FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER

INTHEINTERMEDIATECOURTOFAPPEALS
OFTHESTATEOFHAWAI'I
---o0o---
THEMALULANIGROUP,LIMITEDfkaMAGOONBROTHERS,LTD.,
aHawaiicorporation,Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KAUPORANCH,LTD.,aHawaiicorporation;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESOF
HAMOLEAKAMARIAHAMOLE;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESOFKALEIMOMI
PIIMAUNAAKAROBERTKALEIMOMIPIIMAUNA;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESOF
KAWAIAKAHI;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESOFIPOALOHAKALALANIAKAIPO
KEKIWI;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESORBENJAMINKEKIWIAKABENJAMIN
KAHALEKEKIWI;SAMK.KAAWAAKASAMSONK.KAAWA;MAUREENLISA
BULLER;JEFFREYLOUBULLER;JEROMEPIIMAUNA;JEFFREYNOHUA
PIIMAUNA;ANDREWPIIMAUNA;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESOFJOSEPHN.
PIIMAUNA,JR.,AKAJOSEPHNAHALEPIIMAUNA,JR.;WALTERHIU,JR.;
BEATRICEKAHUILACHERRY;PATRICKKAHUILA;YOLANDAY.MATAAKA
YOLANDAY.HAUKI;EDWINAL.HIU;CLARENCEK.T.HIU;NANCYMISAO
KAHUILABONDAKANANCYM.MCDANIEL;LINDAA.CLARK;HEIRSAND/OR
DEVISEESOFABELWAILANIHAI;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESOFADAMSCOTT
HAI,SR.;AGNESKANALULUSMITH;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESOFJOHNE.
KAMAI;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESOFPALAONEA;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEES
OFJOSHUAAHULII;LUCINDAPUPUHI;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESOF
KAMAKALOHI;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESOFPUPUHI;HEIRSAND/OR
DEVISEESOFHOLI;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESOFA.KAWEAAKAANEKAWEA
andasANEKAULAINAMOKU;HEIRSAND/ORDEVISEESOFWAHINEAEA
andJOHNDOES1-100;JANEDOES1-100;DOEPARTNERSHIPS1-100;
DOECORPORATIONS1-100;DOEENTITIES1-100and
DOEGOVERNMENTALUNITS1-100,Defendants-Appellees.
NO.30509
APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTOFTHESECONDCIRCUIT
(CIVILNO.08-1-0501(3))
MAY5,2014
FUJISE,PRESIDINGJUDGE,LEONARDandGINOZA,JJ.
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
OPINIONOFTHECOURTBYGINOZA,J.
Plaintiff-AppellantTheMalulaniGroup,Limited,fka
MagoonBrothers,Ltd.,(Malulani)filedthisdeclaratoryaction
allegingthatitownspropertyinKaupo,Hana,Maui(Malulani
Parcel)andseekingtoestablishimpliedaccessandutility
easementsacrossadjacentproperty(KaupoParcel)inwhich
Defendant-AppelleeKaupoRanch,Ltd.(KaupoRanch)hasan
interest. Malulani'sFirstAmendedComplaintassertsthree
claims:(1)anaccesseasementimpliedbynecessity;(2)an
accesseasementimpliedbyprioruse;and(3)autilities
easementaspartofanaccesseasement.
TheCircuitCourtoftheSecondCircuit(circuit
1
court) grantedsummaryjudgmentforKaupoRanchonallof
Malulani'sclaimsandgrantedcoststoKaupoRanch. OnApril16,
2010,thecircuitcourtenteredaFinalJudgmentandDecree
(FinalJudgment)againstMalulani,fromwhichMalulaniappeals.
Forthereasonsdiscussedbelow,wevacatetheFinal
Judgmententeredbythecircuitcourtandremandforfurther
proceedings.
I. Background
TheMalulaniParcelconsistsofapproximately20.2
acresthatMalulaniassertsiswhollysurroundedandlandlocked
bytheKaupoParcel,whichinturnconsistsofapproximately118
acres. MalulanifurthercontendsthatrecordsintheBureauof
Conveyancescontainnoaccessorutilitieseasementsbetweenthe
MalulaniParcelandtheclosestgovernmentroad,Pi'ilani
Highway. However,MalulaniassertsthattheMalulaniParceland
theKaupoParcelwereinitiallyownedbytheKingdomofHawai'i,
thateachparcelwasconveyedbyrespectivelandgrantsinthe
1850s,andthatacontinuousandapparenteasementforaccess
betweentheMalulaniParcelandPi'ilaniHighwayexistsoverthe
KaupoParcel. Malulanithusclaimsanimpliedeasementoverthe
KaupoParcelinfavoroftheMalulaniParcelforaccessto
1
TheHonorableJosephE.Cardozapresided.
2
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
Pi'ilaniHighway. Malulanifurtherclaimsthatsuchaneasement
createsageneralright-of-wayforallreasonablepurposes,
includingutilityeasements.
ThecircuitcourtresolvedallofMalulani'sclaimsby
grantingsummaryjudgmentforKaupoRanch. Theprimarybasisfor
thecircuitcourt'srulingwasthattheKingdomofHawaii's
originalownershipofboththeMalulaniParcelandtheKaupo
Parcelcouldnot,asamatteroflaw,satisfythe"unityof
ownership"requirementforimplyinganeasement. Additionally,
thecircuitcourtconcludedthatMalulani'sclaimswerebarredby
thestatuteoflimitationssetforthinHawaiiRevisedStatutes
(HRS)657-31(1993).
Initspointsoferrorraisedonappeal,Malulani
contendsthatthecircuitcourterredby:1)grantingsummary
judgmenttoKaupoRanchbasedonthecourt'sconclusionthatthe
KingdomofHawaii'scommoninitialownershipoftheproperties
couldnot,asamatteroflaw,satisfytheunityofownership
requirementfortheimpliedeasementclaims;2)concludingthat
theutilityeasementclaimfailsasamatteroflawbecauseit
derivesfromMalulani'simpliedeasementclaims;3)concluding
thatKaupoRanchwasentitledtosummaryjudgmentonthe
additionalbasisthatthestatuteoflimitationsinHRS657-31
barredMalulani'sclaims;4)findingthatKaupoRanchisthe
currentownerofanundividedinterestintheKaupoParcel;
5)enteringtheApril16,2010FinalJudgment;and6)awarding
coststoKaupoRanch.
