Background
This dispute concerned an allegedly fraudulent transfer of a Honolulu property that was the trust’s sole asset. The trust beneficiaries included defendant-appellant Debra Ann Seperena Import, plaintiff-appellee and successor trustee Faye Starr P. Melemai, and others.
Melemai served interrogatories on Import in December 2022. Import did not initially respond and invoked the Fifth Amendment in seeking dismissal. The circuit court granted Melemai’s unopposed motion to compel, directing Import to answer each interrogatory or assert a specific objection to a particular question. Import later submitted handwritten, notarized answers without asserting objections.
In March 2024, Melemai and Import signed a settlement requiring Import to execute a quitclaim deed and promissory note, vacate the property, and make payments. Melemai moved to enforce the agreement after alleging that Import had neither moved out nor made the required payments. Import did not oppose the motion or attend its hearing. The circuit court granted enforcement and entered a judgment and writ of possession.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by compelling interrogatory responses. The order did not require Import to provide self-incriminating information; it expressly allowed her to invoke the Fifth Amendment or another objection on a question-by-question basis.
The court also held that enforcement of the settlement was proper. A disputed settlement-enforcement motion is treated as one for summary judgment, but Import offered no evidence below challenging the agreement’s existence, validity, or terms, or disputing her alleged failure to vacate and make payments. Her unsupported appellate assertions that the agreement was a sham procured by false pretenses did not establish a genuine factual dispute.
Key Takeaways
- A party asserting the privilege against self-incrimination in discovery must make a specific objection to each question rather than refuse to participate wholesale.
- A settlement-enforcement motion may be resolved as summary judgment when no evidence creates a factual dispute over the agreement or performance.
- Unsupported allegations of fraud or unfairness do not defeat enforcement of an otherwise undisputed settlement agreement.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that self-represented status does not excuse a party from supplying record evidence and timely objections. Parties challenging a settlement must raise and support their factual disputes in the trial court, particularly when facing a motion to enforce.