« IN RE HAWAI'I GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, AFSCME | Main | JOU v. DAI-TOKYO ROYAL STATE INSURANCE COMPANY »

OMEROD v. HEIRS OF KAHEANANUI

November 15, 2007 (No. 27118)

Opinion [pdf]

OPINION OF THE COURT BY ACOBA, J.

This appeal arises from a quiet title action filed in the the circuit court of the third circuit (the court) involving numerous parties and several dispositions.  To summarize, Appellants claim an undivided one-half interest in the ahupua'a of Hilea Nui under the theory that Prince Lot Kamehameha (Lot) and Chief Leleiohoku (Leleiohoku) were granted a cotenancy in a single ahupua'a known as "Hilea" at the time of the Great Mahele, as opposed to receiving grants in fee simply of two separate ahupua'as, Hilea Iki and Hilea Nui.  They contend that Hilea Iki and Hilea Nui actually represent 'ilis, or administrative divisions, of the single ahupua'a of Hilea.  Appellants further maintain that the cotenancy created between Lot and Leleiohoku continues to the present, between Appellants (Lot's successors in interest) and Appellees (Leleiohoku's successors in interest).

On the other hand, the essence of Appellees' argument is that the Boundary Commission of the Kingdom of Hawai'i determined the relative boundaries of Hilea Iki and Hilea Nui in 1877, defining them as two adjacent ahupua'as owned in fee simple, and that the Boundary Commission's judgment cannot be collaterally attacked by Appellants.

For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the (1) November 30, 2004 Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 54(b) Partial Final Judgment (rule 54(b) Judgment), (2) February 2, 2005 Order Denying (a) Omerod Appellants' Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to HRCP Rules 59(e) (2007) and 60(b)(2) (2007) and (b) Kaheananui Appellants' Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to HRCP Rules 59(e) and 60(b)(2), All Supplements Thereto and All Joinders Thereto (February 4, 2005 Order); (3) July 7, 2005 Order Denying Defendant C. Brewer's Motion to Quash Subpoena Issued to John Cross (July 7, 2005 Order); and (4) July 8, 2005 Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to HRCP Rule 60() (2007) and For Sanctions (July 8, 2005 Order).
[footnotes omitted]

Levinson, J., concurs in the result only.

about | info

  • About this blog | email the author

    RSS feed (what's this?)

    Enter your address to subscribe by email:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    Add to Technorati Favorites

    The content of this blog is generated from public information available on the judiciary's web site. This blog is not affiliated with or endorsed by the appellate courts of the State of Hawaii, or the State of Hawaii Judiciary. This blog is not legal advice, and no commentary on the decisions posted is intended. Reading this blog does not make you a client of the author, nor are any posts or comments on this blog subject to the attorney-client privilege. For legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

    Original content © 2005-2008.

May 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Blog powered by TypePad