Weholdthat,underthecircumstancesofthiscase,the
KingdomofHawaii'spriorownershipofboththeMalulaniParcel
andtheKaupoParcelsatisfiestheunityofownershiprequirement
foranimpliedeasementclaim. Further,weholdthatthestatute
oflimitationssetforthinHRS657-31doesnotapplytoan
impliedeasementclaimandthusdoesnotbartheclaimsinthis
case. SummaryjudgmentandthecostsawardedinfavorofKaupo
Ranchwerenotwarranted,andthecaseisremanded.
3

FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
II. StandardsofReview
A.SummaryJudgment
"Onappeal,thegrantordenialofsummaryjudgmentis
revieweddenovo." FirstIns.Co.ofHawai'iv.A&B
Props.,Inc.,126Hawai'i406,413,271P.3d1165,1172
(2012)(citingNuuanuValleyAss'nv.City&Cnty.of
Honolulu,119Hawai'i90,96,194P.3d531,537(2008)).
Furthermore,
[S]ummaryjudgmentisappropriateifthepleadings,
depositions,answerstointerrogatoriesandadmissions
onfile,togetherwiththeaffidavits,ifany,show
thatthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfact
andthatthemovingpartyisentitledtojudgmentasa
matteroflaw. Afactismaterialifproofofthat
factwouldhavetheeffectofestablishingorrefuting
oneoftheessentialelementsofacauseofactionor
defenseassertedbytheparties. Theevidencemustbe
viewedinthelightmostfavorabletothenon-moving
party. Inotherwords,wemustviewallofthe
evidenceandinferencesdrawntherefrominthelight
mostfavorabletothepartyopposingthemotion.
Id.at41314,271P.3dat117273(citationomitted).
Ralstonv.Yim,129Hawai'i46,55-56,292P.3d1276,1285-86
(2013).
B. AwardofCosts
Wereviewanawardofcostsundertheabuseof
discretionstandard.Pulawav.GTEHawaiianTel.,112Hawai'i3,
10-11,143P.3d1205,1212-13(2006).
III.Discussion
A. ImpliedEasements
1. RequirementsUnderHawai'iLaw
Hawai'icourtshavelongrecognizedtheprinciplethat
easementscanbeimplied,dependingonthecircumstancesofthe
case. SeeAOAOofWaileaEluav.WaileaResortCo.,100Hawai'i
97,100,105-07,58P.3d608,611,616-18(2002)(holdingthatan
impliedeasementexistedforadrainagesystem);Nearyv.Martin,
57Haw.577,582-83,561P.2d1281,1284-85(1977)(holdingthere
wasnoimpliedeasementforaccesswherethetrialcourtfound
thatthepartiestotheconveyanceseveringthesubject
propertiesintendedtheconveyancetobefreeandclearofthe
allegedeasement);Tanakav.Mitsunaga,43Haw.119,124-25(Haw.
Terr.1959)(holdingtherewasnoimpliedeasementforarightof
4

FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
waywherethetrialcourtfindingssupportedtheconclusionthat
thepriorownerofbothparcelsdidnotintendtoconveyan
easement);Stibbardv.Rego,38Haw.84,94(Haw.Terr.1948)
(holdingtherewasanimpliedeasementforuseofadriveway
wherethepreviousownerofthesubjectpropertieshadconveyed
parcelstoherchildrencontainingthedrivewayandhadcontinued
usingthedrivewaythereaftertoaccessaretainedparcel);
Kalaukoav.Keawe,9Haw.191,194(Haw.Prov.Gov.1893)
(recognizinga"wayofnecessity"createdbyimpliedgrantand
holdingthatthewidthofthewaywasthesameaswasusedfor
manyyearspriortotheconveyancethatimpliedlygrantedthe
way);HenmiApartments,Inc.v.Sawyer,3Haw.App.555,559-61,
655P.2d881,885-86(1982)(recognizingimpliedeasementsfor
pedestrianandutilitypurposes).
Akeyrequirementtoimplyaneasementisthatthere
musthavebeenaprior"unityofownership"ofthedominantand
servientproperties. TheHawai'iSupremeCourthasconsistently
reliedonthefollowingquotefrom3PowellonRealProperty
411,toexplainthetheoryunderlyinganimpliedeasement.
Allimplicationsofeasementsnecessarilyinvolvean
originalunityofownershipoftheparcelswhichlater
becomethedominantandservientparcels. WhenAowns
Blackacre,itisnotpossibleforAastheownerofthewest
halfofBlackacretohaveatrueeasementwithrespectto
theeasthalfofBlackacre;butitisbothpossibleand
frequenttofindAusingtheeasthalfofBlackacreforthe
serviceofthewesthalfofBlackacre,asforexample,when
theeasthalfofBlackacrecontainsdrains,orsewers,or
irrigationditches,orroadwaysorstairwayswhichincrease
theusabilityofthewesthalfofBlackacre. Itisthen
possibletodescribeA'sutilizationofonepartof
Blackacrefortheserviceofanotherpartthereofasa
quasi-easement,andtospeakoftheservedpartasthe
quasi-dominanttenement,andoftheburdenedpartasthe
quasi-servienttenement.
Wheresuchaquasi-easementhasexistedandthecommonowner
thereafterconveystoanotherthequasi-dominanttenement,
theconveyeeisinapositiontoclaimaneasementby
implicationwithrespecttotheunconveyedquasi-servient
tenement.
AOAOofWaileaElua,100Hawai'iat105-06,58P.3dat616-17
(emphasisadded)(quotingNeary,57Haw.at580,561P.2dat
1283);Tanaka,43Haw.at122-23;seealso25Am.Jur.2nd
EasementsandLicenses19(2004)("Animpliedeasementnormally
5

FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
arisesonlywhenthelandonwhichtheeasementissoughtwas
oncepartofthesameparcelthatisnowlandlocked.");JonW.
