OPENING BRIEF-CAAP-19-0000806 -: HAWAII APPELLANT SUPREME COURT OPENING BRIEF ANGELA KAAIHUE -VS- NECA

NO. CAAP-19-0000806
1N THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
Angela Sue Kaaihue, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellant, Yong Nam Fryer,
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff
APPELLANT
vs.
Newtown Estates Community Association (NECA), Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant
APPELLEE,
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CIVIL CASE NO. 13-1-2161)
Angela Sue Kaaihue
Yong Nam Fryer
98-673 Kilinoe St.
Aiea, HI. 9670 1
(808) 358-8060
Email: akaai2674@gmail.com
Appellants
1
~(~J:~:::,~
SUPREME COURT
CLERK'S OFFICE
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-19-0000806
14-JAN-2020
03:29 PM

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT AND OPENING BRIEF
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Jurisdictional Statement ...................................................................................... 4
2. Statement of Issues on Appeal......................................................... 7
3. Statement of the Case .............................................................. ............ 11
4. Statement of Facts............................................................................. 12
5. Summary of Argument.................................................................... 18
Land Court Registered properties & where clarification oftitle and rights is under the
jurisdiction ofLand Court. This case has to do with title dispute, claims and rights to an 82-Acre
Land Court Registered Undeveloped, vacant land Parcel zoned mostly Preservation with 2.7
Acres of it Zoned for Apartment. The Appellee's, (Newtown Estates Community Association
(NECA)) ignored the property for 40+ years, took the position that the Appellant's land parcel
was not part oftheir community association (NECA). However, in 2011, the community
association abruptly changed their position and began numerously violating and enforcing their
governing documents upon Appellant's and their land parcel. The issue whether or not the
Appellant's property was subjected to the governing documents was decided by a Civil court
Jury at Jury Trial (Exhibit 1-Special Jury Verdict) This issue should have been addressed and
decided by a Land Court Judge, NOT a jury ofpeople who don't own real estate, but instead
Civil Court Judge Crabtree allowed for this issue to be heard before a Civil Court Jury by trial
whose verdict was in favor ofthe Appellees and against the Appellants, whom were self-
represented. In the minutes of 12/12/2013, Civil Court Judge Castegnetti acknowledged and
stated, "Land Court has jurisdiction over the MDCRR's". Land Court Judge Gary Chan, also
acknowledged and stated in the minutes ofCase # 1LD171002541 on 7/23/2018 "THE
COURT NOTES THAT LAND COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURSISDICTION
THAT RELATES TO PROPERTY REGISTERED IN THE LAND COURT. The
appellant's property is only registered in Land Court. Furthermore, no evidence ofannexation
ever occurred. In addition, despite admissions that "the property was never annexed", stated by
the NECA President ofthe Board and attorney Carol Rosenberg, Appellant's still lost at trial.
Within a few short years, Appellees have excessively violated and fined the Appellant's with
outrageous violations and fees resulting in more than $500,000, and has interfered with the
construction oftheir family residential home and future developments inflicting Intentional
Infliction ofEmotional Distress. In fact, the Land Court Documents clearly states that the
originating property which Appellant's property stemmed from was absolutely Excluded
(Appellant's Exhibit, D-118- TCT #137,368, Memoranda ofEncumbrances, Pg. 7), and does
not appear on the referenced maps (Appellee's Exhibits, P-77 & P-78) as referenced on the
MDCCR's ofNewtown Estates (Appellee's Exhibit, P-12, Pg. 37). As a result of5+ years of
2

litigation, Appellant's failed to build their home, and suffered Intentional Infliction ofEmotional
Distress amongst other claims.
7. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 18
Statement ofRelated Cases...................................................................... 21
Certificate ofCompliance.... ... .......... ...... .............. ... ............ ...... ... ..... 22
Certificate of Service.............................................................................. 23
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Childs v. Harada, 130 Hawaii 387, 311 P. 3d 710 (App. 2013)........... .
Kaanapali Hillside Homeowners' Ass'n v. Doran, 114 Haw. 361, 162 P. 3d 1277 (2007)
Lee v. Puamana Cmty. Ass'n. 109 Hawaii 561, 128 P. 3d 874 (2006)
Millerv. Manual, 9 Haw. App. 56,828 P. 2d 286 (1991)
Ralston v. Vim, 129 Hawaii 46, 292 P. 3d 1276 (2013)
United States ex. Re. Westinghouse Electric v. James Stewart Co., 336 F.2d 777 (91
h Cir.
1964)
Rules and Statutes
Hawaii Revised Statutes:
Chapter 4211
Chapter 4211-2
Section 4211-10(a)
Section 4211-13
Text and Treatises
Restatement (Third) ofProperty: Servitudes:
§6.13
§6.13, comm.e
§6.8
§6.8, comm.a
§7.4
§7.4 comm.b
§7.6
3

I. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT & OPENING BRIEF
1. Jurisdictional Statement: - The Circuit Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiffs "NECA" brought claims arising under federal law.
This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2. §501-1 Court; jurisdiction; proceedings; location; rules, practice, etc. A court is
established, called the land court, which shall have exclusive original jurisdiction ofall
applications for the registration oftitle to land and easements or rights in land held and
possessed in fee simple within the State. with power to hear and determine all questions
arising upon such applications, and also have jurisdiction over such other questions as
may come before it under this chapter, subject to the rights ofappeal under this chapter.
3. On January 30, 2019, a Jury's Special Verdict was made in favor for Appellee's "NECA"
and against Appellant's "Angela Sue Kaaihue, and Yong Nam Fryer". The 1st Circuit
Civil Court and Jury lacked jurisdiction to decide and make judgment on Land Court
Registered Title and/or to decide questions on title arising from the application of
Appellant's property. On April1 5
2019, The Circuit Court's judgment by order
subjected an undeveloped, un-annexed vacant land parcel, the Appellant's 82-Acre
Vacant, Mostly Zoned Preservation, Undeveloped Land Court Registered Land Parcel to
Newtown Estates Community Association (NECA), a home-owner's apartment
association, by the verdict ofa Civil Court jury shall be deemed invalid because of
Circuit Court's lack ofJursidiction in which it is the Land Court that has Exclusive
Jurisdiction over the land title in dispute.
a. The Evidence and the weight ofthe evidence presented did not conform to the
Jury's Special Verdict, and the Civil Court's Lack ofJurisdiction ofLand Court
Matters give rise to this appeal.
The Jury returned their Special Verdict in favor for the Appellees and against
Appellants on Jan. 201
2019, and the Circuit Court Order was made on April15

2019, also denied was Appellants claim for Infliction ofEmotional Distress.
b. The Final judgment was signed on Dec.41
h, 2019. (See Exhibit)
4. Appellants timely filed a Notice ofAppeal on April241
2019.
IF THIS COURT CONCLUDES IT LACKS JURISDICTION, IT MUST VACATE THE
CIRCUIT COURT'S JUDGMENT TO THE EXTENT THECIRCUIT COURT EXCEEDED
ITS JURISDICTION. Ifthis Court concludes that Appellant lack standing to appeal, the
judgment below must nevertheless be vacated. At a bare minimum, the circuit court exceeded it's
4

jurisdiction to the extent its judgment extends beyond the Defendant's and Counterclaim
Plaintiffs who were before the court. Because no class has been certified in this case, this Court
"must vacate and remand," because Circuit Court lacks jurisdiction to decide or judge any
matters relating to the registration oftitle and any questions that may arise from it's application
as stated in HRS 50I.
5

