2) Whenheclaimsasheirordeviseeofonewho
diedseised,hisrightshallbedeemedtohave
accruedatthetimeofthedeath,unlessthere
isanestatebythecurtesyorindower,orsome
otherestateinterveningafterthedeathofsuch
ancestorordevisor,inwhichcasehisright
shallbedeemedtohaveaccruedwhenthe
intermediateestateshallexpire,orwhenit
wouldhaveexpiredbyitsownlimitation.
(3) Wherethereissuchanintermediateestate,and
inallothercases,whereapartyclaimsin
remainder,orreversion,hisrightsofarasit
isaffectedbythelimitationhereinprescribed,
17
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
shallbedeemedtoaccruewhentheintermediate
orprecedentestatewouldhaveexpiredbyits
ownlimitation,notwithstandinganyforfeiture
thereof,forwhichhemighthaveenteredatan
earliertime.
(4) Paragraph(3)shallnotpreventanypersonfrom
entering,whenentitledtodoso,byreasonof
anyforfeitureorbreachofcondition,butifhe
claimsundersuchatitle,hisrightshallbe
deemedtohaveaccruedwhentheforfeiturewas
incurredorconditionbroken.
(5) Inthecasesnototherwisespeciallyprovided
for,therightshallbedeemedtohaveaccrued
whentheclaimant,orthepersonunderwhomhe
claims,firstbecameentitledtothepossession
ofthepremisesunderthetitleuponwhichthe
entryoractionisfounded.
(Emphasisadded).
11
NothinginHRS657-33isapplicabletoa
claimforanimpliedeasement,whichisanonpossessoryinterest.
KaupoRanchpointstoseveralcasesaddressing
prescriptiveeasementstoarguethatthestatuteoflimitations
underHRS657-31appliestoeasementsgenerally.
12
However,
thecitedcasesaredistinguishablebecause,underHawai'ilaw,
"thesameelementsnecessarytoproveacquisitionoftitleby
adversepossessionarerequiredtoestablishaneasementby
prescription." TheNatureConservancyv.Nakila,4Haw.App.
584,598,671P.2d1025,1035(1983). Inshort,becausea
prescriptiveeasementmustbeprovedbyelementssimilartoan
adversepossessionclaim,thesamestatuteoflimitationsapplies
tobothsuchclaims. Inthiscase,however,KaupoRanchisnot
claimingaprescriptiveeasementandthetwentyyearlimitations
periodinHRS657-31isinapplicable.
BeyondtheexpresstermsofHRS657-31andour
interpretationofthatstatute,wefurthernotethatstatutesof
limitationsgenerallydonotapplytobaraclaimforanimplied
easementbynecessity. See11Am.Jur.ProofofFacts3d,at630
11
Theterm"disseise"means"[t]owrongfullydeprive(aperson)ofthe
freeholdpossessionofproperty." Black'sLawDictionary,541(9thed.2009).
12
KaupoRanchcitesto:Lalakeav.HawaiianIrrigationCo.,36Haw.
692,706(Haw.Terr.1944);Kalaukoav.Keawe,9Haw.191(Haw.Prov.Gov.
1893);TheNatureConservancyv.Nakila,4Haw.App.584,600,671P.2d1025,
1036(1983);andRyanv.TanabeCorp.,97Hawai'i305,37P.3d554(App.
1999). Thesecasesareinapposite.
18
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
(1991)("Nostatuteoflimitationsisapplicabletoprecludean
actionforawayofnecessity.");Kellogg,125Cal.Rptr.2dat
823(statingthat"awayofnecessity,havingbeencreatedbythe
necessityforitsuse,cannotbeextinguishedsolongasthe
necessityexists"andthatthestatuteoflimitationsforquiet
titleactionsdidnotapplytoaneasementofnecessity(citation
andbracketsomitted)).
BecauseKaupoRanchdidnotmeetitsinitialburdento
showthatitwasentitledtosummaryjudgmentasamatteroflaw
underHRS657-31,thecircuitcourterredingrantingsummary
judgmentonthisbasis.
C. FindingofFact2
Malulanichallengesfindingoffact(FOF)2,which
statesinrelevantpartthat:"KaupoRanchisthecurrentowner
ofanundividedinterestoflandlocatedinKaupo,Hana,Maui,
HawaiibeingRoyalPatentGrantNo.2577toPali,Ohule,Wahapuu
andNahaCharlotteHarbottlegrantedtoPali,Ohule,Wahapuuand
NahaCharlotteHarbottlebytheKingdomofHawaiiin1859[.]"
Malulaniarguesthatthereisnoevidenceintherecordto
supportFOF2,andthattherecordshowsthattherearemany
potentialownersoftheKaupoParcel.
Malulani'sclaimswereadjudicatedbysummaryjudgment
andthusFOF2isnotbasedonatrialoranevidentiaryhearing.
Becausewehaveconcludedthatthesummaryjudgmentrulingwas
notwarranted,thecasewillberemandedtothecircuitcourtand
thecircuitcourt'sfindingsinitsJanuary4,2010order,
includingFOF2,aresubjecttofurtherlitigationinthecase.
AsnotedbyKaupoRanch,FOF2appearstobebasedon
Malulani'spleadingsandargumentsrelatedtoitsimplied
easementclaims. KaupoRanchdidnotdisputetheassertionthat
ithasaninterestintheKaupoParcelandthecircuitcourt
appearstohavebasedFOF2onthelackofdisputebetweenthese
parties. Neitherpartysuggeststhatthereisanyevidencein
therecordregardingKaupoRanch'sspecificinterestintheKaupo
Parcel. Thus,FOF2isnotbindingonMalulaniorKaupoRanch
19
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
goingforward,norisitbindingonanyotherpartynamedinthe
complaintsinthiscase.
D. CostsGrantedtoKaupoRanch
ThecircuitcourtawardedKaupoRanchcostsasthe
prevailingparty. BecausewehaveconcludedthatKaupoRanchwas
notentitledtosummaryjudgment,KaupoRanchisnolongerthe
prevailingpartyandtheawardofcostsislikewisevacated.
IV. Conclusion
Fortheforegoingreasons,wevacatetheApril16,2010
FinalJudgment,theJanuary4,2010"FindingsofFactand
ConclusionsofLawandOrderPartiallyGrantingAndPartially
DenyingDefendantKaupoRanch,[Ltd.'s]MotionforSummary
JudgmentAndRequestForAttorney'sFeesandCosts,"andthe
March24,2010orderawardingcoststoKaupoRanch,enteredby
theCircuitCourtoftheSecondCircuit. Weremandthiscaseto
thecircuitcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththis
opinion.
Onthebriefs:
GregoryJ.Garneau
(Kiefer&GarneauLLC)
forPlaintiff-Appellant
TheMalulaniGroup,Limited
BrianR.Jenkins
(Jenkins&Jenkins)
forDefendant-Appellee
KaupoRanch,Ltd.
20