Background
ATC Makena purchased a roughly 489-acre parcel on Maui at a foreclosure auction. When Azizi Kaiama entered the property and refused to leave, ATC Makena sued her for civil trespass and nuisance, seeking ejectment and damages. Kaiama, self-represented, responded that she was the rightful heir to portions of the property — specifically two smaller parcels (the “Piena Parcels”) originally awarded by the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi to a Native Hawaiian named Piena in the 1850s — and that it was ATC Makena who was the trespasser.
The circuit court granted ATC Makena’s motion for summary judgment, finding its chain of title to the Piena Parcels “continuous and unbroken from PIENA’s daughter, KAPEKA, to Plaintiffs,” and awarded ATC Makena $91,563.72 in prevailing-party attorney fees. ATC Makena’s title evidence, presented through a title research declaration, showed that no conveyances from Piena and no probate proceedings appear in the record, and that an individual named Kapeka — described in a 1901 deed as Piena’s “own daughter” — conveyed the parcels to Mary Waiwaiole in 1901. The ICA affirmed summary judgment but vacated the fee award.
Separately, the circuit court sanctioned Kaiama $5,067.67 in attorney fees under HRCP Rule 37 after granting ATC Makena’s motion to compel discovery, which Kaiama had failed to meaningfully respond to. The ICA also affirmed this sanction. The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court accepted Kaiama’s certiorari application to review both issues.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi reversed the grant of summary judgment as to the Piena Parcels. Applying de novo review, the court held that ATC Makena’s own evidence created — rather than eliminated — a genuine issue of material fact. The title research declaration expressly acknowledged that no conveyances from Piena and no probate proceedings appear in the record during the nearly fifty years between the 1850s government awards to Piena and Kapeka’s 1901 deed. The court concluded that Kapeka’s status as Piena’s daughter, standing alone, does not as a matter of law establish how or whether she acquired a valid ownership interest in the parcels. Because the plaintiff in a trespass action challenging title must recover on the strength of its own title — not on the weakness of the defendant’s — this unexplained gap precluded summary judgment.
The court also clarified that the ICA had mischaracterized the circuit court’s finding. The circuit court found title “continuous and unbroken from PIENA’s daughter, KAPEKA, to Plaintiffs” — not from Piena himself — and the gap between Piena and Kapeka was precisely the problem. Under Hilo Bay Marina, LLC v. State (2025), unchallenged findings of fact made in connection with a summary judgment ruling are not binding on an appellate court, and the ICA erred in treating those findings as conclusive. The court vacated the summary judgment order and final judgment as to the Piena Parcels and remanded for further proceedings.
On the discovery sanction, the court affirmed the $5,067.67 award under HRCP Rule 37. Kaiama was given an opportunity to be heard but offered no substantive justification for her deficient discovery responses, and she never challenged the reasonableness of the fee amount. The circuit court therefore did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sanction.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff in a trespass action where title is contested bears the burden of proving title by the strength of its own evidence; a ~50-year unexplained gap in a chain of title is a genuine issue of material fact that defeats summary judgment.
- A daughter’s identity as an original grantee’s heir does not, without more — such as a conveyance, probate record, or applicable intestacy showing — establish that she validly acquired the grantee’s property interest.
- Following Hilo Bay Marina (2025), unchallenged trial-court findings of fact associated with a summary judgment ruling are not binding on appellate courts; the ICA’s reliance on that principle to affirm was error.
- Discovery sanctions under HRCP Rule 37 will be upheld where a party fails to respond to discovery, is given an opportunity to be heard, and never contests the reasonableness of the fee amount awarded.
Why It Matters
This decision is significant for title disputes involving Hawaiʻi’s 19th-century land grants — Land Commission Awards, Royal Patents, and Royal Patent Grants — which often have incomplete or entirely absent records of how original awardees’ interests passed to subsequent generations. The ruling makes clear that a title chain beginning with a family member of the original awardee, without any record of how that family member acquired the interest, is insufficient to establish title as a matter of law. Purchasers of property whose chain of title runs through such gaps — a common occurrence in Hawaiʻi land history — cannot obtain summary judgment in trespass or ejectment actions on those facts alone.
The decision also reinforces the post-Hilo Bay Marina rule that appellate courts reviewing summary judgment orders are not bound by a trial court’s unchallenged findings of fact, a procedural principle with broad implications for how Hawaiʻi litigants must frame their appellate arguments in cases resolved at summary judgment.