Bruce&JamesW.Ely,Jr.,TheLawofEasementsandLicensesin
Land4:7(2014);28AC.J.S.Easements112(2008)("Waysof
necessitycannotexistwheretherewasneveranyunityof
ownershipoftheallegeddominantandservientestates.");
4RichardR.Powell,PowellonRealProperty34.07[2],at34-49
(MichaelAllenWolf,ed.2013)(notingthatalthoughthereare
differenttheoriesforanimpliedeasement,"anoriginalunityof
ownershipofthedominantandservientparcelsmustbepleaded
andproved").
2
Iftherewaspriorunityofownershipofthe
properties,Hawai'icourtsthenfocusontheintentofthe
partiesatthetimethepropertieswereseveredtodetermineif
animpliedeasementexists. "Whetheranimpliedeasementexists
dependsontheintentofthepartiesasshownbyallthefacts
andcircumstancesunderwhichtheconveyancewasmade." Henmi,
3Haw.App.at559,655P.2dat885;seealsoAOAOofWailea
Elua,100Hawai'iat106,58P.3dat617("Theprimaryfactorin
determiningwhether...thegrantor[]retainedanimplied
easement...istheparties'intentatthetime[of
severance.]");Tanaka,43Haw.at123("[T]hebasisofanimplied
easementisthepresumptionofgrantarisingfromthe
2
AlthoughHawai'icourtshavenotexplicitlydiscussedthepublic
policybehindimplyinganeasement,Kelloggv.Garcia,125Cal.Rptr.2d817
(Cal.Ct.App.2002)providesagoodexplanationthatisconsistentwith
Hawai'ilawandwhichunderscoreswhyapreviousunityofownershipisa
requirement:
Awayofnecessityisofcommon-laworiginandissupportedbytherule
ofsoundpublicpolicythatlandsshouldnotberenderedunfitfor
occupancyorsuccessfulcultivation. Suchawayistheresultofthe
applicationofthepresumptionthatwheneverapartyconveysproperty,
heconveyswhateverisnecessaryforthebeneficialuseofthatproperty
andretainswhateverisnecessaryforthebeneficialuseoflandhe
stillpossesses. Thus,thelegalbasisofawayofnecessityisthe
presumptionofagrantarisingfromthecircumstancesofthecase. This
presumptionofagrant,however,isoneoffact,andwhetheragrant
shouldbeimplieddependsuponthetermsofthedeedandthefactsin
eachparticularcase.
Id.at823(emphasisinoriginal,citationsandinternalquotationmarks
omitted).
6
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
circumstancesofthecase. Suchpresumptionisoneoffact,
whichmayberebutted.");Kalaukoa,9Haw.at192-93("The
questionastowhatisgrantedorreservedisaquestionof
intentiontobeshownbycompetentevidence....Inthecaseof
animpliedgrantitisprovedbyallthecircumstancesofthe
case,andespeciallybytheconditionofthepropertyatthetime
ofconveyance.").
AsfurtherexplainedinAOAOofWaileaElua,
[t]hreefactorsareoftenusedasameansofindicating
intent. Itisoftensaidthat,inorderforapreviously
existingquasi-easementtoripenintoanimpliedeasement,
thequasi-easementmusthavebeen:(1)apparent;
(2)permanent;and(3)either(a)"importantforthe
enjoymentoftheconveyedquasi-dominantparcel,"or
(b)"strictlynecessary"fortheenjoymentofthedominant
parcel....[A]lthoughthethreeabove-mentionedgeneral
"requirements"forthecreationofanimpliedeasementwill
ordinarilyconstitutethe"test"bywhichcourtsshould
ascertainthepresenceofanimpliedeasement,theyarebut
onemethodofascertaining"thepresumptionofgrantarising
fromthecircumstancesofthecase,"Tanaka,43Haw.at123,
or"theintentofthepartiesasshownbyallthefactsand
circumstancesunderwhichtheconveyancewasmade,"Henmi,3
Haw.App.at559,655P.2dat885.
100Hawai'iat106n.8,58P.3dat617n.8(originalbrackets
omitted).
Therearethusavarietyofissuesinvolvedinwhether
animpliedeasementexists. Inlightofthecircuitcourt's
summaryjudgmentruling,thisappealreachesonlythe"unityof
ownership"requirement.
3
Eveniftheunityofownership
3
Malulani'sFirstAmendedComplaintclaimsaccesseasements"implied
bynecessity"and"impliedbyprioruse." BasedonMalulani'sdescriptionof
thesetwoclaimsintheFirstAmendedComplaint,theonlydifferenceappears
tobewithregardtothethird"test"forintentdescribedinAOAOofWailea
Elua--thatis,whetherthepreviouslyexistingquasi-easementwas"strictly
necessary"orrather,"importantfortheenjoymentoftheconveyedquasi-
dominantparcel." 100Hawai'iat106n.8,58p.3dat617n.8. Hawaii's
appellatecourtshavedeclinedtodeterminewhetheronlya"strictly
necessary"easementcanbeimplied,orwhetheraneasementcanbeimplied
merelywhenitis"importantfortheenjoymentoftheconveyedquasi-dominant
parcel,"astheseconceptssimplyreflectamethodofascertaining"theintent
ofthepartiesasshownbyallthefactsandcircumstancesunderwhichthe
conveyancewasmade[.]" Id.(citationandinternalquotationmarksomitted).
Thisissuewasnotraisedinthesummaryjudgmentmotionoraddressedbythe
circuitcourt,andthusitisnotbeforeusinthisappeal.
Likewise,thisappealdoesnotaddressMalulani'sclaiminits
FirstAmendedComplaintthatanimpliedaccesseasementwouldcreateageneral
(continued...)
7
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
requirementismet,theotherrequirementsmustalsobemet.
"Whether[animpliedeasement]claimwillbeeffectivedepends
uponthesatisfactionofcertaintestsestablishedbythecases."
Tanaka,43Haw.at123(quoting3PowellonRealProperty411);
Neary,57Haw.at580,561P.2dat1283.
2. UnityofOwnershipbyaGovernmentalEntity
Thisappealpresentsanissueoffirstimpressionin
Hawai'i,whethertheKingdomofHawaii'spreviousownershipofthe
subjectpropertiescansatisfytheunityofownershiprequirement
foranimpliedeasementclaim. Underthecircumstancesofthis
case,weconcludethatitcan.
