Background
This case arose from a circuit court action (Case No. 1CC191001166) brought by Knoxville 2012 Trust, a Delaware statutory trust, against Opaehuna, LLC and several other defendants — including Dean Tiburcio Alegado, Emerita Labausa Alegado, Bank of Hawaiʻi, and West Loch Estates Homeowners’ Association — apparently involving a dispute over real property at or associated with the West Loch Estates development on Oʻahu. Opaehuna, LLC also pursued third-party claims against 21st Mortgage Corporation, a Delaware corporation.
The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) resolved the matter adversely to Opaehuna, LLC in CAAP-23-0000669. Seeking to overturn that outcome, Opaehuna filed an application for writ of certiorari with the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court on May 3, 2026, asking the high court to review the ICA’s decision.
The Supreme Court considered the application and, on June 26, 2026, issued a brief order signed by Chief Justice Devens and four additional justices — including an assigned circuit judge sitting by reason of a court vacancy — declining to accept the case.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi rejected Opaehuna, LLC’s application for writ of certiorari without elaboration. The one-sentence order leaves the ICA’s decision in place as the final appellate ruling in the case.
Because the court issued a rejection order rather than a merits opinion, it did not articulate any legal reasoning or address the substantive arguments Opaehuna raised. The effect is that the ICA judgment — favorable to Knoxville 2012 Trust and the other appellees — stands.
Key Takeaways
- The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court rejected certiorari, meaning the ICA’s ruling against Opaehuna, LLC is now final and unreviewable within the state court system.
- A rejection order carries no precedential value and reflects no judgment on the merits; the court simply declined to exercise discretionary review.
- Opaehuna’s third-party claims against 21st Mortgage Corporation were also part of the proceeding and are equally foreclosed by this disposition.
Why It Matters
For practitioners, this order underscores that the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court’s certiorari jurisdiction is discretionary and that an adverse ICA decision may well be the end of the appellate road. Parties in mortgage and property disputes — particularly those involving out-of-state trusts and multi-defendant foreclosure actions — should plan litigation strategy with the realistic possibility of certiorari rejection in mind.
The case also illustrates the court’s willingness to decide certiorari petitions with a bench temporarily filled by an assigned circuit judge, a common mechanism in Hawaiʻi when a Supreme Court vacancy exists. Counsel should be aware that a full five-justice panel can be assembled through such assignments without affecting the validity of the order.