Background
Jessica Reimann and her husband Jarred Yates lived next door to Gio Mantelli and Kristen Santos on the Big Island of Hawaii. Tensions arose after Reimann’s husband complained that Mantelli and Santos were operating an unpermitted food truck business on their 14-acre property, positioned in the acre closest to the shared property line and Reimann’s home. When Yates asked them to stop in late December 2022, Santos refused.
Beginning January 14, 2023, Reimann alleged a rapid escalation of harassing conduct: Mantelli and Santos repeatedly walked their dogs along the shared property line to agitate Reimann’s dogs, blasted music from their truck, and announced plans to build animal shelters and a petting zoo directly adjacent to Reimann’s home. Most significantly, Mantelli told Yates he would “use all [his] resources, all of the money that I have earned over my life” toward “making you and your family’s life hell,” adding that he would come down by their house “all day, every day” and that “[i]t will not stop.” Reimann filed for a temporary restraining order on January 18, 2023.
The case proceeded to trial over four sessions in 2023. The District Court of the Third Circuit found Reimann and Yates credible and Mantelli’s testimony not credible — notably rejecting Mantelli’s shifting explanations for why he relocated his sheep-feeding structure to the fence line near Reimann’s home after the food truck was shut down. The court granted a three-year harassment injunction and imposed two special conditions: a prohibition on feeding livestock within 100 yards of the shared property line, and a requirement that Mantelli relocate any structures within that zone by January 2, 2024.
The Court’s Holding
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction in full. On the question of the legal standard, the court held that the district court’s unchallenged factual findings — including Mantelli’s explicit threat to make the family’s life “hell” every day without stopping — were sufficient to establish both that the conduct served no legitimate purpose and that it would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress under HRS § 604-10.5(a)(2). Because Mantelli did not challenge those core findings on appeal, they were binding, and the appellate court concluded there was substantial evidence to support the injunction.
On the overbreadth challenge to the special conditions, the court rejected Mantelli’s argument that the 100-yard animal-feeding prohibition and the structure-relocation order were unnecessary infringements on his lawful property use. The court found the conditions narrowly addressed the specific harassing conduct: Mantelli had fed his sheep in a different location for two years and moved the feeding structure to the area nearest Reimann’s home only after the conflict began. With 14 acres available, requiring relocation of the structure was supported by substantial evidence and was not unreasonable. The court also noted that Mantelli’s overbreadth argument cited no Hawaii authority and provided no record citations for the testimony he relied upon, resulting in waiver of those points under HRAP Rule 28(b)(7).
The court further noted a procedural irregularity — the district court had not entered written findings of fact and conclusions of law, and Mantelli failed to request them after filing his notice of appeal as required by HRAP Rule 10(f) — but concluded the transcript record was sufficiently clear to permit appellate review without formal findings, consistent with the approach taken in Omura v. American River Investments.
Key Takeaways
- A harassment injunction under HRS § 604-10.5 requires clear and convincing evidence of an intentional course of conduct that serves no legitimate purpose and would cause a reasonable person emotional distress; explicit threats to make a neighbor’s life “hell” every day without stopping satisfy that standard.
- Unchallenged factual findings from the trial court are binding on appeal — a party who fails to contest specific findings cannot rely on them as a basis for reversal.
- Special conditions in a harassment injunction are not overbroad merely because they restrict activity on a respondent’s own property, provided the conditions are tailored to conduct the court found constituted harassment; requiring relocation of a structure on 14 acres is not an unreasonable restriction.
- Appellants who fail to request findings of fact and conclusions of law after filing a notice of appeal, and who fail to provide record citations for their factual arguments, risk waiver of those arguments under Hawaii appellate rules.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates that Hawaii’s harassment injunction statute reaches deliberate “spite” campaigns between neighbors — conduct framed as ordinary property use (dog walking, livestock feeding, construction) but intended to antagonize. Courts will look past the surface legitimacy of an activity to the purpose behind it, particularly when a respondent has made explicit threats and then orchestrated activity directly at the complainant’s home out of all the available space on a large parcel.
For practitioners, the case is also a reminder of the procedural consequences of incomplete appellate records. The absence of written findings of fact did not doom the appeal, but the court’s willingness to proceed on an oral ruling underscores the importance of requesting formal findings when appealing a bench ruling — and of providing specific record citations for every factual assertion in the briefs.