Island Holidays, Inc. v. Fitzgerald, 5914
| Decision Date | 31 January 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 5914,5914 |
| Citation | 574 P.2d 884,58 Haw. 552 |
| Parties | ISLAND HOLIDAYS, INC. and Kaanapali Beach Hotel, Inc., Hawaii Corporations, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Counterclaim Defendants-Appellants, v. Glenn FITZGERALD, dba Kaanapali Hotel Camera and Gift Shop and Kaanapali Picture and Gift Corporation, a Hawaii Corporation, Defendants-Appellants, Counterclaim Plaintiffs- Appellees. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. An appeal from a decision as to one claim while others remain pending before the trial court is premature and must be dismissed.
2. Where the disposition of the case is embodied in several orders, no one of which embraces the entire controversy but collectively does so, it is a necessary inference from Rule 54(b) that the orders collectively constitute a final judgment and entry of the last of the series of orders gives finality and appealability to all.
3. A motion for a new trial and for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, timely filed after entry of judgment, tolled the running of the time for appeal until entry of the court's ruling on the motions.
4. A supersedeas bond, filed within the appropriate appeal period, was sufficient to constitute a refiling of the notice of appeal prematurely filed.
5. Although the bond failed to specify the judgment appealed from, since an order of this court, specifying the terms of supersedeas bond and staying proceedings to enforce the writ of possession issued by the circuit court, contained sufficient detail concerning the parties involved in the appeal and the judgment appealed from, the bond constitutes sufficient notice of a party's intention to seek review. Further, the opposing parties were not misled or prejudiced.
6. A tenant may assert equitable defenses in a landlord's action for summary possession.
7. Rule 8(e)(1), H.R.C.P., requires that "(e)ach averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct."
8. Generally, pleadings must be construed liberally and not technically. Rule 8(f), H.R.C.P.
9. A case is ripe for summary adjudication in accordance with applicable principles of law when there is no dispute of a material fact.
Edward Y. N. Kim, Honolulu, for defendants-appellants, counterclaim plaintiffs-appellees.
Masaji Marumoto and William F. Crockett, Wailuku, for plaintiffs-appellees, counterclaim defendants-appellants.
Before RICHARDSON, C. J., and KOBAYASHI, OGATA, MENOR and KIDWELL, JJ.
Plaintiffs, counterclaim defendants, Island Holidays, Inc., and Kaanapali Beach Hotel, Inc., Hawaii corporations (hereinafter collectively Island Holidays), filed a complaint in the Lahaina Division of the District Court of the Second Circuit for summary possession of certain leased premises situated in the lobby of the Kaanapali Beach Hotel on the Island of Maui, and for back rent, against defendants, counterclaim plaintiffs, Glenn Fitzgerald, dba Kaanapali Hotel Camera and Gift Shop and Kaanapali Picture and Gift Corporation, a Hawaii corporation (hereinafter collectively called Fitzgerald). A demand for a jury trial on all issues was made to the court and the case was duly transferred to circuit court. Fitzgerald filed a counterclaim, naming Amfac, Inc., a Hawaii corporation, as an additional counterclaim defendant. 1 Fitzgerald prayed for general, special, and punitive damages for an alleged breach of a lease contract.
Although Island Holidays' initial motion for summary judgment on the complaint for summary possession was denied, a renewed motion was granted.
Thereafter, at trial, the jury denied Island Holidays' claim for back rent and awarded Fitzgerald $41,636.00 in damages for breach of the 1964 written lease contract. Island Holidays moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for a new trial, and for remittitur. The circuit court denied all three motions.
Both parties have appealed. Fitzgerald has appealed the order granting summary judgment on the complaint for summary possession in favor of Island Holidays. Island Holidays has appealed from the denial
of its motions and from the judgment of damages. 2
On October 23, 1974, Island Holidays filed a motion for summary judgment on the complaint for summary possession of the leased premises alleging that Fitzgerald's lease term had expired as of September 30, 1974. After a hearing was held the circuit court judge dismissed the motion as inappropriate. On April 23, 1975, Island Holidays renewed its motion for summary judgment and it was granted. The court premised its ruling on the finding that Fitzgerald's lease term had expired and no "new promise" to lease beyond 1974 had been made. 3
In a written order filed on May 22, 1975, the trial court granted Island Holidays' motion and denied Fitzgerald's oral motion for allowance to appeal from the summary judgment order. The order issued by the court specifically stated that the order did not constitute a determination and direction for the entry of a final judgment within the meaning of Rule 54(b), H.R.C.P., and that, therefore, the proceedings were not terminated between the parties. 4
Following a trial on Island Holidays' claim for back rent and Fitzgerald's counterclaim for damages, the jury returned the following verdict in special verdict form:
1. Did Defendant Island Holidays
breach the existing lease? Yes
----------
2. (Answer 2 only if your answer to
1 was 'yes'.) What damages did
Plaintiff Fitzgerald suffer as a result
of the breach of the existing lease? $41,636.00
----------
3. Did Plaintiff Fitzgerald and Defendant
Island Holidays enter upon a
valid and binding contract to make a
new lease? No
----------
4. (Answer 4 only if your answer to 3
was 'yes'.) Did Defendant Island
Holidays breach the contract to
make a new lease? ----------
----------
----------
5. (Answer 5 only if your answers
to both 3 and 4 were 'yes') What
damages did Plaintiff Fitzgerald suffer
as a result of the breach of the
contract to make a new lease? ----------
----------
----------
6. Did Plaintiff Fitzgerald owe any
rental on the existing lease? No
7. (Answer 7 only if your answer to
6 was 'yes'.) What is the amount
of the unpaid rental? ----------
----------
----------
From this verdict Island Holidays has appealed. Concurrently, Island Holidays moved for a dismissal of Fitzgerald's appeal from the summary judgment on the complaint for summary possession on the grounds that the supreme court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
In a written lease dated October 16, 1964, Fitzgerald entered into a lease agreement for five years with an option to renew for an additional five years with Kaanapali Hotel Corporation to operate a camera and gift shop on the ground floor of the Kaanapali Hotel (Hotel). This lease agreement was signed by Mr. Glenn Fitzgerald, President-Treasurer of the Kaanapali Picture The Hotel was subsequently sold by the Kaanapali Hotel Corporation to A.I.T.S. and A.I.T.S. sold the Hotel to Sonesta Hotel Corporation. In 1969, after the initial 5-year lease term provided for in the 1964 lease had expired, Fitzgerald renewed the lease for another 5-year period with Sonesta Hotel Corporation.