ItisundisputedbetweenMalulaniandKaupoRanch,and
theevidenceintherecordestablishes,
4
thattheKingdomof
Hawai'ipreviouslyhadunifiedownershipoftheMalulaniParcel
andtheKaupoParcel. Theundisputedevidenceshowsthattitle
totheMalulaniParceloriginallyderivesfromRoyalPatent
No.2340issuedinFebruary1857,inwhichtheKingdomofHawai'i
grantedfeesimpletitletoT.C.Wilmingtonfor$20.25. The
evidencealsoshowsthattitletotheKaupoParceloriginally
derivesfromanotherlandgranttwoyearslater,RoyalPatent
No.2577issuedinMay1859,inwhichtheKingdomofHawai'i
3
(...continued)
right-of-wayforallreasonablepurposes,includingeasementsforutility
lines. Thepartiesdidnotlitigatethescopeofanyclaimedeasementandthe
circuitcourtdidnotruleonanysuchissue. Rather,thecircuitcourt
grantedsummaryjudgmentforKaupoRanchonallofMalulani'seasementclaims
basedontheunityofownershiprequirement,aswellasonstatuteof
limitationsgrounds.
4
Wenotethatthecircuitcourtmadecertain"findingsoffact"as
partofitsJanuary4,2010ordergrantingsummaryjudgmenttoKaupoRanch.
However,becausethecircuitcourtwasaddressingasummaryjudgmentmotion,
anddidnotholdanytypeofevidentiaryhearing,weapplytheusualsummary
judgmentprinciplesandarenotboundbythecircuitcourt'sfindings,
regardlessofwhetherthosefindingsarechallengedonappealornot. Thus,
interalia,wereviewthecircuitcourt'ssummaryjudgmentrulingdenovo,
considerwhetherthereareanygenuineissuesofmaterialfact,andalsoview
theevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothenon-movingparty. See
Ralston,129Hawai'iat55-56,292P.3dat1285-86;Hawai'iRulesofCivil
ProcedureRule56. "[I]nreviewingsummaryjudgmentdecisions,anappellate
courtstepsintotheshoesofthetrialcourtandappliesthesamelegal
standardasthetrialcourtapplied." KogaEng'g&Const.Inc.v.State,122
Hawai'i60,78,222P.3d979,997(2010)(citationsandoriginalbrackets
omitted).
8

FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
grantedfeesimpletitletoPali_Ohule_WahapuuandNahaCharlotte
Harbottlefor$118. Forpurposesoftheimpliedeasementclaims
inthiscase,wefocusonthe1857conveyance,atwhichpointthe
propertiesweresevered.
Generally,thereisasplitofauthoritywhetherthe
"unityofownership"elementforimplyinganeasementcanbe
satisfiedbypriorgovernmentownership. SeeBruce&Ely,supra,
4:7,at4-21to-22("Controversyexistsastowhether
governmentalownershipofbothtractsmayfulfilltheunity-of-
titlestandard.");4Powell,supra34.07[4],at34-59("Special
problemsconcerningeasementsbynecessityareencounteredwhere
theonlyunityoftitlewastheoriginalownershipbythe
government.").
Somecourtshaveheldthataneasementcannotbe
impliedwhentheonlyunityofownershipwasheldbythe
government. SeeUnitedStatesv.Rindge,208F.611,619(S.D.
Cal1913);BullyHillCopperMining&SmeltingCo.v.Bruson,87
P.237,238(Cal.Dist.Ct.App.1906);Guessv.Azar,57So.2d
443,445(Fla.1952);Backmanv.Lawrence,210P.3d75,80(Idaho
2009);Cont'lEnters.,Inc.v.Cain,296N.E.2d170,171(Ind.
Ct.App.1973);Thomasv.Morgan,240P.735,737(Okla.1925),
overruledinpartonothergroundsbyPearsonv.Hasty,137P.2d
545(Okla.1943);Pearnev.CoalCreekMining&Mfg.Co.,18S.W.
402,404(Tenn.1891).
Anumberofthesecasesareofoldervintageand
providelittleexplanationfortheadoptedposition. SeeBully
Hill,87P.237;Thomas,240P.735;Pearne,18S.W.402. In
Rindge,thecourtexpressedaconcernaboutthepotentialbreadth
ofimplyingeasementsbasedoncommonownershipgoingbacktothe
government. 208F.at619. Morerecently,inBackman,theIdaho
SupremeCourtendorsedasimilarviewthat
[i]twouldberuinoustoestablishtheprecedentcontended
for,sincebyiteverygranteefromtheearliesthistoryof
theState,andthosewhosucceedtohistitle,wouldhavean
impliedrightofwayoverallsurroundingandadjacentlands
heldunderjuniorgrants,eventotheutmostlimitsofthe
State.
9

FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
210P.3dat80(quotingGuess,57So.2dat444-45). TheBackman
courtrejectedtheargumentthatimpliedrightswouldbelimited
bytherequirementofnecessity,discountingtheargumentby
simplystating"therewouldbelittlereasontohaveaunityof
titleelementifitcouldbesatisfiedbycommonownershipinthe
UnitedStates." Id.
Themoderntrend,however,appearstotakeadifferent
view,recognizingthatpriorownershipbythegovernmentcan
servetomeettheunityofownershiprequirement,particularly
whenaneasementbynecessityisimpliedagainstthegovernmental
entityoroverlandwhichwasheldbythegovernmentatthetime
thepropertiesweresevered. SeeMcFarlandv.Kempthorne,545
F.3d1106,1111(9thCir.2008);Kinscherffv.UnitedStates,586
F.2d159,161(10thCir.1978);UnitedStatesv.Dunn,478F.2d
443,444n.2(9thCir.1973);Fitzgeraldv.UnitedStates,932F.
Supp.1195,1202(D.Ariz.1996);Mont.WildernessAss'nv.U.S.
ForestServ.,496F.Supp.880,885-86(D.Mont.1980);Kellogg
v.Garcia,125Cal.Rptr.2d817,826(Cal.Ct.App.2002);
Mooresv.Walsh,45Cal.Rptr.2d389,391(Cal.Ct.App.1995).
