Bruser v. Bank of Haw.

• Decision Date: 16 January 2020
• Docket Number: No. 16-16354,16-16354
• Parties: MICHAEL DAVID BRUSER and LYNN BRUSER, Trustees under that certain unrecorded Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated July 11, 1988, as amended, doing business as Discovery Bay Center, Plaintiffs-counter-claim-defendants-Appellants, v. BANK OF HAWAII, a Hawaii corporation, as Trustee, as successor by merger with Hawaiian Trust Company, Limited, a former Hawaii corporation and as successor Trustee under that certain Trust Agreement dated June 6, 1974; et al., Defendants-counter-claimants-plaintiffs-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

MICHAEL DAVID BRUSER and LYNN BRUSER,Trustees under that certain unrecorded Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated July 11, 1988,as amended, doing business as Discovery Bay Center, Plaintiffs-counter-claim-defendants-Appellants, v. BANK OF HAWAII, a Hawaii corporation, as Trustee,as successor by merger with Hawaiian Trust Company, Limited,a former Hawaii corporation and as successor Trustee under thatcertain Trust Agreement dated June 6, 1974; et al.,Defendants-counter-claimants-plaintiffs-Appellees.

No. 16-16354

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Argued and Submitted: October 12, 2018

Resubmitted: January 14, 2020

January 16, 2020

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00387-LEK-RLP

MEMORANDUM^*

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii

Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 12, 2018

Resubmitted January 14, 2020 Honolulu, HawaiiBefore: WARDLAW, BERZON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Micheal and Lynn Bruser appeal a judgment issued against them and in favor of Bank of Hawaii, the Association of Apartment Owners of Discovery Bay and a number of additional defendants and counter-claimants (together, the "Association"). The substantive disputes that spawned this litigation, as well as simultaneous litigation occurring in Hawaii state court, are whether the Bank of Hawaii is charging a reasonable trustee fee for the services it provides to the Discovery Bay condominium project and who is responsible for paying that fee.

While the district court litigation was pending, a state court determined that the Bank of Hawaii's fee was reasonable.¹ The district court then issued a pretrial order holding that it lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to review the Brusers' claim seeking a declaration that the Bank of Hawaii's proposed trustee fee was unreasonable. After a stipulated facts bench trial, the district court determined that the Brusers had breached their contractual obligation to pay the Bank of Hawaii under the CCD. The court also declared that the Brusers were liable for the entire unpaid trustee fee owed to the Bank of Hawaii.

1. The Brusers argue that the district court improperly dismissed theirdeclaratory relief claim under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the state court lacked jurisdiction to review the reasonableness of the fee charged by Bank of Hawaii. But "Rooker-Feldman applies where the plaintiff in federal court claims that the state court did not have jurisdiction to render a judgment." Doe v. Mann, 415 F.3d 1038, 1042 n.6 (9th Cir. 2005).

2. The Brusers also argue that the district court erred when it concluded that the Condominium Conveyance Document made the Brusers liable for the trustee fees owed to the Bank of Hawaii under the Trust Agreement. The district court did not err....