Makila Land Co. v. Kapu
| Decision Date | 28 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | SCWC-17-0000358 |
| Citation | 152 Hawai‘i 112,522 P.3d 259 |
| Parties | MAKILA LAND CO., LLC, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonah Ke‘eaumoku KAPU, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant, and Heirs or Assigns of Kua (k), Kainoa (w), also known as Kainoa Kikue Olala (w), and Samuel Hiku Kahalia; John Paul Kapu; Victoria Q. White; Kalani Kapu; and all whom it may concern, Respondents/Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Daniel M. Gluck, Hawai‘i Appellate Pro Bono Program for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant, Ke‘eaumoku Kapu
Francis P. Hogan, (Michael W. Gibson and Benjamin M. Creps with him on the briefs) Honolulu, for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, Makila Land Co., LLC
In this case, we consider whether a letter from pro se litigant, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Jonah Ke‘eaumoku Kapu ("Kapu"), should have been liberally construed by the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit ("circuit court") as a motion for reconsideration of the circuit court's order granting summary judgment to Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, Makila Land Co., LLC ("Makila"), that resulted in Kapu and his family losing their only home.
We agree with Kapu that his pro se letter should have been liberally construed as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to this court's policy to afford pro se litigants equal access to justice. Consequently, we also agree that the circuit court erred in failing to provide Kapu an opportunity to be heard on the merits of that motion.
We therefore vacate the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ ("ICA") April 1, 2019 Judgment on Appeal and vacate in part the ICA's November 21, 2016 Judgment on Appeal, and remand to the circuit court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
This case is on appeal for the second time. In the first appeal, Kapu challenged the circuit court's award of summary judgment in favor of Makila on Makila's paper title claim2 to real property, ‘Apana 1 of the Land Commission Award ("LCA") 4878-O, Royal Patent 2664, to Olala, situated at Puehuehuiki and Wainee 2, Lahaina, Maui, Hawai‘i within TMK (2) 4-6-21-4 (" ‘Apana 1"), and the circuit court's denial of Kapu's claim of ownership of ‘Apana 1 by adverse possession. Makila Land Co. v. Kapu ("Makila I"), No. CAAP-12-0000547, 2016 WL 6136995, at *1 (App. Oct. 21, 2016) (mem.). The ICA in Makila I vacated in part the circuit court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Makila and held that there were genuine issues of material fact as to Makila's paper title claim.3 Specifically, the ICA held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Makila established that it received a conveyance of title to ‘Apana 1 (paper title) from Pioneer Mill Company, Limited ("Pioneer Mill"). Id. at *13. The ICA therefore vacated in part the circuit court's award of summary judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings. Id. at *14, *21.
On remand, the circuit court again awarded summary judgment in favor of Makila on the basis that Makila established that it received title to ‘Apana 1 from Pioneer Mill. Kapu appealed the circuit court's award of summary judgment to Makila to the ICA. Makila Land Co. v. Kapu ("Makila II"), No. CAAP-17-0000358, 2019 WL 968642, at *2 (App. Feb. 28, 2019) (SDO). The ICA in Makila II held that the circuit court's award of summary judgment to Makila was proper because Kapu failed to "present a substantive argument in opposition to" Makila's motion for judgment after remand. Id. The ICA further held that Kapu's argument that Pioneer Mill could not transfer paper title to Makila because Kapu was the rightful owner of ‘Apana 1 was "foreclosed by our decision in [ Makila I ] that Makila had proven its paper title through to Pioneer [Mill] as law of the case." Id.
On certiorari, Kapu contests, (1) the ICA's memorandum opinion in Makila I, which held that Kapu failed to meet his burden of proof for adverse possession, and (2) the ICA's decision in Makila II affirming the circuit court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Makila on remand.
This litigation started when Makila commenced a quiet title action in the circuit court against Kapu and Respondents/ Defendants-Appellees Heirs or Assigns of Kua (k), Kainoa (w)4 , also known as Kainoa Kikue Olala (w), and Samuel Hiku Kahalia; Victoria Q. White; Kalani Kapu; Jonah Ke‘eaumoku Kapu; John Paul Kapu; Pearl M. Kanuha; Dornali Kanuha Legsay; Arthurlynn Kanuha; Crosby L.K. Kanuha; Stanley A. Kanuha; Hans M. Kanuha; Victoria Nohealani Kaluna-Palafox, and all whom it may concern, seeking to establish fee simple title (paper title) to ‘Apana 1.5 Makila claimed ownership to ‘Apana 1 by a chain of title that began with an individual named Olala, the original awardee of LCA 4878-O, and concluded with a conveyance from Pioneer Mill to Makila by deed.6
Named defendant Jonah Ke‘eaumoku Kapu and his father, John Paul Kapu (collectively, "the Kapus"), filed an answer and counterclaim to Makila's complaint, alleging that they were the owners of ‘Apana 1 because unlike Makila, they are direct descendants of original owner Olala, and alternatively because they had gained title to ‘Apana 1 by adverse possession. The Kapus demanded that the circuit court dismiss Makila's complaint and declare them the owners of ‘Apana 1.