I. OPENING BRIEF
A. STATEMENT OF ISSUES ON APPEAL
Civil Court by way ofJury, does not have jurisdiction to decide whether or not
Appellant's Land Court Registered Property was subjected to the Master Declaration
Codes Covenants and Regulations (MDCCR) ofthe Newtown Estates Community
Association (NECA), a home-owner's association. CIVIL COURT'S LACK OF
JURISDICTION: Civil Court lacks Jurisdiction regarding issues that affect clouds
and rights to Land Court Registered properties. Only Land Court (HRS 501) has
exclusive Jurisdiction over titles in dispute or any questions that arise from the
application of it, and NOT a civil court Jury. (Appeal Exhibit 1& 2)
In 2011, Newtown Estates Community Association (NECA) began claiming that
Appellant's property was subjected to the governing documents ofthe community
association, after 40+ years of ignoring the property, and taking the position that the
property laid outside the enforcement oftheir community associations boundaries. The
issue is whether or not Civil Court had the jurisdiction to hear and trial this case
regarding a title dispute and rights to land Registered in Land Court. Nevertheless, it is
Land Court that has exclusive original jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction over all
applications for the registration oftitle to land easements or rights in land held and
possessed in fee simple within the State, with power to hear and determine all questions
arising upon the applications, Not Civil Court, and especially NOT a jury.
At trial, the President ofNECA, witness Gordon Matsuoka, a licensed civil engineer,
admitted and testified that the property in dispute was never annexed, and during a prior
hearing, and the prior admission ofNECA's attorney Carol Rosenberg also stated, that
the property was never annexed and further went on to say, that it didn't need to be
annexed if it was part ofthe initial development, although there were no evidence of
annexation during the initial development either. (Appellant's Trial Exhibit, D-118-
TCT #137,368, Memoranda of Encumbrances, Pg. 7), The land court registered
property in dispute now owned by the Appellants, was intentionally and clearly excluded
as Appellants lot originated from Lot 285-A as stated in the Trial Exhibit D-118.
Appellant's property lot now known as Lot 881-B-5 hadn't yet existed. As presented in
the Land Court Registered Document initial document ofevidence, (Appellant's Trial
Exhibit D-118). Appellant's property was clearly excluded from the MDCCR's of
Newtown Estates as described in Sec. 7.10 (Appellee's Trial Exhibit, P-12, pg. 35).
At trial, Appellee's witness Gordon Matsuoka failed to point out and locate on the
Map ofExhibit A ofNECA's MDCCR -Map 19, including Map 20 where Appellant's
land parcel was. Instead he cried out to his attorneys for an answer. The answer is,
6

Appellant's land parcel does not exist on the map ofwhen Newtown Estates was created
May 261
h, 1972. Neither Map 19 or Map 20 (Appellee's Trial Exhibits, P-77 & P-78)
Appellee's claim is that because there is a simple partial paragraph on the Appellant's
Warranty Deed (Appellee's Trial Exhibit, P-9) regarding Newtown Estates, gave rise to
Appellee's claim to enforce their governing documents to their fullest power and to pick
and choose which rules to enforce, therefore punishing, and intentionally inflicting
emotional distress. As it may be so, the Warranty Deed does not subject the Property do
the Restrictions as it is NOT Stated ofthe MDCCR's ofNewtown Estates. Nowhere, did
an annexation ever occur, and the lack ofappellant's property unidentifiable on the maps
ofNECA's governing documents, & exclusions specifically stating that Lot 285-A is
excluded, exemptions specifically state in Sec. 7.10 ofthe MDCCR's, are all affirmations
that Appellant's property was never annexed, and should NOT be subjected to the
governing documents ofNewtown Estates Community Association (NECA). It's
impossible and incoherent for a land parcel that large to abide by the rules homeowner's
association.
Appellant's Trial Exhibit D-118 clearly reads that Lot 285-A was excluded. This
is in conjunction with the Master Declaration Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions of
(MDCCR) ofNewtown Estates, Exhibit A, Page 37, also states that Lot 285-A is
exempt, as presented in the following:
(Appellant's Exhibit, D-118- TCT #137,368, Memoranda of
Encumbrances, Pg. 7),; "Declaration ofCovenants, conditions, and
Restriction affecting Lot. 286, and Lots 51 to 273, incl., except 177. and
Lot 285-A", (Land Court Document #582929, 1972, filed May 26, 1972).
Appellant's property originated from Lot 285-A, and it clearly reads that it was
excluded. This is the initial development and declaration ofNewtown Estates Community
Association, the recordation ofthe MDCCR's. Lot 285-A was exempt and is NOT
identifiable on the maps 19 & 20 (Appellee's Trial Exhibits, P-77 & P-78) ofthe
MDCCR's. At that time Lot 285-A was an area of649.011 Acres, and it was clearly
excluded.
In conjunction with Exhibit A, ofthe MDCCR's ofNewtown Estates
(Appellee's Trial Exhibit, P-12, page 37) reads:
All of that certain parcel of land situated at Waimalu, District
ofEwa, City and County ofHonolulu, State ofHawaii, more
particularly described as follows:
Lot 286, area 87.898 Acres, and Lots 51 to 273 inclusive; except
Lot 177, all as shown on Map 19 (Appellee's Trial Exhibit P-77), and
Lot 285-A, area 649.011 acres, as shown on Map 20 (Appellee's Trial
7

Exhibit P-78), all of said Maps being filed in the Office of the
Assistant Registrar of the Land Court ofthe State of Hawaii with
Land Court Application No. 950.
At trial, Appellee's witness Mr. Gordon Matsuoka, NECA's current President of
the Board, failed to locate and identify Appellant's property on the maps. When asked to
point to the property in dispute, Mr. Matsuoka cried out to his attorneys and was unable
to, because it does not exist on either ofthe maps. At trial the jury also ignored the
governing documents, the MDCCR's ofNewtown Estates
MDCCR, VII, Section 7.10: Reservation to Exclude from the Master
Declaration). Declarant reserves the right to exclude from the
operation and effect of and the provisions contained in this Master
Declaration. Declarant reserves the right to exclude from the
Declaration those development increments, which are isolated and
separated from the rest of the NEWTOWN ESTATES, by it's natural
features, such as cliffs and streams, so that such part of the common
and recreational areas ofNEWTOWN ESTATES, including but not
limited to any lots which may be constructed and developed by
Declarant within any Area identified as Area C designated on the
Proposed Newtown Estates Development Plan, which is separated from
the rest of NEWTOWN ESTATES by Waimalu Stream and by the
cliffs next to it. (Appellee's Trial Exhibit, P-12, p. 35,
In the governing documents, MDCCR's section 7.10 describes the Appellant's property
as such, mostly mountainous terrain, and streams, yet at trial, this section was clearly ignored
and disregarded by the President, stating, that the Appellant's are not the original Declarant
Herbert Horita, therefore would NOT have the right to exclude. Appellant's do not claim they
are Herbert Horita, a developer who is now deceased, they claim they have inherited by way of
succeeding and assigning the rights to exclude the property from the Master Declaration. NECA
refuses to acknowledge any rights that Appellant's may have, by misinterpreting their own
governing rules, and deliberately misconstruing their own governing documents.
****Note, Area C and the Proposed Newtown Estates Development Plan was never provided.
The Newtown Estates Development Plan- Area C, was never produced in Discovery.****
ii. DID APPELLANTS INHERIT RIGHTS TO DEVELOP THE UNDEVELOPED
VACANT LAND PARCEL AS DECLARANT DID? Did Appellants inherit the
rights as the Declarant when they acquired the property? Ifso, then Appellants, as
"Declarant would reserves the rights to exclude from the operation and effect ofthe
provisions contained in this Master Declaration" (MDCCR, Sec. 7.10). Ifthe answer
8

