Makila Land Co. v. Kapu
| Decision Date | 21 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | NO. CAAP–12–0000547,CAAP–12–0000547 |
| Citation | 388 P.3d 49 (Table),139 Hawai'i 261 |
| Parties | MAKILA LAND CO., LLC, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. John Paul KAPU and Jonah Ke'eaumoku Kapu, Defendants–Appellants, and Heirs or Assigns of Kua (K), Kainoa (W), also known as Kainoa Kikue Olala (W), and Samuel Hiku Kahala; Victoria Q. White; Kalani Kapu, and all whom it may concern, Defendants–Appellees |
| Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
On the briefs:
James Richard McCarty, for Defendants–Appellants.
Michael W. Gibson, (Ashford & Wriston), Honolulu, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
(
MEMORANDUM OPINIONDefendants–Appellants John Paul Kapu (a.k.a. John Paul Kekai Kapu a.k.a. Paul Kekai Kapu a.k.a. John Paul Kekai a.k.a. Paul Kekai, hereinafter John ) and his son, Jonah Ke'eaumoku Kapu (a.k.a. Ke'eaumoku Kapu, hereinafter Ke'eaumoku ) (collectively, the Kapus or Defendants ) appeal from the Final Judgment filed May 8, 2012 (Judgment ), in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (Circuit Court ),1 which concluded that Plaintiff–Appellee Makila Land Company, LLC (Makila or Plaintiff ) is the owner in fee simple of the real property "in Apana 1 of Land Commission Award 4878–O, Royal Patent 2664, to Olala, situate[d] at Puehuehuiki and Wainee 2, Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii within TMK (2) 4–6–21–4[.]" The Judgment was entered pursuant to three orders of the Circuit Court: (1) an order filed April 29, 2010 (April 29, 2010 Order ), which granted Makila's summary judgment motion filed on November 18, 2009, as to Makila's paper title claim, and denied Makila's summary judgment motion as to the Kapus' adverse possession counterclaim; (2) an order filed October 28, 2010 (October 28, 2010 Order ), which granted in part and denied in part Makila's September 2, 2010 summary judgment motion that sought dismissal of the Kapus' title by adverse possession counterclaims with prejudice; and (3) an order filed March 22, 2012 (March 22, 2012 Order ), which granted Makila's February 14, 2012 summary judgment motion that sought dismissal with prejudice of the Kapus' adverse possession counterclaim.2
The Kapus allege that the Circuit Court erred in holding that Makila was entitled to summary judgment on its claim of paper title, as well as on the Kapus' counterclaim for adverse possession, and allege that the evidence raises genuine issues of material fact as to whether Makila's evidence of title is superior to the Kapus' ownership claims.
On May 26, 2009, Makila filed a complaint against the "Heirs or assigns of KUA (k), KAINOA (w), also known as KAINOA KIKUE OLALA (w), and SAMUEL HIKU KAHALIA; VICTORIA Q. WHITE; KALANI KAPU; JONAH KE'EAUMOKU KAPU, and ALL WHOM IT MAY CONCERN," in order to establish Makila's fee simple title to Apana 1.3
On July 27, 2009, the Kapus filed an answer and counterclaim.4 Their counterclaim alleged that:
The Kapus demanded that the court dismiss Makila's complaint, order that the Kapus, as descendants of Olala, are the owners of the real property at issue, and order that the Kapus are the owners of the property "free and clear of all claims of the Plaintiff."
Makila filed its first motion for summary judgment on November 18, 2009, asserting that the evidence established, as a matter of law, that title was vested in Makila and that the evidence did not support any of the Defendants' title by descent claims. The Kapus submitted a memorandum in opposition (and further memoranda were filed). After a hearing was held, on April 29, 2010, the Circuit Court entered an order (1) granting Makila's summary judgment motion as to its paper title claim but (2) denying its summary judgment motion as to the Kapus' adverse possession counterclaim. The court concluded that no genuine issues of material fact existed concerning Makila's paper title to Apana 1, but that issues of material fact existed as to the Kapus' adverse possession counterclaim.
Makila filed a motion for summary judgment for dismissal of the "Kapu Defendants' " adverse possession counterclaims with prejudice on September 2, 2010. The "Kapu Defendants" included not only John and Ke'eaumoku, but also Defendant Kalani Kapu. The Kapus (John and Ke'eaumoku) filed a memorandum in opposition and Makila filed a reply. After a hearing, on October 28, 2010, the motion was granted in part and denied in part. The court concluded that Kalani Kapu, as well as additional defendants Victoria Nohealani Kaluna–Palafox and Victoria White, have no claim to title by adverse possession, but that issues of material fact existed concerning John and Ke'eaumoku's adverse possession claim. Thus, summary judgment was again denied without prejudice as to the Kapus' adverse possession counterclaim.
On January 14, 2011, Makila once again moved for summary judgment for dismissal of the Kapus' adverse possession counterclaims with prejudice. The Kapus filed a memorandum in opposition and Makila filed a reply. After a hearing, on February 24, 2011, this motion was denied without prejudice, with the court concluding that "there are genuine issues of material fact which preclude granting said motion[.]"
On February 14, 2012, Makila again moved for summary judgment for dismissal with prejudice of the Kapus' adverse possession counterclaim. The Kapus filed a memorandum in opposition and Makila filed a reply. This time, however, after a hearing on the motion, on March 22, 2012, the Circuit Court entered an order granting summary judgment on the Kapus' adverse possession claim.
On May 8, 2012, the Circuit Court entered the Judgment, pursuant to the April 29, 2010 Order, the October 28, 2010 Order, and the March 22, 2012 Order, concluding that:
[F]inal judgment in this quiet title action is hereby-entered in favor of Plaintiff and against all defendants, their heirs and assigns, and all unknown persons claiming an interest in Apana 1 of Land Commission Award 4878–O, Royal Patent 2664, to Olala, situate[d] at Puehuehuiki and Wainee 2, Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii within TMK (2) 4–6–21–4, that Plaintiff MAKILA LAND CO., LLC, is the owner in fee simple and entitled to possession of the real property described above, and is entitled to issuance of a writ of possession.
A writ of ejectment for the removal of the Kapus from Apana 1 was subsequently filed on May 8, 2012. The Kapus timely appealed the Judgment on June 4, 2012.
Makila claims to trace title in the property at issue, Apana 1 of Land Commission Award (L.C.A. ) 4878–O, Royal Patent (R.P. ) 2664 (hereinafter "Apana 1" ), back to the original awardee of the land. Unless otherwise noted, the following documents were submitted along with Makila's November 18, 2009 motion for summary judgment. In sum, beginning with the original land grant award, Makila submitted various probate, marriage, and death records, deeds, leases, and other evidence in support of its paper title claim.
Makila produced copies of L.C.A. 4878–O and Royal Patent 2664, as well as translations5 of these documents, as they were originally written in Hawaiian. According to the translations, Apanas 1, 2, and 3 of L.C.A. 4878–O, R.P. 2664 were awarded to Olala by King Kamehameha IV in 1856.
Makila produced copies of the pages of a Maui Probate Book in support of its claim that the heirs of Olala were judicially determined. Although these pages purportedly identified Olala's heirs, they were in Hawaiian and no translation was provided.
Makila also provided copies of three deeds and their respective English translations as evidence that Olala had at least three children: the oldest, a daughter named Kaikaamolani, the second, a son named Waihoikaea Olala, and the youngest, a son named Kua.
The translation of the first deed, indicated as "Kaikaamolani to Waihoikaea Olala", reads:
Know all men by this, Kaikaamolani of the town of Lahaina Island of Maui, one of the children of Olala who lived here previously, and is recently deceased, witnesseth: the aforesaid Kaikaamolani on the first part, for the receipt in my hand the sum of One Dollar from Waihoikaea Olala—one of the children of Olala who is deceased, one of the heirs from Lahaina, Island of Maui, on the second part. I hereby transfer, release and relinquish all of my interest forever—to have and to hold unto Waihoikaea Olala, the second party, and his/her heirs and successors forever, my interest and rights in my share of the assets and estate, with all the benefits belonging to the first party at law and in equity in all those parcels of land situate at Puehuehuiki & "Waineenui 2" at Lahaina Maui being Royal Patent Number 2664 in the name of Olala, our father, and the boundaries in the said Royal Patent Number show a total area of 5 Acres 2 Roods 9 Rods.6 This land of Olala, was brought before John Richardson and our mother Kawehineai Olala was appointed administrator and she managed it upon his death. The estate has never been distributed between us, his children, and in order to make it all known the first party, and for his/her heirs, successors, administrators, that all of the interests mentioned, there is no rights, estate, nothing at law, no interest...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shayefar v. Kaleleiki
...that he has a substantial interest in the property and that his title is superior to that of the defendants."); Makila Land Co., LLC v. Kapu, 388 P.3d 49, 50 (Haw. Ct. App. 2016) ("A prima facie case can be made in various ways, but is usually done by bringing forward evidence of the initia......