5
OneoftheprimarycasesthatMalulanireliesuponis
Kellogg,whereasKaupoRanchcontendsthatKellogghaslimited
valueandshouldhavenoapplicationtothiscase. InKellogg,
theKelloggsfiledaquiettitleactionclaiminginteraliaan
impliedeasementforaccessoverneighboringpropertyownedby
theGarcias. 125Cal.Rptr.2dat820-21. Thefederal
governmenthadoriginallyheldunityofownership,butin1878
conveyedthepropertythattheKelloggseventuallycametoown
andretainedthepropertythattheGarciaseventuallycameto
own. Id. Atthetimeofseverance,theconveyedpropertywas
surroundedbythepropertyretainedbythefederalgovernment.
Id.at820. ThetrialcourtreliedonBullyHillandruledthat
5
TheRestatement(Third)ofProperty2.15cmt.c(2000)statesthat
"[s]ervitudesbynecessityariseonconveyancesbygovernmentalbodiesaswell
asbyothergrantors." SeealsoKitrasv.TownofAcquinnah,833N.E.2d157,
164n.5(Mass.App.Ct.2005)(adoptingtheRestatement'sapproachandstating
"[t]hereappearsnocompellingmodernreasonheretodistinguishbetween
governmentalandprivategrantors,andweadopttheRestatement'sapproach").
10

FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
theunityofownershiprequirementhadnotbeenmetbecausethe
originalownerofthepropertieswasthefederalgovernment. 125
Cal.Rptr.2dat824.
OnappealinKellogg,theCaliforniaCourtofAppeal,
ThirdDistrict,reversedandheldthatunityofownershipcould
beestablishedbythefederalgovernment'spriorownershipofthe
properties. 125Cal.Rptr.2dat825-26,829. Thecourtnoted
thatBullyHillwas"inconflictwiththecurrenttrendinthe
law"aswellasthethen-recentdecisioninMoores,whichhad
beendecidedbyanotherCaliforniaappellatecourt,the
CaliforniaCourtofAppeal,FirstDistrict.
6
Id.at825. The
Kelloggcourtfurtherpointedtocommentatorswhohadexpressed
theviewthatallowinggovernmentownershiptosatisfytheunity
ofownershiprequirementisconsistentwithunderlyingtheories
forthe"easement-of-necessityconcept." Id.at825-26. That
is,"[i]tfurthersthepublicpolicyofpromotingproductiveuse
oflandandalsoisinharmonywiththepresumptionthatthe
partiesintendedtograntortoreserveaneasementtobenefit
thelandlockedparcel." Id.(citingtoBruce&Ely,TheLawof
EasementsandLicensesinLand4:7(2001);4PowellonReal
Property34.07[4](2001);Tiffany,TheLawofRealProperty
793(3ded.1939)).
7
KaupoRancharguesthatKelloggisunderminedbyMurphy
v.Burch,205P.3d289(Cal.2009),alaterdecisionbythe
CaliforniaSupremeCourt,andthatMalulani'srelianceonKellogg
6
InMoores,thepropertiesinvolvedwereoncejointlyownedbythe
federalgovernment. 45Cal.Rptr.2dat390. TheCaliforniaCourtofAppeal,
FirstDistrict,rejectedtheargumentthat"commonownershipmustbebyother
thanthefederalgovernment"tosatisfytheunityofownershiprequirementand
insteadrecognizedthat"[a]neasementbynecessitymayexistacrosslands
ownedbythefederalgovernment." Id.at391n.1. Thecourtultimatelyheld,
however,thattheclaimedeasementbynecessity,foraccesstothelandlocked
parcel,hadbeenextinguishedbecausethenecessityrequirementcouldno
longerbemet. Id.at391-92.
Asnotedearlier,andsimilartoHawai'icaselaw,Kelloggalso
recognizesthatthepresumptionofagrant"isoneoffact,andwhethera
grantshouldbeimplieddependsuponthetermsofthedeedandthefactsin
eachparticularcase." 125Cal.Rptr.2dat823(emphasis,citationsand
internalquotationmarkomitted).
11
7
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
ismisplaced. WedisagreewithKaupoRanch. Rather,asMalulani
contends,Murphydoesnotestablishabrightlinerulethat
governmentownershipcanneversatisfytheunityofownership
requirement. Moreover,andimportantly,Murphydistinguished
Kelloggbasedonthedifferingcircumstancesinthosecases.
ThiscaseissimilartoKellogg.
InMurphy,theplaintiffMurphyandthedefendants
Burchessoughttoquiettitleastowhetheranimpliedeasement
existedovertheBurches'propertytobenefitMurphy'sproperty.
205P.3dat291. Bothpropertieswereoriginallyownedbythe
federalgovernment. Whenthefederalgovernmentseveredthe
properties,itconveyedthequasi-servientparcel(thatthe
Burcheseventuallyowned)tovariousprivateowners,andretained
thequasi-dominantparcel(thatMurphyeventuallyowned). Id.at
292. Becausetherewasnoexpresseasementovertheconveyed
quasi-servientparcel,thequestioninMurphywaswhetherthe
federalgovernmenthadimpliedlyreservedanaccesseasementby
necessityoverthequasi-servientparcelithadconveyed. Id.
TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtnotedthat"[i]ncontrast
toprivatepartyconveyances,...conveyancesinvolvinga
sovereignasthecommonownertypicallydonotgiveriseto
impliedreservationsofeasementsorotherpropertyinterestsin
conveyedland." Murphy,205P.3dat294(italicsinoriginal,
underlineemphasisadded). Thecourtexplainedthatthe
considerationsforthisresultincludethat"anumberofcourts
expressreluctancetointerferewiththecertaintyand
predictabilityoflandtitlesconferredbyasovereignwithout
anyexpressreservationofrights[;]"that"somecourtswarnthat
thecommon-ownershiprequirementwouldbemeaninglessunless
strongershowingsarerequiredforimplyinganeasementby
necessityincasestracingbackto[government]patents[;]"and
that"somecourtsrecognizethatstrictnecessitydoesnotexist
inthecaseofthesovereignasinthecaseoftheprivate
landowner,becausethesovereigncanexercisethepowerof
12
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
eminentdomaintoobtainanyandallreasonablerights-of-way."
Id.
TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtthusadoptedthefollowing
approach:
[A]lthoughweneednotanddonotpresentlyimposea
categoricalbartoalleasement-by-necessityclaimstracing
commonownershiptothefederalgovernment,weholdthatthe
specialconsiderationsabovemustinformthedetermination
whethersuchaneasementarisesbyimplication. Thismeans
that,consistentwithexistingCaliforniacommonlaw,an
easementbynecessitymayarisebyimplicationbasedonthe
inferredintentofthepartiestothepropertyconveyance,
asdeterminedfromthetermsoftherelevantinstrumentand
thecircumstancessurroundingthetransaction. Strict
necessityandcommonownershipremainrequiredshowings,but
whenaclaimanttracescommonownershipbacktothefederal
governmentandseekstoestablishanimpliedreservationof
anaccessright-of-way,theintentofCongressisparamount
andthegovernment'spowerofeminentdomainalsobears
significance. Giventheuniquehistoricalandlegalnature
oflandpatents,extremecautionmustbeexercisedin
determiningwhetherthecircumstancessurroundinga
governmentlandgrantaresufficienttoovercomethe
inferencepromptedbytheomissionofanexpressreference
toareservedrightofaccess. Insuchcases,theeasement
claimantbearstheburdenofproducingevidenceonthe
issuesregardingthegovernment'sintenttoreservean
easementandthegovernment'slackofpowertocondemn.
Id.at295-96(emphasisadded,internalcitationsomitted).
UnderMurphy,therefore,unityofownershipbythegovernment
doesnotpersebarthepossibilityofanimpliedeasement,but
specialconsiderationsapplytoestablishanimpliedreservation
ofaneasementbythegovernment.
Significantly,theMurphycourtaddressedKelloggand
distinguishedit,stating:
Unlikethesituationhere,Kellogg...didnot
concernaclaimofanimpliedreservation. Rather,the
plaintiffsinKelloggsoughttoestablishthatwhenthe
federalgovernmentmadeagrantoflandlockedproperty,the
governmentalsoimpliedlygrantedarightofaccessforthat
propertyoverthelanditretained. Becauseexerciseofthe
government'spowerofeminentdomaincouldhavehadno
effectonaccesstotheconveyedlandlockedproperty,itis
hardlysurprisingthatKelloggmadenoattemptto
distinguishtheauthoritiesholdingthatsuchpowernegates
theelementofstrictnecessitywhenanimpliedreservation
claimisatissue. Asonetreatiseobserves,wherethe
governmentisidentifiedasthecommongrantor,"aneasement
ofnecessitymaybecreatedagainstthegovernment,butthe
governmentagencycannotestablishaneasementbynecessity
overlandithasconveyedbecauseitspowerofeminent
domainremovesthestrictnecessityrequiredforthe
creationofaneasementbynecessity."
13
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
205P.3dat297(italicsinoriginal,underlineemphasisadded,
internalcitationsomitted). Thus,Murphydidnotoverrulenor
callintoquestiontheholdingsinKelloggorMoores. Rather,
MurphyrecognizedthatKelloggaddressedadifferent
circumstance,i.e.inKellogg,atthetimeofseverance,the
governmenthadconveyedthequasi-dominantparcelwhichwould
benefitfromtheclaimedeasement,whileretainingthequasi-
servientparceloverwhichtheeasementwastobeimplied,and
thusthegovernment'seminentdomainpowerswereirrelevantand
thequestionwaswhethertherewasanimpliedgrantofan
easementbythefederalgovernment.
TheinstantcasebetweenMalulaniandKaupoRanchis
similartoKellogg. TheKingdomofHawai'ihadoriginalunified
ownershipofboththeMalulaniParcelandtheKaupoParcel. The
parcelswereseveredinFebruary1857,whentheKingdomof
Hawai'iconveyedtheMalulaniParceltoT.C.Wilmingtonunder
RoyalPatentNo.2340andretainedtheKaupoParcel,which
allegedlysurroundedtheMalulaniParcel. Thus,atthetimethe
propertiesweresevered,theKingdomofHawai'iconveyedthe
quasi-dominantpropertywhichwouldbenefitfromtheclaimed
easementandretainedthequasi-servientpropertyoverwhichthe
easementisclaimed. Theultimatequestiontheniswhetherit
canbeimpliedthattheKingdomofHawai'iintendedtograntan
easementinfavoroftheconveyedpropertyovertheKingdom's
retainedproperty. Inthiscircumstance,anyeminentdomain
powersheldbytheKingdomofHawai'iwouldnotaffectthe
"necessity"requirementbecausetheprivatepartygrantee,and
nottheKingdomofHawai'i,wasallegedlyinneedoftheeasement
atthetimeofseverance.
Weconcludethatthemoderntrendismostconsistent
withHawai'ilaw. Therefore,weholdthatthe"unityof
ownership"requirementforimplyinganeasementcanbesatisfied
bypriorgovernmentownershipoftheparcelswhenthequestionis
whetherthegovernmentimpliedlygrantedaneasement,i.e.atthe
timeofseverance,thegovernmentconveyedthequasi-dominant
14
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
parcelwhichwouldbenefitfromtheclaimedeasementandretained
thequasi-servientparceloverwhichtheimpliedeasementis
claimed.
8
Becausethiscaseinvolvesthequestionwhetherthe
KingdomofHawai'iimpliedlygrantedanaccesseasementoverthe
KaupoParcelthatitretainedatthetimeofseverance,the
circuitcourterredingrantingsummaryjudgmentforKaupoRanch
basedonitsviewthattheKingdomofHawaii'spriorownership
couldnot,asamatteroflaw,satisfytheunityofownership
requirement.
Thecircuitcourtalsograntedsummaryjudgmenton
Malulani'sutilityeasementclaimasaconsequenceofitsruling
ontheunityofownershipissue. Onthatbasis,summaryjudgment
wasnotwarranted.
Havingaddressedtheunityofownershipissue,it
remainstobeseenwhether,onremand,theotherrequirementsfor
theclaimedimpliedeasementscanbemet.
9
B. StatuteofLimitations
KaupoRanchalsobaseditssummaryjudgmentmotionon
theassertionthatMalulani'sclaimswerebarredbythestatute
oflimitationsinHRS657-31. Malulanididnotopposethis
partofthemotioninitsoppositionmemorandum,butdidargueat
thesummaryjudgmenthearingthatthestatuteoflimitationsdid
notapplytotheclaimsassertedinthiscase. Thecircuitcourt
appearstohaveruledthat,becauseMalulanididnotopposethe
statuteoflimitationsargumentinitsoppositionmemorandum,
8
WedonotreachtheissueaddressedinMurphy,whethergovernment
ownershipcansatisfythe"unityofownership"requirementwhentheclaimis
thatthegovernmentimpliedlyreservedaneasement,i.e.atthetimeof
severancethegovernmentconveyedthequasi-servientparceloverwhichan
impliedeasementisclaimedandretainedthequasi-dominantparcelwhichwould
benefitfromtheclaimedeasement.