is ''NO", then Appellants as the "new owners" have no rights as Declarant, and will
have no further rights to develop and construct the 82-Acre Undeveloped vacant
property, which is detrimental to Hawaii's future as we face a critical shortage of
housing. (MDCCR, Article 1)
MDCCR, Article I. Defintions, defines " Declarant: Shall mean
OCEANVIEW VENTURES, a Limited Partnership, it's successors
and assigns. (Appellee's Trial Exhibit, P-12, p. 3,
It's successors would be described as Appellants -"Angela Sue Kaaihue and
Yong Nam Fryer", as from the previous owner, Wallace Lean, Pacific Aina
Development, Herbert Horita, Horita Realty. These are the subsequent successors
and assigned by the same warranty deeds, unless otherwise stated, this fact remains.
At trial the jury decided that the Appellants did not have the rights nor did they
succeed the rights ofthe prior Declarants, Ocean View Ventures, Herbert Horita
Realty, and Wallace Lean, and Pacific Aina Development, and then lastly, Angela
Sue Kaaihue & Yong Nam Fryer. The jury failed to acknowledge Appellants as
successors and any rights that have been assigned when Appellant's acquired the
property as fee-simple in 2009, when Appellant's purchased the property. Appellees
refused to acknowledge their own written MDCCR, Article l's definition of
Declarant, as well as other parts oftheir own governing documents ofthe MDCCR's.
At trial, the Jury also ignored these governing documents that state in favor for the
Appellant's. Again, this is a Land Court Matter where title disputes. claims, and
rights ofa Land Court Registered PropertY exists.
m. NECA DID NOT ACT FAIRLY-Another issue arouse was whether or not NECA
acted fairly. Despite the fact, that the entire 40+ years ofthe existence ofDefendant's
property and through the ownership of previous owners, the vacant land parcal's
owners were never members and never acknowledged as being a part ofthe home-
owner's association, and that no evidence ofNECA's membership relating to the 82-
Acre Undeveloped Vacant Land Parcel ever existed. It was only until the year 2011
when NECA changed their position, two years after the current owners and
Defendant's took possession ofthe property and began construction, that NECA
claimed the vacant land property was subjected to the rules and regulations of
NECA's Home-Owner's Association. They began their tyranncy implementing
outrageous violations, fines and fees to on outstanding $570,000 in attorney fines and
fees in only 6 years. The question is whether or not did the plaintiff's acted fairly?
NECA's abuse ofauthority precludes the fines and attorney fees and costs it seeks.
NECA Neither HRS Chapter 4211 nor their MDCCRs authorized imposition ofsuch
fines. NECA's fines are unlawful. (Bernard Bays Lung, and Holma, MIO, filed
Sept. 17th, 2015, #lCC-13-1-2161}.
9

iv. APPELLANTS WERE TREATED UNFAIRLY. To escalate fines, and attorney
fees to an outrageous amount of$570,000 from violations stemming from the use ofa
single violation seems to be unfair, unjust, and unruly, and would inflict emotional
distress upon any reasonable and sensible person. This is illegal, and goes against
their own governing documents, the MDCCR's ofNewtown Estates, and is unlawful.
(HRS 4211).
v. APPELLANTS RELIED ON DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE- Appellants
detrimentally relied on written statements from the General Manager ofNECA who
was acting on behalf of it's board members, that ''you are not part ofNECA", and
invested into the project? They also relied on the fact that No maintenance fees were
ever paid on this property, none by the previous owners too, for the past 40+ years.
Appellees should take responsibility and Appellant's should not be held accountable
for NECA's errors and admissions. Appellant's also relied on the fact, that during
escrow, and through the entire realty transaction, that never once, were Appellant's
delivered Condominium or association documentation.
vi. APPELLANTS SUFFERED FROM INTENTIONALLY INFLICTED
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS- As a result ofthe appellee's long tulmultous 8 year
litigation, Appellants have suffered. They were unable to build their family a home,
and therefore reunite as a family. Appellant's have lived with the anguish oflosing
their estate and property all because ofa single violation which the community
association "snowballed" into an enormous outrageous debt, Newtown Estate
claimed.
vii. NECA'S LACK OF SERVITUDE. In 2011, Appellant's incurred another lawsuit in
which Appellee's failed to service the property and come to their defense. Numerous
Plaintiffs were seeking a legal easement and right ofway across Appellant's
property. IfAppellant's vacant land parcel was subjected to the MDCCR's, then
NECA would've been obliged to be at Appellant's defense. However, this was not the
case, they claimed it was a "private matter", and they remained mute to the easement
issue. This lack ofservitude verifies that Appellant's property is not subjected to the
governing documents.
II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case is about whether or not Circuit Court had the jurisdiction to hear such land and
title disputes and questions regarding land court registered properties. There apparently is a
discrepancy on land title, where Appellee's claim that they now have the right to enforce
10

their governing documents after 40+ years of ignoring the land court registered property.
Appellant's claim that the land parcel was clearly exempt, (Defendant's Trial Exhibit #118,
Title of Certificate, #137,369, Page 7) never were there any documentation ofannexation,
and that a large undeveloped land parcel is not subjected to the governing documents ofa
home-owner's residential community association. Instead, a civil court jury ofnon-experts
heard the case, and their verdict decided that the land court registered property was subjected
to the governing documents, despite the evidence in favor ofAppellant's, and going against
the weight ofevidence in favor ofAppellant's. Failure to properly record, is not deemed an
annexation. Appellant's property was never annexed. Judge Castegnetti stated that the
"some ofthe claims may be under the jurisdiction ofland court, Land Court has
jurisdiction over the MDCCR" (Civil Court minutes heard on 12/12/2013),and in
determining whether or not Appellant's property is subjected to the MDCRR's ofNewtown
Estates, not the Jury ofa Civil Court. This is a land court matter, and this issue is to be heard
under the jurisdiction ofLand Court. Yet at trial, Judge Crabtree allowed for this issue to
continue on and to be heard in front ofa civil court jury.
Finally, this case is about whether ifor not Appellant's inherited the rights ofthe
previous owner, Declarant and developer Herbert Horita, upon acquiring the 82-Acre Vacant
Land Parcel land by succeeding and assigning by means ofwarranty deed in the year of
2009.
Ifthis court finds that Civil Court lacked Jurisdiction in determining whether or not
Appellant's property is subjected to the MDCCR's ofNewtown Estates, then the fines, and
fees, are unenforceable too. The fines and fees would lack standing and the final judgment
should be reversed.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The property in dispute was only Registered in Land Court. Appellants are disputing
NECA's rights to enforce their governing documents upon their Undeveloped
property. Land Court has exclusive Jurisdiction over the title in dispute. However,
Civil Court Jury decided through their special verdict that the property was subjected
to NECA, not Land Court despite evidence that proved otherwise.
11

