Summary
The Supreme Court of Hawaii affirmed a judgment in favor of the State in a quiet title action concerning disputed boundaries of adjoining Maui properties. The court held that the challenged factual findings were supported by substantial evidence or were not clearly erroneous, deemed one challenge waived and others untimely, and upheld the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to amend.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court's findings concerning cultivation of taro, the peninsula, Registered Map No. 2377, and the location of the poalima were clearly erroneous.
- Whether the challenge to the trial court's finding concerning Bruce Lee's depiction of the poalima was waived because it was not argued on appeal.
- Whether challenges to a finding and conclusion concerning movement of the property's boundaries were untimely because they were raised for the first time in the motion to alter or amend.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Douglases' motion to alter or amend based on arguments concerning the State's litigation position and judicial estoppel.
Holdings
- The challenged findings were not clearly erroneous because they were supported by substantial evidence, and the appellate court would not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility.
- The challenge to FOF No. 19 was waived because the Douglases did not argue the issue in the argument section of their appellate brief.
- The challenges to FOF No. 20 and COL No. 7 failed because the arguments were raised for the first time in the motion to alter or amend even though they could and should have been presented at trial.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to alter or amend because the motion improperly sought to relitigate old matters and raise arguments that could and should have been presented earlier.
Key quotations
“It is well-settled that an appellate court will not pass upon issues dependent upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence” (Section (2))
“it is axiomatic that reconciling conflicting testimony is beyond the scope of appellate review” (Section (3))
“Reconsideration is not a device to relitigate old matters or to raise arguments or evidence that could and should have been brought during the earlier proceeding.” (Section (7))
Factual background
The case concerned a quiet title dispute over the boundaries of adjoining parcels on Maui, including land awarded under Land Commission Award 6510 U, apana 2. The trial court relied on historical testimony, maps, survey evidence, and evidence concerning the location of the poalima, Hanawana Stream, and a peninsula to determine the boundaries. The parties presented conflicting expert testimony regarding the location of the subject property and its northern and western boundaries.
Procedural history
The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, with Judge Joseph E. Cardoza presiding, entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and a final judgment on November 4, 2004, in favor of the State. The court later denied the Douglases' motion to alter or amend on December 21, 2004. The Douglases appealed, challenging boundary findings, a conclusion concerning movement of the property's boundaries, and denial of their motion to amend.