9
Itappearsfromtherecordthat,inopposingKaupoRanch'smotionfor
summaryjudgment,Malulanifiledacombinedoppositionandcross-motionfor
summaryjudgment. Onappeal,Malulanirequestsnotonlythatsummaryjudgment
forKaupoRanchbevacated,butalsothatthiscourtgrantsummaryjudgmentin
favorofMalulani. Malulani'scross-motionforsummaryjudgmentwasnot
expresslyadjudicatedbythecircuitcourt,butinanyeventtherecordat
thisjuncturedoesnotcontainevidencetosupportsummaryjudgmentfor
Malulanigiventhefurtherrequirementsforanimpliedeasement.
15

FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
summaryjudgmentwasalsoproperbasedonthestatuteof
limitationsinHRS657-31.
10
Malulanichallengesthisruling
andweconcludetherulingwasinerror.
Malulani'sfailuretoopposethestatuteoflimitations
argumentinitsoppositionmemorandumwasnotfatalinthiscase.
Malulanididargueatthehearingthatthestatuteoflimitations
didnotapply. Moreover,asthesummaryjudgmentmovant,Kaupo
Ranchhadtheinitialburdentoestablishthat
nogenuineissueofmaterialfactexist[ed]withrespectto
theessentialelementsoftheclaimandthat,basedonthe
undisputedfacts,[itwas]entitledtojudgmentasamatter
oflaw. Onlyoncethemovingpartyhassatisfiedits
initialburdenofproductiondoestheburdenshifttothe
non-movingpartytoshowspecificfactsthatpresenta
genuineissuefortrial.
Gurrobatv.HTHCorp.,SCAP-12-0000764,2014WL714693,at*12
(Haw.Feb.25,2014)(emphasisadded,internalcitationomitted)
(citingFirstIns.Co.ofHawai'iv.Sariaslani,80Hawai'i491,
493,911P.2d126,128(App.1996)). Here,KaupoRanchdidnot
carryitsinitialburdentoshowthatitwasentitledtosummary
judgmentasamatteroflawonstatuteoflimitationsgrounds.
Indeed,asarguedbyMalulaniatthehearing,thestatuteof
limitationsinHRS657-31doesnotapplytotheimplied
easementclaimsassertedinthiscase.
HRS657-31providesthat"[n]opersonshallcommence
anactiontorecoverpossessionofanylands,ormakeanyentry
thereon,unlesswithintwentyyearsaftertherighttobringthe
actionfirstaccrued." (Emphasisadded). "Aneasementisa
10
Thecircuitcourt'srelevantconclusionoflawstates:
3. TheCourtconcludesthatunderthecircumstances
presentedbythiscaseandtheundisputedfactsnotedabove
and,notwithstandingMalulani'scounsel'sargumentsmadeon
therecordatthehearingonDecember16,2009,basedon
Malulani'slackofoppositiontoKaupoRanch'sMotionfor
SummaryJudgmentonthegroundsthat...theComplaintwas
filedaftertheexpirationoftheapplicablestatuteof
limitationsassetforthinHRSSection657-31andits
predecessorstatutesthatjudgment,asamatteroflaw,
shouldbeenteredinfavorofKaupoRanchonallthree
causesofactionsetforthintheComplaint.
16

FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
nonpossessoryrighttoenteranduselandinthepossessionof
anotherandobligatesthepossessornottointerferewiththe
usesauthorizedbytheeasement." MarvinM.BrandtRevocable
Trustv.UnitedStates,134S.Ct.1257,1265(2014)(emphasis
added,internalquotationmarksomitted)(quotingRestatement
(Third)ofProperty1.2(1)(1998));seealsoNihoav.Chow,57
Haw.172,173n.2,552P.2d77,79n.2(1976)(notingthat
easementsare"interestsinland,albeitincorporeal,
nonpossessoryinterests")(emphasisadded). Furthermore,as
explainedinSylvav.WailukuSugarCo.,19Haw.681(Haw.Terr.
1909),theterm"entry"asusedinapredecessorstatuteto
HRS657-31isbasedonthecommonlawmeaningoftheword,
which"wastheextrajudicialremedyforthewrongdonebyousting
theownerofthefreehold,whetherbyabatement,intrusionor
disseizinandappliesonlyincases'whenanotherpersonwhohath
norighthathpreviouslytakenpossessionoflandsor
tenements.'" Id.at682(quoting3WilliamBlackstone,
Commentaries,168,174). Thus,HRS657-31addressesrecovery
ofpossessionoflandanddoesnotapplytoclaimsseekingto
implyaneasementonanother'sland.
HRS657-33(1993)setsforthwhenanactionaccrues
underHRS657-31andfurtherillustratesthatimpliedeasements
arenotsubjecttothestatuteoflimitationsinHRS657-31.
HRS657-33states:
657-33Actionaccrueswhen. Intheconstructionof
thispart,therighttomakeanentryorcommenceanaction,
shallbedeemedtohavefirstaccruedatthefollowing
times:
(1) Whenanypersonisdisseised,hisrightofentry
oractionshallbedeemedtohaveaccruedatthe
timeofthedisseisin.
(2) Whenheclaimsasheirordeviseeofonewho
diedseised,hisrightshallbedeemedtohave
accruedatthetimeofthedeath,unlessthere
isanestatebythecurtesyorindower,orsome
otherestateinterveningafterthedeathofsuch
ancestorordevisor,inwhichcasehisright
shallbedeemedtohaveaccruedwhenthe
intermediateestateshallexpire,orwhenit
wouldhaveexpiredbyitsownlimitation.
(3) Wherethereissuchanintermediateestate,and
inallothercases,whereapartyclaimsin
remainder,orreversion,hisrightsofarasit
isaffectedbythelimitationhereinprescribed,
17
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
shallbedeemedtoaccruewhentheintermediate
orprecedentestatewouldhaveexpiredbyits
ownlimitation,notwithstandinganyforfeiture
thereof,forwhichhemighthaveenteredatan
earliertime.