A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND (Pages 2-6. Bay Lung, Rose, and Halma law firm
"Exhibit 1- DEFENDANT ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE'S MIO. FILED SEPT. 17.
2015. Civil Case. No. 13-1-2161)
I. The Creation ofNewtown's Estates, Appellant's property was excluded.
(Defendant's Trial Exhibit-#118)
II. Appellants Purchase ofthe Property and NECA'S Representation to Ms.
Kaaihue, "You are NOT a part ofour community association!"(Piaintiffs
Trial Exhibit-14, 17, 18)
III. NECA'S abrupt Change ofPosition and Subsequent Admissions,(Piaintiffs
Trial Exhibit -22)
IV. NECA's Enforcement Campaign Against Ms. Kaaihue is illegal.
B. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND (Page 9-12. Bay Lung. Rose, and Halma law
firm "Exhibit 1- DEFENDANT ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE'S MIO. FILED SEPT.
17.2015)
I. NECA Does NOT Have Authority Over the Property, There is no evidence of
annexation.
II. NECA Should NOT Receive Any Award ofAny Fines or Fees and Costs,
III. NECA's Fines are Unlawful,
IV. Neither HRS Chapter 421 J, nor the MDCCR's Authorize Imposition ofSuch
Fines,
V. NECA Failed to Follow Its Own Policies and Procedures,
VI. Unsupported Allegations and Misrepresentations,
VII. NECA'S Refusal to Mediate Precludes an Award to NECA,
V. NECA'S Attorney's Fees and Costs are Outrageous
Appellant's purchased the fee simple property in 2009 from developer Wallace Lean
whom in turn purchased it from Real Estate Developer Herbert Horita. Never did any ofthese
previous owners paid maintenance fees for this property or was it considered part ofa
community association during the past 40 years ofprior ownership. AI Guzman, manager at the
time ofNECA wrote a few times to Ms. Kaaihue, that you are NOT a part ofthe association.
(Plaintiffs Trial Exhibit-14, 17, 18) No records ever existed. It was only until2011, Mr. AI
Guzman wrote and said, "Oops, we made a mistake, you're a part ofNECA, welcome to our
community". Shortly after that, numerous violations were sent to Ms. Kaaihue. Although
Defendants addressed some ofthe easier violations, the bigger ones weren't as easy. Moving a
30 feet construction trailer took much more time and effort, and this was the basis for NECA's
escalating road trip campaign of fines and fees. NECA and their attorneys quickly escalated their
fines, took away their association's permit to build, and labeled them a "bad community
member". Their privileges to use the recreational facility was suspended. Defendant's had no
other choice other than to halt their home construction project, and abandoned the construction.
Suffering from Emotional Distress, Ms. Kaaihue was unable to build her home and reunite with
12

her children who have been living with family members, gave cause to Appellant's Emotional
distress, and spent at least 6 years litigating and defending their property.
After reading through the MDCCR's ofNECA, Defendant's realized that their property
did not fit the definition ofa "home-owner" or a "lot" as described by their governing
documents. They simply were NOT homeowners, they were NOT members, their property never
annexed, and their property was NOT part ofthe initial development.
At trial, the President ofthe board ofNECA even admitted that the property was never
annexed. He also failed to point out and identify on NECA's map's 19 and 20(Appellee's Trial
Exhibits, P-77 & P-78), as referenced in Exhibit A ofthe MDCCR's(Appellee's Trial Exhibit,
P-12, pg. 37), where Appellant's property laid, simply because, it was not on there.
C. NECA IGNORES THEIR OWN GOVERNING DOCUMENTS: The following
sections in particular, NECA blatantly ignores.
MDCCR, Article 1- definition of Declarant, MDCCR, Article I, Definitions,
defines "Owner" (a), MDCCR, Article 1, Definitions, defines "Lot, MDCCR Article
II, Sec. 2.02- Annexation of Subsequent Development (a)(1)(2) (b)(c), MDCCR,
Article V, Sec. 5.01-Membership & MDCCR. VII, Section 7.10: Reservation to
Exclude from the Master Declaration., (Appellee's Exhibit, P-12.)
I. NECA's, staff, board ofdirectors, attorneys blatantly, deliberately, and
intentionally continue to ignore their own rules and policies, and their
MDCCR's.
MDCCR. Article I, Definitions, defines "Owner" (a), shall not include
the Declarant with respect to any "lots" owned by the Declarant. (See
Definiton of"Lot", as described in MDCCR, Article 1, Lot.)
Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer have inherited developer rights, the rights as
Declarant Herbert Horita, this section excludes Declarant and it's successors or assignees,
including Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yang Nam Fryer, the owners ofthe lot.
MDCCR, Article 1. Definitions. defines "Lot: Shall mean any lot
designated on a subdivision or development map for residential use,
or, with respect to any condominium, an apartment ofsuch
condominium, or, with respect to any townhouse, apartment house,
duplex, or multiple dwelling, in low, medium, or high rise buildings, a
complete residential unit, and in each case, except when clearly
contrary to the context, shall include all improvements thereon. Upon
the splitting ofany lot pursuant to Section 7.04, the term "lot" shall
mean each parcel, condominium apartment, or residential unit, into
13
I
I
I

which such lot has been split. Upon the consolidation of two or more
lots, pursuant to Section 7.04, the term "lot" shall mean the parcel
consisting of the lots so consolidated.
The MDDCR description ofa "lot" excludes Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer's
lot. Kaaihue's lot is an undeveloped 82-acre land parcel, consisting offorest preservation. There
remains no house on this vacant land parcel, as it was stated in (Appellant's Exhibit #118)
MDCCR, Article I, Defintions, defines " Declarant: Shall mean
OCEANVIEW VENTURES, a Limited Partnership, it's successors
and assigns.
It's successors would are the Appellant's as described, Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong
Nam Fryer, by the previous owner, Wallace Lean, Pacific Aina Development, Herbert Horita,
Horita Realty. These are the subsequent successors and assigned, unless otherwise stated, this
fact remains.
MDCCR, Article II, Section 2.02: Annexation of Subsequent
Development (a)(1)(2) (b)(c), The association may also annex adjacent
property upon approval by an affirmative vote of3/4ths of all Class A
members and by the Class B member, if any, at a meeting duly called
for this purpose. The annexation ofsuch property shall become
effective only when declarant or association have recorded a
declaration which consists of more than one document, and declares
that such property is held and shall be held, sold, conveyed,
encumbered, leased, occupied, and improved subject to Newtown
Estates Restrictions.
There has never been any recorded annexation ofKaaihue's lot as a Subsequent
Development. None in the records, no recordation, none in Land Court or nothing recorded in the
Land Bureau ofconveyances. Nowhere on the Appellant's Deed or the prior deeds, does it say
that the property is held and shall be "held, sold, conveyed, encumbered, leased, occupied,
and improved subject to Newtown Estates Restrictions".
MDCCR, Article V, Section 5.01: Membership (a)- The term owner
shall mean an apartment Owner as defined in the Horizontal Property
Act (Ch. 514, HRS).
Again, this Section discusses Membership, Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer do
not own an apartment in NECA, neither do they own a home yet NECA, in 2011 suddenly
14

began claiming Appellant's as members so they can enforce their governing documents
I
upon them and their property. This is the basis of Appellant's suffering oflntentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress.
D. DEFENDANT'S PROPERTY EXCLUDED: Section 7.10 of the MDCCR's
excluded certain properties and it was clear, Defendant's property was described and
excluded from enforcement. Thus, the Defendant's countersued. As a result, her
initial investors were hesitant in funding the project ofher home, causing Intentional
Infliction ofEmotional Distress. This is clearly written in the MDDCR's for anyone
to understand, yet NECA deliberately ignores what is written.
MDCCR, VII, Section 7.10: Reservation to Exclude from the Master
Declaration those development increments, which are isolated and
separated from the rest ofthe NEWTOWN ESTATES, by its natural
features, such as cliffs and streams, so that such part of the common
and recreational areas of NEWTOWN ESTATES, including but not
limited to any lots which may be constructed and developed by
Declarant within any Area identified as Area C designated on the
Proposed Newtown Estates Development Plan, which is separated
from the rest of NEWTOWN ESTATES by Waimalu Stream and by
the cliffs next to it.
There has never been any recorded annexation ofKaaihue's lot as a Subsequent
Land Bureau ofconveyances.
MDCCR, Article V, Section 5.01: Membership (a)- The tenn owner
shall mean an apartment Owner as defined in the Horizontal Property
Act (Ch. 514, HRS).
Again, this Section discusses Membership, Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yang Nam Fryer
does not own an apartment in NECA.
E. NO EVIDENCE OF ANNEXATION:
15
i
i
i
~
I
I
I
l
I

At trial, Plaintiff's witness, Mr. Gordon Matsuoka, acting President ofthe NECA Board, testified
that the property in dispute was never annexed. He also repeatedly stated that there were only 3-5
homes in each ofthe NECA's sub-association that making up the Master Community of
approximately 8000 homes, which was obviously incoherent. There are ten sub-associations and
each sub-association has with approximately 100+ homes. Brought to Judge Crabtree's
attention, Defendant's requested for an impeachment ofthe witness, but was denied.
There has never been any recorded annexation of Appellant's lot as a Subsequent
Land Bureau ofconveyances. .
Appellees continued the snowball effect of fines and attorney fees, to an outrageous
amounting in attorney fees to $570,000. The Plaintitrs and their attorney's tactic were to cause
numerous frivolous violations, and cause a financial burden upon the Appellants in their attempts
to confiscate their undeveloped vacant land parcel.
F. TRIAL:
1. Initially, Appellants retained attorneys, but later became self-represented. At
trial, Appellants were self-represented. Appellants were required to write
down their list ofquestions to themselves and present it to the Plaintitrs and
became well-prepared. During trial, these questions were asked by a non-
party, and Appellants were not allowed to elaborate outside ofthe list of
questions. This gave rise to unfair questioning and prepared the Plaintiff's
with their comebacks, repeated and numerous objections throughout the entire
trial. This is extreme prejudicial, as Plaintiffs' were well-prepared to hear the
line ofDefendant's questioning.
ii. At trial, many ofDefendant's witnesses whom serviced as her witnesses were
considered experts and were not allowed to testifY.
m. At trial, it took Appellant numerous attempts and efforts to bring the
document a certified land court document into evidence. Evidence #118.
Again, this was very prejudicial. Finally on the fmal day oftrial, District
Judge allowed for it to enter into evidence. This was the creation ofNewtown
Estates, and described the initial development ofNECA, which clearly
excluded Appellant's lot (Lot 273-A) Appellant's lot which was originally
derived from many years later, specifically into Lot 881-B-5.
iv. At trial, Appellees failed to prove that the property was ever annexed.
v. At trial, Appellees failed to prove that the property was part ofan initial
development.
vi. At trial Appellees witness and President Gordon Matsuoka admitted and
testified that the property in dispute was never annexed. He also lied and
testified that there were only 3-5 houses in each sub-association. This would
have been grounds for impeachment, but Judge Crabtree denied it.
16
t
I
I

vii. At trial, Appellees witness Gordon Matsuoka could not and refused to identify
Lot 273-A (Appellant's lot) in the enlarged Map ofExhibit A (Map 19 & Map
20) (Appellee's Trial Exhibits, P-77 & P-78) that NECA's governing
documents, the MDCCR's referenced.
viii. At trial, Civil Court and the jury did not have jurisdiction to hear Land Court
matters effecting title rights and dispute regarding title.
ix. At trial, many potential jurors were excused ifthey previously had an issue
with Community Associations due to being biased. However, the jurors who
had no issue with community association remained on the stand.
We also believe that the weight ofthe evidence favored the Appellant's, but again,
was completely disregarded by the jury who lacked jurisdiction to hear this case.
G. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Whether or not Civil Court has jurisdiction over this matter is the biggest and gravest
issue. "The Land Court has exclusive original.iurisdiction over all applications for
the registration oftitle to land easements or rights in land held and possessed in fee
simple within the State, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon
the applications." A jury would not be able to read and understand the complexity of
the land court documents and understand it, as Appellee's went through the historical
evidence of40 years or land court registered documents. Even though evidence
proved the property was clearly exempt, this issue was outside the jurisdiction ofa
community association by way ofCivil Court. The property unlike the other
properties ofNECA was never filed or registered in the regular court system, only in
Land Court. Thus, Land Court would have been the court ofauthority to hear the
issue whether or not Appellant's property is subjected to the MDCCR's ofa
community association.
In fact, Civil Court Judge Castegnetti clearly stated on 12/12/2013, that "Land
Court has jurisdiction over the MDCCR".
It states in NECA's own governing documents Section 7.10 ofthe MDCCR's
(Appellee's Trial Exhibit. P-12. p. 35.that the property described as mountainous
terrain and separated by a river is exempt and excluded from the governing
documents. That exclusively describes Appellant's undeveloped vacant land parcel,
most ofwhich is mountainous terrain, steep cliffs, and undevelopable. Apparently,
NECA doesn't believe so, or is intentionally blatantly ignoring this part oftheir
governing documents. The property in dispute was never annexed, for good reasons
and cause.
Appellees failed to prove that Appellant's property was ever annexed; they failed to
prove that it was part ofthe initial development ofNECA, and they couldn't even
find the originating Jot (275-A, 440 Acres) or the Appellant's Jot 881-B-5 (82 Acres)
on the maps of 19 & 20, (Appellee's Trial Exhibits, P-77 & P-78), that is NOT
17

described in exhibit A oftheir own Governing documents ofthe MDCCR's (Pg. 37).
Therefore, NECA's governing documents is unenforceable, and NECA's actions
were illegal and caused Intentional Infliction ofEmotional Distress.
What the Appellees did though, was to follow the division ofthe Lot 275-A through
numerous land court documents, as it was subdivided by land court orders to the now
Appellant's current lot descripted as Lot 881-B-5. They also presented numerous
warranty deeds which were filed in land Court only, but never presented an
annexation ofAppellant's property which remained undeveloped and vacant over the
past 40+ years. The other lots as it was sub-divided, was developed, annexed into the
community association, and built into single family homes. However, Appellant's lot,
Lot 881-B-5, remained undeveloped and never annexed.
(Page 9-12. Bay Lung, Rose, and Halma law firm "Exhibit 1- DEFENDANT
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE'S MIO, FILED SEPT. 17, 2015)
i. NECA's Refusal to Mediate with Ms. Kaaihue twice.
ii. NECAS's Summary Judgment Motion Regarding Count I and
Resulting Order,
iii. NECA's Summary Judgment Motion Regarding Ms. Kaaihue's
Counterclaim,
iv. NECA's Criminal Contempt Motion (DENIED)
v. The Order to Mediation and the Failure to Mediation,
vi. NECA Does NOT Have Authority Over the Property,
vii. NECA Should NOT Receive Any Award of Any Fines or Fees and
Costs,
viii. NECA's Fines are Unlawful,
ix. Neither HRS Chapter 421 J, nor the MDCCR's Authorize Imposition
of Such Fines,
x. NECA Failed to Follow Its Own Policies and Procedures,
xi. Unsupported Allegations and Misrepresentations,
xii. NECA'S Refusal to Mediate Precludes an Award to NECA,
H. CONCLUSION
We believe the answer is clear and simple. Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to decide a
Land Court matter regarding land and title rights to the Appellant's property, and it is NOT
a jury that interprets land court documents and decides whether or not a property is
subjected to the conditions of a community association. Thus, the jury's verdict against the
Appellant's is invalid. Title disputes, rights, and claims to title registered in Land Court
falls under the jurisdiction of Land Court and should have been heard before the Land Court
Honorable Judge Gary Chan. Upon acquiring Land Court Registered Property, the highest
form ofprotection of land and property rights, the Appellant's inherited the rights ofthe
previous owner's by way of succeeding and assigning of the Warranty Deed. Land in
18