In support of its claim of title in Makila I, Makila filed four motions for summary judgment claiming paper title to ‘Apana 1, with supporting documentation including deeds and probate records. The Kapus opposed Makila's motions, claiming that genuine issues of material fact existed as to the identities of several names listed in Makila's chain of title,7 specifically contending that Makila erroneously identified a "Samuel Hakalaau" as being part of the chain of title as the person who conveyed paper title to Pioneer Mill. The Kapus contended that the Samuel Hakalaau identified by Makila was not the Samuel Hakalaau in the chain of title. According to the Kapus, the true Samuel Hakalaau in the chain of title was their ancestor, Samuel Kapu, also known as Kapu Hakalaau, from whom they claim lineal descent originating with Olala. The Kapus thus argued that genuine issues of material fact existed as to Makila's chain or title and its alleged ownership of ‘Apana 1.
The circuit court granted Makila's motion for summary judgment as to its paper title claim, but denied summary judgment as to the Kapus’ adverse possession counterclaim.8 In awarding summary judgment to Makila on the paper title claim, the circuit court determined that no genuine issues of material fact existed as to Makila's paper title to ‘Apana 1.9 The circuit court therefore entered final judgment on May 8, 2012, in favor of Makila and against all defendants, ruling that Makila was the owner in fee simple of ‘Apana 1 and that it was entitled to possession. The Kapus appealed to the ICA.
On appeal in Makila I, the Kapus argued that the circuit court erred by granting Makila summary judgment on the paper title and adverse possession claims "because the evidence in the record raised disputed questions of material fact concerning who had superior title."10 No. CAAP-12-0000547, 2016 WL 6136995, at *10. The ICA issued its memorandum opinion in Makila I on October 21, 2016.11 Id. at *1. With regard to Makila's paper title claim, the ICA "vacate[d] the Circuit Court's Judgment insofar as it granted summary judgment to Makila on its claim of paper title to [‘Apana 1]" and "quieted title in favor of Makila." Id. at *14, *21. Although the ICA concluded that Makila established a chain of title from Olala to Pioneer Mill, it held that Makila did not establish that it had received title to ‘Apana 1 from Pioneer Mill because the 2001 deed conveying certain properties from Pioneer Mill to Makila did not make any reference to ‘Apana 1. Id. at *13. Specifically, the ICA noted that the 2001 deed from Makila's immediate predecessor-in-interest, Pioneer Mill, included a list of lands purportedly conveyed by the deed, but the list of lands did not make any reference to LCA 4878-O, Royal Patent 2664, ‘Apana 1. Id. Without that "essential link," the ICA held that it could not "find that Makila satisfied its burden of proving its prima facie claim of paper title." Id. The ICA therefore determined genuine issues of material fact existed and summary judgment on Makila's paper title claim was improper. Id. at *21.
With regard to the Kapus’ counterclaim asserting title by adverse possession, the ICA held that Makila had "pointed out the absence of competent[ ] evidence to support" the claim, which shifted the burden to the Kapus "to respond with specific facts showing that there was a genuine issue for trial." Id. at *17. The ICA further held that the Kapus had not "provided evidence of actual, open, notorious, and continuous use of [‘Apana 1] for the statutory time period, and therefore failed to make a sufficient showing to establish the existence of the essential elements of their case, on which they would bear the burden of proof at trial." Id. at *21. The ICA therefore held that Makila was entitled to summary judgment on the Kapus’ counterclaim for ownership by adverse possession. Id.
The ICA affirmed in part and vacated in part the circuit court's final judgment and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with its opinion. Id. No party filed an application for a writ of certiorari to review the ICA's opinion in Makila I. However, because Makila was granted another award of summary judgment on remand on the same paper title claim in Makila I, the issues decided in Makila I are pertinent to the appeal before this court in Makila II.
On remand to the circuit court, Makila again moved for summary judgment. It attached to its motion for judgment after remand, evidence which it said "establishes that Makila received title to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial