KA'U AGRIBUSINESS v. Heirs of Ahulau
| Decision Date | 09 August 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 24420.,24420. |
| Citation | 95 P.3d 613,105 Haw. 182 |
| Parties | KA'U AGRIBUSINESS CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellee v. HEIRS OR ASSIGNS OF AHULAU, Kahananui (w), also known as Kahananui Hilinai (w), Mahuna (w), also known as Mahunawai (w), Mahuna Ah Wa (w) and Mahuna Awa (w), Kinolau (w), also known as Kinolau Holoua (w), Hulu (k), also known as Hulu Hilinai (k), Kane Hulu (k), also known as Hulu Kane (k), Moi (k), also known as Moi Hilinai (k), Joseph H. Holoua, William K. Holoua, Kaai Kanawai, Melvin Glenn Mason, Mathilda Noelani Batalona Mason, Defendants-Appellees and Robert K. Stender, Sr., Joseph H. Stender, Sr., William K. Au Young, Josephine L. Ferreira, Stanley S. Stender, Sr., Hermine K. Stender and Ligaya Rasmussen, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Arnold L. Lum (Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation), Honolulu, on the briefs, for defendants-appellants.
Donald E. Scearce (Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright), Honolulu, on the briefs, for plaintiff-appellee.
We hold that the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit1 (the court) did not err in granting the March 23, 2001 summary judgment motion of Plaintiff-Appellee Ka'u Agribusiness Co., Inc. (Plaintiff) because (1) the unnamed heirs of Moi Hilinai were not indispensable to this litigation and (2) under the facts of this case, Revised Laws of Hawaii (RLH) § 4815 (1935), which precluded inheritance of patrilineal intestate property by illegitimate issue, will not be retroactively invalidated, inasmuch as (a) Plaintiff and its predecessor in title were innocent purchasers who relied upon the said statute, and (b) proof of paternity by Defendants-Appellants Robert K. Stender, Sr., Joseph H. Stender, Jr., William K. Au Young, Josephine L. Ferreira, Stanley S. Stender, Sr., Hermine K. Stender, and Ligaya Rasmussen (collectively, Stenders) was not conclusive. Accordingly, the May 15, 2001 findings of fact and conclusions of law and order granting Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and its June 27, 2001 final judgment are affirmed.
Plaintiff filed this action to quiet its title to Royal Patent Grants 2116, 2525, and 2728 at Ka'u, Hawai'i. The Stenders appeal only as to Royal Patent Grant 2116 (the Property). The Property was originally granted to Hilinai. Among his eight heirs were: (1) Moi Hilinai; (2) Kinolau; and (3) Waiola K. Pai.2 Moi Hilinai died in 1939, and his heirs were never judicially determined. Kinolau died in 1912, and was survived by a daughter, Kaai Kanawai, and by a son, William K. Holoua. Waiola K. Pai died in 1936, and was survived by two daughters, Mary P. Mason and Rose Aimoku.
Under the law governing intestate succession at the time of Moi Hilinai's death in 1939, if Moi Hilinai was survived by siblings or the issue3 of deceased siblings, but not by parents, spouse, or issue, his estate would devolve in equal shares to those siblings, with the issue of deceased siblings inheriting by right of representation. RLH § 4813 (1935). Pedigree recitals4 in deeds evidence that title to the Property descended from Moi Hilinai to the descendants of his deceased brother and sisters.
William K. Holoua died in 1922, predeceasing his uncle Moi Hilinai. However, William K. Holoua was survived by, among other issue, a son named Joseph H. Holoua. On December 28, 1940, by a pedigree recital in a deed, Joseph H. Holoua, reciting that he was the only son of William and Lihau Holoua, conveyed his interest in the Property inherited from his granduncle Moi Hilinai, to Hutchinson Sugar Plantation Company (Hutchinson). Hutchinson was Plaintiff's predecessor in title.
Kaai Kanawai died in 1947, and her heirs were never judicially determined. In 1950, Joseph H. Holoua again conveyed to Hutchinson his share of his uncle Moi Hilinai's interest in the Property. Plaintiff asserts that this latter deed demonstrates that Kaai Kanawai's share of the undivided interest in the Property, which she inherited from her uncle Moi Hilinai, devolved solely to her nephew Joseph H. Holoua.
Joseph H. Holoua was not, however, William K. Holoua's only issue. Joseph was the only child of William K. Holoua and his wife Lihau. But, after she gave birth to Joseph, Lihau Holoua could not bear children. Lihau's cousin, Maggie Keola Kapele, came to live with William and Lihau Holoua, and they formed a punalua relationship,5 bearing three daughters: Elizabeth Holoua, also known as Kaaipohuehue (Elizabeth); Ida Kapele, also known as Kinolau Keola (Ida); and Helen Kapele. Stenders are among the issue of Elizabeth and Ida.
Elizabeth was born in 1915 and Ida was born in 1920. Neither was denominated as legitimate; nonetheless, William K. Holoua is identified as their father on their birth certificates. However, the certificates are not signed by William K. Holoua. RLH § 4815, in effect at the time of Moi Hilinai's death, limited intestate succession by issue born out of wedlock to their mothers' estates.
In the order of distribution, Probate No. 3156 of Waiola K. Pai, Mary P. Mason was declared the sole heir of Waiola K. Pai. In 1944, Mary P. Mason conveyed her interest in the Property to Hutchinson, after which title vested by mesne conveyances and corporate mergers in Plaintiff.
In the record of probate proceedings, Mary P. Mason identified Rose Aimoku as being another daughter of Waiola K. Pai. Rose Aimoku died in 1938, and was survived by two issue, Victoria Hilinai and Samuel Maui, Jr.
Plaintiff commenced this quiet title action on July 21, 2000. Stenders filed their answer on September 27, 2000, claiming undivided interests in the Property as heirs of Elizabeth and Ida. Stenders averred in their answer that statutes barring out of wedlock issue from inheriting by intestate succession through their fathers' estates violated the equal protection clauses of the United States and Hawai'i Constitutions.6 In the alternative, Stenders asserted a right of inheritance by Hawaiian custom, as descendants of a punalua marriage. In response, Plaintiff, on March 23, 2001, filed a motion for summary judgment on Stenders' claims.
In its summary judgment motion, Plaintiff argued that because Elizabeth and Ida were born out of wedlock, they were barred by RLH § 4815 from inheriting by intestate succession through the estate of their father William K. Holoua. RLH § 4815 states that "[e]very illegitimate child shall be considered as an heir to his mother, and shall inherit her estate, in whole or in part, as the case may be, in like manner as if he had been born in lawful wedlock." Plaintiff also asserted that Stenders' descent from issue of a punalua marriage did not of itself establish a right to patrilineal inheritance, and further that any such inheritance rights were superseded by § 1452 of the Civil Code of 1859,7 the predecessor of RLH § 4815.8 In addition, Plaintiff maintained that, even if RLH § 4815 violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, for the reasons set forth in its supporting memorandum, the statute should not be retroactively invalidated.
In their memorandum in opposition, Stenders argued that RLH § 4815 was unconstitutional by reason of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 97 S.Ct. 1459, 52 L.Ed.2d 31 (1977). Trimble held that statutes denying the right of children born out of wedlock to inherit from their fathers by intestate succession violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 777, 97 S.Ct. 1459. Stenders asserted that in Reed v. Campbell, 476 U.S. 852, 106 S.Ct. 2234, 90 L.Ed.2d 858 (1986), the Supreme Court held that Trimble could be applied retroactively, and thus Hawaii's proscription against partrilineal inheritance by out of wedlock issue should be retroactively invalidated. Id. at 856, 106 S.Ct. 2234. Stenders thus argue that they were entitled to inherit on an equal footing with their uncle Joseph L. Holoua. Stenders also urged that summary judgment not be granted at this stage in the litigation because indispensable parties had not yet been joined. Stenders maintained that Victoria Hilinai and Samuel Maui, Jr., who had not been named as defendants in the action, were among Moi Hilinai's heirs,9 and thus had an interest in the Property.
Plaintiff in its reply memorandum asserted that, assuming arguendo RLH § 4815 is unconstitutional, Trimble should not be applied retroactively based upon the facts in the case at bar. Plaintiff further maintained that Stenders could not "set up title in a stranger" in an effort to defeat Plaintiff's motion, by demonstrating that certain of Moi Hilinai's heirs had not been named as parties herein.
Plaintiff's summary judgment motion was granted on May 15, 2001. The court, entering findings of fact and conclusions of law, ruled that (1) all of Waiola K. Pai's share of Moi Hilinai's interest in the Property passed through her daughter, Mary P. Mason, by deed to Hutchinson; (2) it would not apply Trimble retroactively; and (3) the evidence establishes that title is vested in Plaintiff.
Thereafter, Stenders moved on May 25, 2001, for reconsideration of the court's finding that Waiola K. Pai's share of Moi Hilinai's interest in the Property devolved solely through her daughter Mary P. Mason. The court denied Stenders' motion for reconsideration on June 18, 2001, and entered a final judgment "in favor of Plaintiff and against [Stenders], and all unknown persons claiming an interest in [the Property]," declaring Plaintiff to be the owner in fee simple of the Property, i.e., Royal Patent Grant 2116, and Royal Patent Grants 2525 and 2728.
The standard of review to be applied by this court in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Omerod v. Heirs of Kaheananui
...quiet title, only the relative interests of the parties to the action may be considered. See Ka`u Agribusiness Co. v. Heirs or Assigns of Ahulau, 105 Hawai`i 182, 187-88, 95 P.3d 613, 618-19 (2004) (stating that "`[i]t is enough that the interest asserted by the plaintiff . . . is superior ......
- State v. Akau
-
Copeland v. PNC Bank, N.A.
...Hawai'i 358, 367 n.13, 400 P.3d 559, 568 n.13 (2017) (quoting Ka'u Agribusiness Co. v. Heirs or Assigns of Ahulau, 105 Hawai'i 182, 193, 95 P.3d 613, 624 (2004) (quotations omitted); Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Matsuyoshi, 136 Hawai'i 227, 240 n.27, 361 P.3d 454, 467 n.27 (2015) (A bona fide p......
-
Schnute v. PNC Bank, N.A.
...of N.Y. Mellon v. R. Onaga, Inc., 140 Haw. 358, 367 n.13, 400 P.3d 559, 568 n.13 (2017) (quoting Ka'u Agribusiness Co. v. Heirs or Assigns of Ahulau, 105 Haw. 182, 193, 95 P.3d 613, 624 (2004)); and where(5) the current owners are not bona fide purchasers because they had "knowledge" of the......