Hawaii is limited, critical, and highly valuable, with the onset and shortage ofhousing.
However, Newtown Estates Community Association illicit behavior, their strategy, ignoring
their own governing documents, and acting as if the property was annexed, NECA implies
frivolous violations, fines, and escalating ofthe attorney fees, is illegally unlawful, and
inflicted Appellants with Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
At trial, Appellees along with the jury ignored the governing document, the
MDCCR, Article 1- definition of Declarant, MDCCR, Article I, Definitions, defines
"Owner" (a), MDCCR, Article 1, Definitions, defines "Lot, MDCCR Article II, Sec.
2.02- Annexation of Subsequent Development (a)(1)(2) (b)(c), MDCCR, Article V, Sec.
5.01-Membership & MDCCR, VII, Section 7.10: Reservation to Exclude from the
Master Declaration. Appellees want to illegally enforce their authority, by ignoring
their own governing documents. The issues that shadows this case could easily be
resolved by the appeal Courts or by the Supreme Courts answering if this is a question of
law, whether or not it was outside of Civil Court's jurisdiction to hear a title dispute and
claims to the title. Subsequently, whether or not Appellant's succeeded Developer Herbert
Horita's 82-Arce Vacant Undeveloped Land Parcel, zoned mostly Preservation/ and
Apartment Zoned, and whether if or not, Appellant's property is subjected to the MDCCR's
ofNewtown Estates and it's enforcement.
The Appellant's inherited Herbert Horita's rights by succeeding the property and
then being assigned the rights by the Warranty deed back in 2009, the Appellants
also inherited the rights as Declarant Herbert Horita and developer and have the
right to exclude their property from the MDCCR's of Newtown Estates as stated in
the MDCCR's, Sec. 7.10. Simple as that, simply as it is stated in the Warranty
deed, and Appellees own governing documents. Again it wasn't only until 2011,
that Appellees began asserting and claiming their governing documents and
rights to enforce upon Appellant's property.
District Court Judge Castegnetti initially stated in 12/12/2013 minutes that "Land court has
jurisdiction over the MDCCR", therefore ifthis statement is true, then, Civil Court by way of
the jury lacked jurisdiction. IfPlaintiffs in the case, (Appellee's) abided by the assertion ofthe
Honorable Judge Castegnetti, this case would never have gone to trial. It's obviously clear that
the property in dispute is excluded from NECA's MDCCR's governing documents, that ofa
community association, Appellant's property is too large to even possibly be able to conform and
abide to the rules that is designed for a developed lot size home-owners residential lot ofthe
average 5000 sq. ft. or apartments. Appellant's lot is approximately 3.7 million sq feet, (82
Acres), it's wild, it's forested, it has animals, large trees, caves, heiau's, and a river. For a land
parcel that large, it is impossible, illogical, incoherent, and this is a clear example ofa frivolous
case, and lawsuit to imply the rules ofa home-owners association to a vacant land mostly
forested preservation. This also is called conspiracy, and stealing, and abuse ofpower by a
19

community association, and blatant ignorance ofthe law, and gave rise to the Appellant's claim
for Intentional Infliction ofEmotional Distress, amongst other things.
However, if interpretation or clarification or a Land Court Registered Title and Deed are
necessary, then it should have been done by a judge ofthe proper court and jurisdiction. Judge
Castegnetti stated this was a matter of law, and we would love, and appreciate to hear the
opinion ofthe Hawaii Supreme Court.
In summary, the evidence shows that NECA does not have any authority over the
property or Ms. Kaaihue, and that by it's own actions and admissions, it abandoned any rights it
may have had by taking the position for 40 years that the Property was not part ofNECA. All the
parties needed was a Supreme Court's Opinion as to whether or not NECA has authority ofa
Land Court Registered Property regarding Land Title, Rights, and Disputes.
Therefore, we humbly request that the Appellant Court vacate the Civil Court Jury's
Verdict and Judge Crabtree's signed order on April 15
2019 and the final Judgment order on
Dec.4th, 2019 for lack ofCivil Court's jurisdiction over title and rights ofAppellant's Land
Court Registered Property.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii; January 11,2020
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii; January 11, 2020
20
An Ia Sue Kaaihue
APPELLANT
Yong Nam Fryer
YONG NAM FRYER
APPELLANT

STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
LAND COURT CASE #1LD111000271 In the Land Court case of Petitioners Angela Kaaihue
and Yang Fryer, vs Respondent's Waimalu Holding Company, Dept. Land & Natural Resources,
Board ofWater Supply, City and county ofHonolulu, State ofHawaii, WG Minami Inc.,
Newtown Estates Community Association, Hawaiian Electric Company, Case# 1LD111000271
This case initially began as Appellant's Angela Kaaihue and Yang Fryer petitioning the courts
for a cancellation ofa large unused easement that ran through the property specifically labeled
Easement #341, a 40-feet wide easement. As a result, numerous parties counter-petitioned for a
smaller easement known as Waimalu Valley Access Road (10 feet wide).
During the 5 year litigation ofan easement, Newtown Estates Community Association remained
mute, stated that this was a private matter, and that they would not participate. Clearly this is a
lack act ofservitude. NECA refused to participate and help the Appellant's in defense against
numerous parties seeking easement. IfAppellant's property was part ofNECA, NECA would
have been obliged to their defense. As a result, the other parties obtained their legal right a way
ofa 10 feet wide easement which was justifiable, and NOT a 40 feet wide unused easement.
LAND COURT CASE# 1LD171002541- In this case filed by Appellant Angela Sue Kaaihue,
in attempts to address the Underlying issue, Whether or not Appellant's and their property is
subjected to the governing documents ofNewtown Estates Community Association. Being that
Land Court would have the subject matter jurisdiction. However, because Petitioner/Appellant
Angela Kaaihue failed to request for relief in her petition, the petition was dismissed. However
Land Court Judge Gary Chan, stated in the minutes of?/23/2018 "THE COURT NOTES THAT
LAND COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURSISDICTION THAT RELATES TO
PROPERTY REGISTERED IN THE LAND COURT AND LAND COURT HAS THE
EXCLUSIVE JUDRISDICTION TO AMEND TCT". That basically was the outcome ofthat
petition. Petitioner's weren't looking to amend, they were looking to clarify, interpret, and
looking for the answer, "Whether or not, Appellant's land property is subjected to the MDCCR's
ofNewtown Estates?" Because, ifthe answer is "NO", and if Judge Gary Chan had found that
this property was NOT annexed, and NOT part ofthe initial development, then NECA would
NOT have a case to come after the Appellant's for violations ofthe MDCCR's in the Civil Court
as NECA has done, NECA's governing documents would lack jurisdiction.
NECA instead filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to have the petition dismissed, and thus,
the underlying issue remained resolved, the underlying issue was tossed back to Circuit Court,
and trial soon commenced.
21