(4) Paragraph(3)shallnotpreventanypersonfrom
entering,whenentitledtodoso,byreasonof
anyforfeitureorbreachofcondition,butifhe
claimsundersuchatitle,hisrightshallbe
deemedtohaveaccruedwhentheforfeiturewas
incurredorconditionbroken.
(5) Inthecasesnototherwisespeciallyprovided
for,therightshallbedeemedtohaveaccrued
whentheclaimant,orthepersonunderwhomhe
claims,firstbecameentitledtothepossession
ofthepremisesunderthetitleuponwhichthe
entryoractionisfounded.
(Emphasisadded).
11
NothinginHRS657-33isapplicabletoa
claimforanimpliedeasement,whichisanonpossessoryinterest.
KaupoRanchpointstoseveralcasesaddressing
prescriptiveeasementstoarguethatthestatuteoflimitations
underHRS657-31appliestoeasementsgenerally.
12
However,
thecitedcasesaredistinguishablebecause,underHawai'ilaw,
"thesameelementsnecessarytoproveacquisitionoftitleby
adversepossessionarerequiredtoestablishaneasementby
prescription." TheNatureConservancyv.Nakila,4Haw.App.
584,598,671P.2d1025,1035(1983). Inshort,becausea
prescriptiveeasementmustbeprovedbyelementssimilartoan
adversepossessionclaim,thesamestatuteoflimitationsapplies
tobothsuchclaims. Inthiscase,however,KaupoRanchisnot
claimingaprescriptiveeasementandthetwentyyearlimitations
periodinHRS657-31isinapplicable.
BeyondtheexpresstermsofHRS657-31andour
interpretationofthatstatute,wefurthernotethatstatutesof
limitationsgenerallydonotapplytobaraclaimforanimplied
easementbynecessity. See11Am.Jur.ProofofFacts3d,at630
11
Theterm"disseise"means"[t]owrongfullydeprive(aperson)ofthe
freeholdpossessionofproperty." Black'sLawDictionary,541(9thed.2009).
12
KaupoRanchcitesto:Lalakeav.HawaiianIrrigationCo.,36Haw.
692,706(Haw.Terr.1944);Kalaukoav.Keawe,9Haw.191(Haw.Prov.Gov.
1893);TheNatureConservancyv.Nakila,4Haw.App.584,600,671P.2d1025,
1036(1983);andRyanv.TanabeCorp.,97Hawai'i305,37P.3d554(App.
1999). Thesecasesareinapposite.
18
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
(1991)("Nostatuteoflimitationsisapplicabletoprecludean
actionforawayofnecessity.");Kellogg,125Cal.Rptr.2dat
823(statingthat"awayofnecessity,havingbeencreatedbythe
necessityforitsuse,cannotbeextinguishedsolongasthe
necessityexists"andthatthestatuteoflimitationsforquiet
titleactionsdidnotapplytoaneasementofnecessity(citation
andbracketsomitted)).
BecauseKaupoRanchdidnotmeetitsinitialburdento
showthatitwasentitledtosummaryjudgmentasamatteroflaw
underHRS657-31,thecircuitcourterredingrantingsummary
judgmentonthisbasis.
C. FindingofFact2
Malulanichallengesfindingoffact(FOF)2,which
statesinrelevantpartthat:"KaupoRanchisthecurrentowner
ofanundividedinterestoflandlocatedinKaupo,Hana,Maui,
HawaiibeingRoyalPatentGrantNo.2577toPali,Ohule,Wahapuu
andNahaCharlotteHarbottlegrantedtoPali,Ohule,Wahapuuand
NahaCharlotteHarbottlebytheKingdomofHawaiiin1859[.]"
Malulaniarguesthatthereisnoevidenceintherecordto
supportFOF2,andthattherecordshowsthattherearemany
potentialownersoftheKaupoParcel.
Malulani'sclaimswereadjudicatedbysummaryjudgment
andthusFOF2isnotbasedonatrialoranevidentiaryhearing.
Becausewehaveconcludedthatthesummaryjudgmentrulingwas
notwarranted,thecasewillberemandedtothecircuitcourtand
thecircuitcourt'sfindingsinitsJanuary4,2010order,
includingFOF2,aresubjecttofurtherlitigationinthecase.
AsnotedbyKaupoRanch,FOF2appearstobebasedon
Malulani'spleadingsandargumentsrelatedtoitsimplied
easementclaims. KaupoRanchdidnotdisputetheassertionthat
ithasaninterestintheKaupoParcelandthecircuitcourt
appearstohavebasedFOF2onthelackofdisputebetweenthese
parties. Neitherpartysuggeststhatthereisanyevidencein
therecordregardingKaupoRanch'sspecificinterestintheKaupo
Parcel. Thus,FOF2isnotbindingonMalulaniorKaupoRanch
19
FORPUBLICATIONINWEST'SHAWAI'IREPORTSANDPACIFICREPORTER
goingforward,norisitbindingonanyotherpartynamedinthe
complaintsinthiscase.
D. CostsGrantedtoKaupoRanch
ThecircuitcourtawardedKaupoRanchcostsasthe
prevailingparty. BecausewehaveconcludedthatKaupoRanchwas
notentitledtosummaryjudgment,KaupoRanchisnolongerthe
prevailingpartyandtheawardofcostsislikewisevacated.
IV. Conclusion
Fortheforegoingreasons,wevacatetheApril16,2010
FinalJudgment,theJanuary4,2010"FindingsofFactand
ConclusionsofLawandOrderPartiallyGrantingAndPartially
DenyingDefendantKaupoRanch,[Ltd.'s]MotionforSummary
JudgmentAndRequestForAttorney'sFeesandCosts,"andthe
March24,2010orderawardingcoststoKaupoRanch,enteredby
theCircuitCourtoftheSecondCircuit. Weremandthiscaseto
thecircuitcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththis
opinion.
Onthebriefs:
GregoryJ.Garneau
(Kiefer&GarneauLLC)
forPlaintiff-Appellant
TheMalulaniGroup,Limited
BrianR.Jenkins
(Jenkins&Jenkins)
forDefendant-Appellee
KaupoRanch,Ltd.
20