Childs v. Harada

• Decision Date: 30 September 2013
• Docket Number: No. 29968.,29968.
• Citation: 130 Hawai'i 387,311 P.3d 710
• Parties: Keola CHILDS, Trustee under that certain unrecorded Revocable Trust of Keola Childs, Philip L. Wilson, III and Clare H. Wilson, and Douglas D. Troxel, Trustee of the Douglas D. Troxel Living Trust, Plaintiffs–Appellants/Cross–Appellees, v. Alan J. HARADA, Walter Harada, and Karen Fuke, Co–Trustees under that certain Trust made by Junichiro Harada, dated April 21, 1981, Mikie Harada, Alan J. Harada, Sharon S. Harada, Defendants–Appellees/Cross–Appellants, and Jack Hideto Okayama, Wallace Sadao Okayama, Hatsune O. Hirano, Defendants–Appellees, and Ethel Nobuki Toki, Trustee of the Ethel N. Toki Revocable Living Trust, John Does 1–10, Jane Does 1–10, Doe Partnerships 1–10, Doe Corporations 1–10, Doe Entities 1–10, Doe Governmental Agencies 1–10 and Doe Eleemosynary Corporations 1–10, Defendants.
• Court: Hawaii Court of Appeals

130 Hawai'i 387

311 P.3d 710

Keola CHILDS, Trustee under that certain unrecorded Revocable Trust of Keola Childs, Philip L. Wilson, III and Clare H. Wilson, and Douglas D. Troxel, Trustee of the Douglas D. Troxel Living Trust, Plaintiffs–Appellants/Cross–Appellees,

v. Alan J. HARADA, Walter Harada, and Karen Fuke, Co–Trustees under that certain Trust made by Junichiro Harada, dated April 21, 1981, Mikie Harada, Alan J. Harada, Sharon S. Harada, Defendants–Appellees/Cross–Appellants,andJack Hideto Okayama, Wallace Sadao Okayama, Hatsune O. Hirano, Defendants–Appellees,andEthel Nobuki Toki, Trustee of the Ethel N. Toki Revocable Living Trust, John Does 1–10, Jane Does 1–10, Doe Partnerships 1–10, Doe Corporations 1–10, Doe Entities 1–10, Doe Governmental Agencies 1–10 and Doe Eleemosynary Corporations 1–10, Defendants.

No. 29968.

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i.

Sept. 30, 2013.

R. Laree McGuire and S.V. (Bud) Quitiquit (Porter Tom Quitiquit Chee & Watts, LLP), Honolulu, on the briefs, for Plaintiffs–Appellants/Cross–Appellees.

Paul K. Hamano, Hilo, on the briefs, for Defendants–Appellees/Cross–Appellants Alan J. Harada, Co–Trustee under that certain Trust made by Junichiro Harada dated April 21, 1981, Mikie Harada, Alan J. Harada, and Sharon S. Harada.

Michael W. Moore (Law Offices of Yeh & Moore), Hilo, on the briefs, for Defendants–Appellees, Jack Hideto Okayama, Wallace Sadao Okayama, and Hatsune O. Hirano.

NAKAMURA, C.J., FUJISE and REIFURTH, JJ.

Opinion of the Court by REIFURTH, J.

The parties to this case own neighboring parcels of real property makai of the old Government Road, now known as Mamalahoa Highway (the "Highway") in Holualoa, District of North Kona, on the Island of Hawai‘i. The case arose out of an action in which the Plaintiffs–Appellants sought, in part, to enjoin and restrain the Defendants–Appellees from interfering with or obstructing their use of two adjacent easements located on adjacent parcels for ingress, egress, and utility access across Defendants–Appellees' properties. The Circuit Court of the Third Circuit ("Circuit Court")¹ issued an injunction related to one of the easements while denying an injunction related to the other.

This appeal involves three sets of parties, a primary appeal, and a cross-appeal. Plaintiffs–Appellants/Cross–Appellees consist of Keola Childs, as Trustee under that certain unrecorded Revocable Trust of Keola Childs ("Childs"), Philip L. Wilson III and Clare H. Wilson (the "Wilsons"), and Douglas D. Troxel, as Trustee of the Douglas D. Troxel Living Trust ("Troxel") (collectively, the "Plaintiffs–Appellants").² Plaintiffs–Appellants filed a claim below for declaratory and injunctive relief, naming as defendants, among others, Defendants–Appellees Jack Hideto Okayama and Wallace Sadao Okayama (the "Okayamas");³ and Defendants–Appellees/Cross–Appellants Alan J. Harada, as Co–Trustee under that certain trust made by Junichiro Harada Dated April 21, 1981; Mikie Harada, Trustee under that certain trust made by Mikie Harada, dated April 21, 1981; Alan J. Harada; and Sharon Harada (the "Haradas").

Plaintiffs–Appellants appeal and the Haradas cross-appeal from the June 25, 2009 Final Judgment as to All Claims and All Parties ("Final Judgment") entered by the Circuit Court. The Final Judgment was issued pursuant to prior orders including (1) the June 16, 2008 "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Granting Defendants Okayama[s'] Motion for Summary Judgment Filed on 2/25/08"; (2) the March 16, 2009 "Finding[s] of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against [the Haradas], Filed on February 21, 2008 and Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Default Judgment on Ethel Nobuki Toki on All Counts of the Complaint Filed, February 21, 2008"; and (3) the July 3, 2008 "Clerk's Taxation of Costs in Favor of Defendants [the Okayamas]."