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that this Opening Brief, pursuant to Rule 32(a)(7)(C) ofthe Federal Rules
ofAppellate Procedure is proportionately spaced, double-spaced, using a Times New Roman
Typeface, 12-point size, with a total word count ofOOOO words as determined by the Windows
XP word processing operating system used to prepare said document.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii; January 11th , 2020
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii; January 11th, 2020
22
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE
APPELLANT
~ Yong.Narn Fryer
YONG NAM FRYER
APPELLANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the date first written below a true and correct copy of the aforementioned
Jurisdictional Statement and Opening Briefwas duly filed by personal hand delivery, thereby
served upon the following attorneys representing the Appellees in this Appeal:
Phillip A. Li, Esq.
733 Bishop Street, Ste. 1770
Honolulu, HI. 96813
Attorneyfor Counterclaim Defendant
Newtown Estates Community Association
Motooka & Rosenberg
1000 Bishop Street, Suite 801
Honolulu, HI., 96813
Attorneyfor Plaintiff
Newtown Estates Community Association
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii; January lith, 2020.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii; January 11th, 2020.
23
aaihue
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE
APPELLANT
~ YongNamFryer
YONG NAM FRYER
APPELLANT
j
!
f

MOTOOKA & ROSENBERG
A Limited Liability Law Company
MILTON M. MOTOOKA 1204-0
CAROL A.L. ROSENBERG 4699-0
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 532-7900
Facsimile: (808) 532-7910
Attorneys for Plaintiff
NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
FIRSTORCUlTCOURT
STATEOF HAWAII
FILED
JIM~
Clerk
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAI'I
ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE; YONG NAM
FRYER; JOHN DOES 1-50; JANE DOES
1-50; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-50; DOE
CORPORATIONS 1-50; DOE
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-50;
AND DOE ENTITIES 1-50,
Defendants.
FRYER;
Counterclaim-Plaintiffs,
v.
ASSOCIATION;
Counterclaim Defendant.
CIVIL NO. 13-1-2161-08 JPC
(Other Civil Action)
PLAINTIFF NEWTOWN ESTATES
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION'S
AMENDED PROPOSED SPECIAL
VERDICT FORM REGARDING
COMPLAINT; CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE
Trial Date: January 1A, 2019
Judge: Honorable Jeffrey P. Crabtree
[CAPTION CONTINUED NEXT PAGE]

YONG NAM FRYER;
Counterclaim-Plaintiff,
v.
ASSOCIATION;
PLAINTIFF NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION'S PROPOSED
AMENDED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM REGARDING COMPLAINT
Plaintiff NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ("NECA"), by and
through its counsel, hereby submits its Amended Proposed Specific Verdict Form
regarding the Complaint, attached hereto
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, January 29, 2019.
MOTOOKA & ROSENBERG
A Limited Liability Law Corporation
ASSOCIATION, by its Board of Directors

STATE OF HAWAI'I
ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendants.
FRYER;
v.
ASSOCIATION;
YONG NAM FRYER;
v.
ASSOCIATION;
1
CIVIL NO. 13-1-2161-08 JPC
AMENDED PROPOSED SPECIAL
COMPLAINT

AMENDED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM REGARDING COMPLAINT
The jury must answer all of the questions, unless otherwise indicated.
To understand what issues are being submitted to you, you may wish to read
over this entire Special Verdict Form before proceeding to answer the questions.
Answer all questions in numerical order. Follow all directions carefully. Each
answer requires the agreement of 10 jurors.
If you do not understand any question, or if you wish to communicate with the
Court on any other subject, you must do so in writing through the Bailiff.
1

PLAINTIFF NEWTOWN ESTATE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION'S CLAIM FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Question No. 1. Does the Warranty Deed executed by Defendants Angela Sue
Kaaihue and Yang Nam Fryer provide that their Property is subject to the terms,
covenants, provisions, easements and reservations as contained in the Master
Declaration of Conditions and Reservations of the Newtown Estates (the "MDCCR")?
[Answer "Yes" or "No" by placing an "X" in the space provided below].
Yes ______ No ______
Question No. 2. Since Defendants Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yang Nam Fryer's
Property is subject to the terms, covenants, provisions, easements and reservations as
contained in the MDCCRs, are Defendants Kaaihue and Fryer required to comply with
the MDCCRs?
Yes - - - - - -
No ______
Note: If you answered "Yes" to Question No.2, stop here and go to Question No. 7. If
you answer "No" to Question No. 2, continue with Question No. 3.
Question No. 3. Was Lot 285-A, which is described in Exhibit "A" to the MDCCRs,
subdivided through Land Court Order Nos. 35869, 37020, 37428, 38605, 40515, 43538,
2

54204 and 65009, to result in multiple lots including Defendant Angel Sue Kaaihue and
Yang Nam Fryer's Property, Lot 881-B-5?
Yes No
- - - - - - ------
Question No. 4. Since Lot 285-A was an original lot making up Newtown Estates
and Defendants' Property was the result of Lot 285-A being subdivided, is Defendant
Angel Sue Kaaihue and Yang Nam Fryer's Property, Lot 881-B-5?
Yes No ______
Question No. 5. Since Defendants' Property is part of Newtown Estates, are
Defendants Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yang Nam Fryer members of the Newtown
Estates- Community Association?
Yes No
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Question No. 6. As members of Newtown Estates Community Association, are
Defendants Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yang Nam Fryer required to comply with the
MDCCRs?
3

Yes No
------ ------
Note: If you answered "Yes" to Question No.6, stop here and go to Question No.7. If
you answer "No" to Question No.6, continue with Question No.7.
Question No.7. Is NECA authorized by the MDCCR, the NECA Architectural
Committee Rules and Regulations, and the NECA Covenants Enforcement Policy No.
A.1 to charge Defendants Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer's Property the
maintenance assessments, late charges, fines and costs of bringing the enforcement
action, including attorneys' fees and costs?
Yes ______ No ______
Question No. 8. Did NECA act reasonably in enforcing the MDCCRs, the NECA
Architectural Committee Rules and Regulations, and the NECA Covenants Enforcement
Policy No. A.1 against the Property once it determined that the Property was subject to
NECA's MDCCR?
Yes No
- - - - - - ------
Question No.9. NECA is awarded the following amounts (check the line after the
prefilled amount, or write in the amount to be awarded:
Maintenance assessments (COMM)
Fines (HRV)
Late Charges (LC)
$2,082.15 [_J
$28,080.55 [_J
$586.25 [_J
Other amount $____
Other amount $____
Other amount$----
Please have the foreperson print his or her name, sign and date at the places
indicated below, and call the bailiff to return the signed verdict form to him or her.
Foreperson
4

Print:
Signature Date
DATE::D: Honolulu, Hawai'i, January 28, 2019.
5
MOTOOKA &ROSENBERG
A Limited Liability Law Company
MILTON M. MOTOOKA
CAROL A.L. ROSENBERG
ASSOCIATION

STATE OF HAWAI'I
ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendants.
FRYER;
v.
ASSOCIATION;
YONG NAM FRYER;
V.
ASSOCIATION;
CIVIL NO. 13-1-2161-08 JPC

The undersigned hereby certifies that on the date listed below, a true and correct
copy of the foregoing document was duly served upon the following individual(s) via
hand delivery:
YONG NAM FRYER
98-673 Kilinoe St.
Aiea, HI 96701
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE
98-673 Kilinoe St.
Aiea, HI 96701
Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs Pro Se
PHILLIP A. Ll, ESQ.
MATI A. TSUKAZAKI, ESQ.
Ll &TSUKAZAKI, LLLC
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Attorneys for Counterclaim Defendant
NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
2
NEWTOWN ESTATE
ASSOCIATION

LI & TSUKAZAKI,
Attorneys at Law, LLLC
PHILLIP A. LI 4262-0
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 524-4888
Facsimile: (808) 524-4887
ASSOCIATION
N. HIYArA
STATE OF HAWAI'I
ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRYER; JOHN DOES 1-50; JANE DOES 1-
50; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-50; DOE
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-50; AND
DOE ENTITIES 1-50,
Defendants.
FRYER;
v.
ASSOCIATION;
CIVIL NO. 13-1-2161-08 JPC
COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT
ASSOCIATION'S PROPOSED JURY
COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF YONG NAM
FRYER'S COUNTERCLAIM AND
Trial Date: January 14,2019

