Alexander & Baldwin Inc. v. Silva
| Decision Date | 11 January 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 28556.,28556. |
| Citation | 124 Hawai'i 476,248 P.3d 1207 |
| Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
| Parties | ALEXANDER & BALDWIN, INC., a Hawai‘i Corporation, Plaintiff–Appellee,v.Keith A. SILVA, Defendant–Appellant,andHonolu‘u; Kaukahi; Nahinu; Kenoi; Mahiai; Lui Malo; Kamaka Kala; Keau; Keao; Kekuewa; Robert Kalaluhi; (except Pualani Naehu), Thomas Kalaluhi; Peter Kalaluhi (except Leialoha Kalaluhi); Mitchel Kalaluhi (except Nohealeimano Vaughn); Kuheleloa; A.K. Mika (except Mary Rose Nakai); State of Hawai‘i; Office of Hawaiian Affairs; Kukuiula Development Company (Hawaii) LLC; or their heirs and assignees; and John Does 1–50, Jane Does 1–50, Doe Corporation 1–50; Doe Partnerships 1–50 and Doe Entities 1–50, Defendants. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Thomas D. Yano and Michael J. Matsukawa, on the briefs, for Defendant–Appellant.Michael W. Gibson, on the briefs, for Plaintiff–Appellee.FOLEY, Presiding J., LEONARD, J., and Circuit Court Judge BORDER, in place of NAKAMURA and FUJISE, JJ., both recused.Opinion of the Court by LEONARD, J.
Defendant–Appellant Keith A. Silva (Silva) appeals from the First Amended Rule 54(b) Final Judgment for Plaintiff Alexander & Baldwin [ (a & b) ] AGAINSt defenDants, quietIng title to tax mAp kEy [ (tmk) ] Parcel Nos. (4) 2–6–04–11 and (4) 2–6–04–18 (Amended Judgment), entered on April 20,
[124 Hawai'i 478 , 248 P.3d 1209]
2007, in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit (Circuit Court).1
We hold that: (1) the Circuit Court was not required to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its order granting partial summary judgment in favor of A & B and against Silva; (2) a quiet title plaintiff may seek partial summary judgment on the issue of whether a particular defendant has an interest in the subject property without the plaintiff first establishing its own prima facie claim to title; (3) as the party who will have the burden at trial to show that it has superior title, the quiet title plaintiff-movant bears the burden of production in showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendant-claimant's interest, as well as the ultimate burden of persuasion on the issue; (4) in this case, A & B failed to satisfy its initial burden of production with regard to Silva's alleged interest in Parcel 18 (described below), thus the burden never shifted to Silva, and the Circuit Court erred in granting A & B's request for partial summary judgment with respect to Parcel 18; (5) viewing all of the evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to Silva, A & B having submitted no evidence in support of its own claim of title and merely asserting that Silva's claim to title is fatally flawed because Silva does not have an unbroken chain of paper title or claim adverse possession, A & B failed to establish that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that it was entitled to judgment against Silva as a matter of law with respect to Parcel 11 (described below); (6) notwithstanding the Circuit Court's subsequent ruling in favor of A & B on its quiet title claims to Parcels 11 and 18, in light of our determination that the Circuit Court erred in granting partial summary judgment against Silva, whether A & B's evidence of title is superior to the evidence of title brought forward by Silva appears to involve a determination of disputed material facts; and (7) inasmuch as it enters judgment in favor of A & B and against Silva, the Amended Judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Circuit Court.
On February 27, 2004, A & B filed a Complaint for Quiet Title and Partition pertaining to three parcels of land located in Koloa, Hawai‘i, on the island of Kaua‘i. In the Complaint, A & B alleged it is the sole and exclusive owner of TMK Parcels (4)2–6–04–10 (Parcel 10) and (4)2–6–04–11 (Parcel 11) (together comprising Land Commission Award No. 4766), and TMK Parcel (4)2–6.–04–18 (Parcel 18) (constituting Land Commission Award No. 5448). The Complaint listed several defendants; numerous others answered the Complaint, alleging ownership interests in the three parcels. On October 5, 2004, Silva filed his Answer to A & B's Complaint, claiming to own the land described in the Complaint “by inheritance and/or by deed.”
A & B proceeded by filing a motion for partial summary judgment on April 28, 2005, against several defendants, not including Silva, seeking an order that those defendants have no interest in the subject parcels. The Circuit Court granted the April 28, 2005 motion, concluding that the defendants identified in the motion have no interest in Parcels 10, 11, and 18.
On June 8, 2005, A & B filed another motion for partial summary judgment, this time against Silva, seeking an order determining that Silva has no interest in the subject parcels.2 In support of its motion, A &
[124 Hawai'i 479 , 248 P.3d 1210]
B attached the affidavit of Colleen Uahinui (Uahinui), which stated the following:
1. I am competent to testify to the matters contained herein, and I do so based upon my own personal knowledge. I am currently employed at Title Guaranty of Hawaii Incorporated where I work in the Historic Title Department whose primary objective is to research the chain of title to real property in Hawaii.
2. Land Commission Award No. 4766, Apana 3, was issued to Nakaiewalu.
3. By Partition Deed the land of Nakaiewalu was divided between the children of Oheohekuahiwi and Monimoni pursuant to a decision of Judge Jacob Hardy on February 24, 1883.