and Gift Corporation, and by Mr. Leonard Goldman, President of Kaanapali Hotel Corporation.
In 1970 Island Holidays, Inc., purchased the Hotel from Sonesta. The evidence is sparse as to any significant communication between Fitzgerald and Island Holidays between 1970 and prior to 1973.
Some time in the summer of 1973, Island Holidays decided to renovate and enlarge the lobby of the Hotel to accommodate an increased number of hotel guests. Mr. Fitzgerald and another lessee of the Hotel met with Mr. Ronald Barr, executive vice-president of Island Holidays, Inc., and Mr. Robert Sewell, manager of the Hotel and were shown the plans for two "new shops" in the proposed renovated lobby. The lessees were told they would have "first option" to lease these new shops.
On December 18, 1973, Mrs. Janet Higa, real estate manager for Island Holidays, notified Fitzgerald that lobby renovations at the Hotel would begin on January 7, 1974. Fitzgerald packed the contents of his gift shop, hired movers to move the goods to a storage place, and completed vacating the premises on January 4, 1974, as instructed. At a meeting at the Hotel on January 7, 1974, Fitzgerald and Mrs. Higa discussed Fitzgerald's new location in the Hotel and lobby and certain lease rental terms. According to Fitzgerald, it was at this time that he was promised a new lease on the basis of an increased rental of $1,000 minimum per month or 12% Of the gross receipts. Fitzgerald testified that he informed Mrs. Higa that he had a current lease with the Hotel and "assumed" that a lease similar to this one for an additional 5-year term would be renegotiated with him. According to Mrs. Higa's testimony, although a 12% Lease rental was discussed as the rental normally negotiated on all Island Holidays' leases, no minimum rent was discussed with Fitzgerald and negotiations for a new lease remained incomplete. Mrs. Higa's letter to Fitzgerald following the January meeting said that as soon as Fitzgerald received a copy of his original lease, Island Holidays "could commence negotiation on a new lease for the premises. 5 " A subsequent letter from Mr. Sewell also stated that work on a new lease could begin as soon as Fitzgerald obtained a copy of his original lease.
On February 15, Fitzgerald completed moving the contents of his shop into the "new shop" in the hotel lobby. Fitzgerald painted the walls, refinished the shelves, and purchased a new rug for the shop, all pursuant to the requests made by Island Holidays. The moving expenses, the expense of storing some of his merchandise in the hotel while unpacking, and the expenses incurred in painting, refinishing, and recarpeting the shop were borne by Fitzgerald.
In February, 1974, problems arose between Fitzgerald...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
76 Hawai'i 494, Richardson v. Sport Shinko (Waikiki Corp.)
...notice of appeal has no effect if filed while a timely tolling motion is pending in the trial court. See Island Holidays, Inc. v. Fitzgerald, 58 Haw. 552, 561, 574 P.2d 884, 890 (1978); Kamaole Two Hui v. Aziz Enterprises, Inc., 9 Haw.App. 566, 571, 854 P.2d 232, 235 (1993). The present cas......
-
Otani v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
...215, 491 P.2d 541 (1971)). As a general rule, pleadings should be construed liberally and not technically. Island Holidays, Inc. v. Fitzgerald, 58 Haw. 552, 574 P.2d 884 (1978). In breach of contract actions, however, the complaint must, at minimum, cite the contractual provision allegedly ......
-
S. Utsunomiya Enterprises, Inc. v. Moomuku Country Club
...judgment and ... entry of the last of the series of orders gives finality and appealability to all." Island Holidays, Inc. v. Fitzgerald, 58 Haw. 552, 561, 574 P.2d 884, 890 (1978) (citing City & County of Honolulu v. Midkiff, 57 Haw. 273, 275, 554 P.2d 233, 234 (1976) and adding emphasis).......
-
Au v. Au
...of the claim alleged in Count IV. Generally, pleadings should be construed liberally and not technically. Island Holidays, Inc., v. Fitzgerald, 58 Haw. 552, 574 P.2d 884 (1978). Thus, Rule 8(a) H.R.C.P., requires a complaint to set forth a "short and plain statement of the claim...." This r......