Chuck Jones and MacLaren v. Williams
Decision Date | 14 May 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 24195.,24195. |
Citation | 71 P.3d 437,101 Haw. 486 |
Parties | CHUCK JONES AND MacLAREN, a Hawai'i partnership, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deanna WILLIAMS, Individually and as Guardian of Shelley A. Williams, a minor; Shelley A. Williams, Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
Michael L. Freed, Leslie C. Maharaj, Honolulu, (Michael L. Freed & Associates), on the briefs, for defendants-appellants.
Ward D. Jones, (Ward D. Jones, AAL, ALC), Alexander T. MacLaren, Honolulu, (Alexander T. MacLaren, AAL, ALC), on the briefs, for plaintiff-appellee.
In this case of unpaid attorneys' fees, Defendants-Appellants Deanna Williams, individually and as guardian of Shelley A. Williams, a minor, and Shelley A. Williams (collectively, the Williams), appeal the March 5, 2001 first amended final judgment of the circuit court of the first circuit.1 The judgment was based upon the court's September 11, 2000 order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee Chuck Jones and MacLaren, formerly a Hawai'i partnership of law corporations (CJM).
We affirm the court's judgment on the issue of liability. We also affirm the court's award of some of the attorneys' fees and costs claimed by CJM. However, because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the remainder of CJM's attorneys' fees and costs, we vacate that part of the court's judgment and remand.
On December 16, 1998, CJM filed a complaint against the Williams, seeking unpaid attorneys' fees. The pertinent allegations of the complaint follow:
3. That on or about October 28, 1996, [CJM] and [the Williams] entered into an hourly fee agreement, which was also confirmed by way of a letter from [CJM]. Pursuant to that agreement, Defendant DEANNA WILLIAMS, individually and as legal guardian of SHELLEY A. WILLIAMS who was still a minor, contracted to hire [CJM] to represent her and her daughter in an action they had previously filed styled Deanna Williams, et al[.] v. Steve Silla et al[.], Civ. No. 96-3260-08 First Circuit Court, State of Hawai'i[] ("Silla action")[,] and a second action they had previously filed styled Deanna Williams et al[.] v. Na Pali Haweo Community Ass'n, Civ. No. 97-0916-03 First Circuit Court, State of Hawai'i[ ] ("NPH action"). The Silla action sought rescission of a contract to purchase an unimproved residential lot located in the Na Pali Haweo Subdivision in Hawai'i Kai, Honolulu, Hawai'i, and damages. The NPH action sought to compel a homeowners association to approve of home building plans which [the Williams] had submitted to it and damages.
(Italics and capitalization in the original).
In their October 25, 1999 answer, the Williams denied the material allegations of the complaint, asserted various defenses, and demanded a jury trial.
It appears that in early 2000, the parties submitted their attorneys' fees dispute to the Hawai'i State Bar Association Attorney-Client Committee for mediation. Mediation was apparently unsuccessful, because on July 28, 2000, CJM filed a motion for summary judgment. In its memorandum in support of the motion, CJM revealed further details regarding the underlying litigation:
The Silla case sought the rescission of a sales agreement between [the] Williams, as purchasers, and the seller/developer regarding the NPH Lot. The complaint alleged misrepresentation by the developer's sales person as to the quality of the lot's ocean view, allowable improvements, and the ease of obtaining the homeowners association's approval for home construction. The action, first filed in First Circuit Court, was eventually stayed and ordered to mandatory arbitration pursuant to a contractual provision in the real property sales agreement.
The NPH case was a corollary civil action to the Silla Case that sought injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and damages against the [NPH] Community Association ("NPHCA") for wrongfully withholding the approval of the Williams' house plans. The NPHCA's position was that the Williams' plans were not approved because the plans violated several recorded building covenants including those governing allowable maximum floor area ([the] Williams' house was allegedly too large) and prohibiting a flat roof design that was incorporated into the Williams' house plans. The Williams claimed that the NPHCA was not consistent nor fair in its enforcement of these building standards because other homeowners had been granted exceptions, and disputed the NPHCA's interpretations of these standards. CJM withdrew as attorneys for the Williams before the NPH Case went to trial due to the non-payment of attorney's fees; however, CJM participated in substantial discovery and preparation of the NPH Case while acting as counsel for the Williams under their hourly fee agreement. [The] Williams paid the bills associated with the attorney's time expended in the development of the NPH Case, except for a remnant of $4030.23. There is therefore an outstanding bill owed on the NPH case to CJM of $4030.23.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Niau v. Quick Loan Funding
...at that time.’ 10A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil 2d § 2727 (1983).”); Chuck Jones & MacLaren v. Williams, 101 Hawai‘i 486, 501, 71 P.3d 437, 452 (App.2003) (plaintiffs' “conclusory statements [in a declaration], in and of themselves and devoid of specific supp......
-
American Savings Bank v. Dionisio Palacio Pasion, No. 24391 (Haw. App. 1/26/2004), 24391.
...The Pasions could not "rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [their] pleading," id.; see also Chuck Jones & MacLaren v. Williams, 101 Hawai`i 486, 501, 71 P.3d 437, 452 (App. 2003), especially where, as here, their pleaded rescission defense was invalid ab initio. In particular, the ......
-
S&G Labs Haw., LLC v. Graves
...Med. Sys. U.S.A., Inc., CIVIL NO. 17-443 JAO-WRP, 2019 WL 2146244, at *7 (D. Hawai`i May 16, 2019) (citing Chuck Jones and MacLaren v. Williams, 101 Haw. 486, 500 (Ct. App. 2003); Choy v. Cont'l Cas. Co., No. CV 15-00281 SOM/KSC, 2015 WL 7588233, at *4 (D. Haw. Nov. 25, 2015)), reconsiderat......
-
Breast Care Ctr. of Hawai'i LLC v. Fujifilm Med. Sys. U.S.A., Inc.
...1309, 1313 (E.D. Cal. 2008). To prevail on a breach of contract claim, a plaintiff must establish damages. See Chuck Jones and MacLaren v. Williams, 101 Haw. 486, 500 (2003) (monetary damages a material element of breach of contract claim); see also Choy v. Cont'l Cas. Co., No. CV 15-00281 ......