In addition, A & B attached a copy of a chart purportedly produced by Silva during discovery, which according to an affidavit by A & B's attorney depicted Silva's purported chain of title to Land Commission Award No. 4766. A & B's primary argument in support of its motion for partial summary judgment was that Silva's chart failed to establish a chain of paper title beginning with one of the children of Oheohekuahiwi or Monimoni.
In his memorandum in opposition filed July 6, 2005 (Opposition), Silva claimed paper title to Parcel 10 and Parcel 11 and submitted numerous exhibits in support of his claims. Silva also argued that A & B failed to establish prima facie evidence of its ownership and, therefore, was not entitled to partial summary judgment against Silva. At the July 12, 2005 hearing on A & B's motion, Silva again argued that genuine issues of material fact existed with respect to title and that A & B failed to meet its burden as the plaintiff in a quiet title action. Specifically, Silva asserted that A & B had not met its burden of demonstrating its own title to the subject parcels and had not provided any certified documents supporting its claim.
On July 22, 2005, the Circuit Court issued an order pursuant to Hawai‘i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 56(f) granting Silva additional time, as requested, to submit documents and relevant materials in order to further oppose A & B's motion for partial summary judgment. Accordingly, on July 26, 2005, Silva filed a supplemental memorandum in opposition to A & B's motion for partial summary judgment (Supplemental Opposition). A & B filed a reply memorandum on August 2, 2005.
On October 12, 2005, the Circuit Court issued an order granting A & B's motion for partial summary judgment against Silva, concluding that Silva has no interest in Parcels 10, 11, and 18.3
Thereafter, on December 13, 2005, A & B filed another motion for partial summary judgment, this time requesting that the Circuit Court declare that A & B is the sole and exclusive owner of Parcels 11 and 18. A & B claimed it has paper title or, in the alternative, it acquired title to the two parcels through adverse possession. A & B attached thirty-seven exhibits to its memorandum in support of the motion, including certified copies of relevant documents purportedly supporting its claim of paper title. At this time, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) was the only remaining defendant who actively contested A & B's claim to Parcels 11 and 18.
On March 8, 2006, the Circuit Court denied A & B's December 13, 2005 motion for partial summary judgment without prejudice, stating that “genuine issues of material fact remain as to [A & B's] claim for adverse possession.” 4
[248 P.3d 1211 , 124 Hawai'i 480]
On March 31, 2006, A & B filed another motion for partial summary judgment against OHA, asking the Circuit Court to dismiss any claims that OHA had with respect to Parcels 10, 11, and 18. In response, OHA disclaimed any interest in Parcels 10, 11, and 18. On May 17, 2006, the Circuit Court granted A & B's March 31, 2006 motion for partial summary judgment against OHA.
On September 22, 2006, A & B filed its final motion for partial summary judgment, renewing its request that A & B be declared the sole and exclusive owner of Parcels 11 and 18. A & B's September 22, 2006 motion was unopposed. 5 On October 30, 2006, the Circuit Court granted A & B's September 22, 2006 motion, concluding that A & B is the sole and exclusive owner of Parcels 11 and 18.6
On November 15, 2006, the Circuit Court entered an HRCP Rule 54(b) judgment in favor of A & B and against all defendants. The Circuit Court entered judgment against Silva pursuant to the October 12, 2005 order granting A & B's motion for partial summary judgment against Silva. The judgment concluded, inter alia, that A & B was the sole and exclusive owner of Parcel 11 and Parcel 18, but also, incorrectly, identified Parcel 11 as the parcel with unresolved claims.
Subsequently, A & B sought to amend the November 15, 2006 judgment in order to clarify that Parcel 10 was the parcel with unresolved claims. On April 20, 2007, the Circuit Court entered the Amended Judgment incorporating that change. On May 21, 2007, Silva filed a timely notice of appeal.
Silva raises the following points of error on appeal:
(1) The Circuit Court's findings and conclusions are “insufficient and conclusory” because the appellate court has no basis upon which to determine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Menashe v. Bank of N.Y.
...however, does not address quiet title claims asserted by a mortgagor and are therefore inapposite. See Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. v. Silva, 124 Hawai'i 476, 248 P.3d 1207 (Haw.App.2011) (addressing quiet title claim where titles were disputed); Maui Land & Pineapple Co., Inc. v. Infiesto, 76......
-
Menashe v. Bank of New York
...however, does not address quiet title claims asserted by a mortgagor and are therefore inapposite. See Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. v. Silva, 124 Haw. 476, 248 P.3d 1207 (Haw. App. 2011) (addressing quiet title claim where titles were disputed); Maui Land & Pineapple Co., Inc. v. Infiesto, 76 ......
-
Shayefar v. Kaleleiki
...v. Kapu, 156 P.3d 482, 484 (Haw. App. 2006). The plaintiff must bring forward prima facie evidence of title. Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. v. Silva, 248 P.2d 1207, 1214 (Haw. App. 2011). Plaintiff need not have perfect title, but must prove a substantial interest in the property and title super......
-
Algal Partners, L.P. v. Santos
...to the plaintiff's. However, at summary judgment, defendant need not prove perfect title. Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. v. Silva, 124 Hawai'i 476, 487, 248 P.3d 1207, 1218 (Ct. App. 2011). "[I]n an action to quiet title, only the relative interests of the parties to the action may be considered......