Additionally, the Haradas cross-appeal from the July 22, 2005 "Order Granting Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order," and the December 23, 2005 "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction Filed July 18, 2005."

We hold that the Circuit Court erred in concluding, upon motions for summary judgment, that there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding both Plaintiffs–Appellants' intent to abandon an easement over the Okayamas' land and whether the Okayamas had terminated by prescription Plaintiffs–Appellants' rights in that easement. We affirm the Circuit Court's conclusion that it had jurisdiction to hear that portion of the case concerning the easement over the Haradas' land court property, but conclude that it erred in resolving the dispute over the scope of the easement on summary judgment because there were disputed issues of material fact. Consequently, we affirm in part and vacate/remand for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

On June 14, 2005, Plaintiffs–Appellants filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ("Complaint") against, among others, the Okayamas and the Haradas, asserting land ownership as follows. Childs claimed ownership of Parcel 6, Tax Map Key ("TMK") (3) 7–5–012:006, located in North Kona, County of Hawai‘i, State of Hawai‘i. The Wilsons claimed ownership of Parcel 8, TMK (3) 7–5–012:008, and Troxel subsequently claimed ownership of Parcel 38, TMK (3) 7–5–012:038. Plaintiffs–Appellants alleged that Alan J. Harada, Walter Harada, and Karen Fuke owned a one-half undivided interest in Parcel 31, TMK (3) 7–5–012:031, also known as Lot 8–C (which was formerly part of Lot 8 before it was subdivided), Mikie Harada owned the other one-half undivided interest of Parcel 31, and Alan J. Harada and Sharon S. Harada owned a leasehold interest in the entirety of Parcel 31. Plaintiffs–Appellants also contended that the Okayamas owned a one-half undivided interest in Parcel 29, TMK (3) 7–5–012:029, independent of Hirano, and Hirano owned the other one-half undivided interest in Parcel 29. Finally, Plaintiffs–Appellants asserted that Ethel Nobuki Toki ("Toki") owned Parcel 32, TMK (3) 7–5–012:032.

The land at issue consists of a southern portion, which includes the Haradas' and Toki's parcels ("Southern Portion"), and a northern portion which is comprised of the Okayamas' parcel, Troxel's parcel, Childs' parcel, and the Wilsons' parcel ("Northern Portion"). The Southern Portion was derived from Royal Patent Grant 863 ("RPG 863"), and the Northern Portion was derived from Royal Patent Grant 982 ("RPG 982"). The Northern Portion is divided into two portions: the makai portion, which includes the Wilsons' and Childs' parcels ("Makai Portion"), and the mauka portion, which includes Troxel's parcel and the Okayamas' parcel ("Mauka Portion"). The Mauka Portion parcels separate the Makai Portion parcels from the Highway.

Two easements run along a portion of the boundary that divides the Northern Portion from the Southern Portion. The first easement, referred to as the 25' Right of Way, traverses the Mauka Portion's entire southern boundary. The second easement, just south of the 25' Right of Way, is referred to as Easement 3, and traverses the entire northern boundary of the Southern Portion. The two easements run adjacent to each other, in a mauka-makai orientation, along the southern boundary of the Mauka Portion/northern boundary of part of the Southern Portion; thereafter, Easement 3 continues further makai, along and coterminous with the northern boundary of Toki's parcel in the Southern Portion, abutting both Childs' and a portion of the Wilsons' parcel in the Northern Portion.

The map located on the following page depicts the parcels and easements at issue:⁴

A. The Okayamas, the Northern Portion, and the 25' Right of Way

The Complaint asserted that RPG 982 (constituting the Northern Portion) was comprised, in relevant part, of Parcels 5 (TMK (3) 7–6–012:005), 6, 8, 29, and 38. It also contended that, in 1896, a circuit court issued a decree ("1896 Decree") that partitioned RPG 982 from sixty acres into two roughly thirty-acre parcels; the aforementioned Mauka and Makai Portions. The Mauka Portion included what became Parcels 29 and 38. The Makai Portion included what became Parcels 5, 6, 7, and 8. The Mauka and Makai Portions were divided by the property line between Parcels 5 and 38 running parallel to the Highway ("Mauka/Makai Boundary Line"). See Map infra. The 1896 Decree also identified a "25' Right of Way" as running from the Highway to the southern tip of the Mauka/Makai Boundary Line by way of the Mauka Portion's southern boundary, thus traversing what became Parcels 29 and 38, and thereby providing Highway access to what became Parcels 5, 6, and 8.⁵ Plaintiffs–Appellants requested declaratory relief in the form of a judgment entitling them to an appurtenant right to use the 25' Right of Way over Parcel 29 and injunctive relief such that the Okayamas would not interfere with their use of the 25' Right of Way for access and water line purposes.

?

B. The Haradas, the Southern Portion, and Easement 3

The Complaint also asserted that on June 8, 1953, the Roman Catholic Church ("Church") filed Land Court Application No. 1666 (the "Application") to register and confirm its title to a twelve-lot portion of RPG 863. The Complaint alleged that the Application specified that Lots 7 and 8 (Parcels 32 and 31, respectively, and constituting the Southern Portion) were subject to a 16' easement for roadway purposes and designated this as "Easement 3." The Application further specified that there were public ways running through the twelve lots, disclaimed ownership of any public land, and requested that the public ways be determined. The Complaint also cited a June 18, 1953 land court examiner's report,⁶ which stated that:

Certain of the lots, Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, and 12 are subject to easements for either public road purposes or electric transmission lines, while Lot. [sic] 10

...