YONG NAM FRYER;
v.
ASSOCIATION;
COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION'S PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORM REGARDING
YONG NAM FRYER COUNTERCLAIM
Counterclaim Defendant NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
("NECA"), by and through its counsel, hereby submits its Proposed Jury Verdict Form regarding
the Counterclaim ofYong Nam Fryer, attached hereto.
2
Attorneys for unterclaim Defendant
ASSOCIATION

STATE OF HAWAI'I
ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOE ENTITIES 1-50,
Defendants.
FRYER;
v.
ASSOCIATION;
YONG NAM FRYER;
v.
ASSOCIATION;
CIVIL NO. 13-1-2161-08 JPC
PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORM
REGARDING YONG NAM FRYER
COUNTERCLAIM

JURY VERDICT FORM REGARDING YONG NAM FRYER COUNTERCLAIM
The jury must answer all of the questions, unless otherwise indicated.
To understand what issues are being submitted to you, you may wish to read over this
entire Special Verdict Form before proceeding to answer the questions.
Answer all questions in numerical order. Follow all directions carefully. Each answer
requires the agreement of 10 jurors.
If you do not understand any question, or if you wish to communicate with the Court on
any other subject, you must do so in writing through the Bailiff.
2

COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF YONG NAM FRYER'S CLAIM FOR
DECLARATORY RELIEF
Question No.1. Does the Warranty Deed executed by Yong Nam Fryer provide that
her Property is subject to the terms, covenants, provisions, easements and reservations as
contained in the Master Declaration of Conditions and Reservations ofthe Newtown Estates (the
"MDCCR")?
Yes No
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Question No. 2. Is Counterclaim PlaintiffYong Nam Fryer's Property Lot 881-B-5
located at 98-673 Kilinoe St., Aiea, HI 96701 a part of Lot 285-A, which lot is described
in Exhibit "A" to the MDCCRs.
Yes - - - - - - No ______
Question No. 3. Is Counterclaim PlaintiffYong Nam Fryer a member ofthe
Newtown Estates Community Association?
Yes No
- - - - - - - - - - - -
1

~-----
Question No.4. Is Counterclaim Plaintiff Yong Nam Fryer bound by the December 29,
2015 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Newtown
Estates Community Association's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Complaint Filed
August 7, 2013 in which a permanent injunction was entered that requires
Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs Kaaihue and Fryer and to comply with Plaintiff
ssociation's Project Documents
Yes No
------ - - - - - -
~~
Is Counterclaim Plaintiff Yong Nam Fryer bound by the February 10,
I
I
I
2015, Judgment as to Count I of the Complaint Filed August 7, 2013?
i
I
j
Yes ------
No ______
Please have the foreperson print his or her name, sign and date at the places indicated
below, and call the bailiffto return the signed verdict form to him or her.
Foreperson
Print:
Signature Date
2
I
t
f
I
l
!'
t
•
~
!
z
i
!
I
I
I

3
ASSOCIATION

STATE OF HAWAI'I
ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOE ENTITIES 1-50,
Defendants.
FRYER;
v.
ASSOCIATION;
YONG NAM FRYER;
v.
ASSOCIATION;
CIVIL NO. 13-1-2161-08 JPC

The undersigned hereby certifies that on foregoing date a true and correct copy ofthe
foregoing document was duly served upon the following individual(s) at their last known address
via the method indicated as follows:
YONG NAM FRYER
98-673 Kilinoe St.
Aiea, HI 96701
[U.S. first-class mail, postage prepaid]
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE
98-673 Kilinoe St.
[Via email akaai2674@hotmail.com]
Aiea, HI 96701
Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs Pro Se
MILTON M. MOTOOKA, ESQ.
CAROL L. ROSENBERG, ESQ.
MOTOOKA & YAMAMOTO, LLLP
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
LI & TSUKAZAKI,
Atto~a~nT-to.
[Hand delivery]
.,
ASSOCIATION
2

MOTOOKA ROSENBERG LAU & OYAMA
Limited Liability Law Company
MILTON M. MOTOOKA
CAROL A.L. ROSENBERG
I000 Bishop Street, Ste. 80I
Honolulu, Hawaii 968I3
Telephone No. 532-7900
Fax No. 532-79¥1
LI & TSUKAZAKI,
Attorneys at Law, LLLC
PHILLIP A. LI
MATT A. TSUKAZAKI
733 Bishop Street, Suite I770
Honolulu, HI 968I3
Telephone: (808) 524-4888
Facsimile: (808) 524-4887
I204
4699
4262-0
4968-0
Attorneys for Plaintiffand Counterclaim Defendant
ASSOCIATION
STATE OF HAWAI'I
Electronically Filed
FIRST CIRCUIT
1CC131002161
04-DEC-2019
03:25PM
ASSOCIATION,
CIVIL NO. I3-I-2I6I-08 JPC
Plaintiff,
v.
FRYER; JOHN DOES I-50; JANE DOES I-
50; DOE PARTNERSHIPS I-50; DOE
CORPORATIONS I-50; DOE
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES I-50; AND
DOE ENTITIES I-50,
Defendants.
FINAL JUDGMENT
{CAPTION CONTINUED NEXT PAGE]

FRYER;
v.
ASSOCIATION;
YONG NAM FRYER;
v.
ASSOCIATION;
Trial Date: January 14,2019
FINAL JUDGMENT
On April 1, 2019, this Court entered Judgment in this case pursuant to Rules 54 and 58 of
the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 23 ofthe Rules ofthe Circuit Courts ofthe State of
Hawaii, and pursuant to the FIRST VERDICT FORM, FOR CLAIMS BY NEWTOWN
ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ("First Verdict Form"), filed herein on January 30,
2019 in favor ofPlaintiffNEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ("Plaintiff')
and against Defendant ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE ("Defendant Kaaihue") and Defendant YONG
NAM FRYER ("Defendant Fryer") (collectively referred to as "Defendants").
On April 1, 2019, this Court also entered Judgment in this case pursuant to Rules 54 and
58 of the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 23 of the Rules of the Circuit Courts of the
State of Hawaii, and pursuant to the SECOND VERDICT FORM, FOR CLAIMS BY ANGELA
2

SUE KAAIHUE AND YONG NAM FRYER AGAINST NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY
("ASSOCIATION") ("Second Verdict Form"), filed herein on January 30, 2019, in favor of
Counterclaim Defendant NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
("Counterclaim Defendant") and against Counterclaim Plaintiff ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE
("Counterclaim Plaintiff Kaaihue") and Counterclaim Plaintiff YONG NAM FRYER
("Counterclaim Plaintiff Fryer").
On August 28, 2019, this Court entered its Minute Order awarding attorney's fees to
Plaintiffon its Complaint and to Counterclaim Defendant on both Counterclaims. On October 17,
2019, this Court entered its Order Granting Newtown Estates Community Association's Motion
for an Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs Against Counterclaim Plaintiffs Angela Sue Kaaihue
and Yong Nam Fryer. On October 18, 2019, this Court entered its Order Granting Newtown
Estates Community Association's Motion for an Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs Against
Defendants Angela Sue Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer. Now after having awarded attorney's fees
and costs, this Court enters Final Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant as
follows:
THE COMPLAINT
I. On Count I of Plaintiffs Complaint for injunctive relief, judgment is entered for
Plaintiffand against Defendant Kaaihue and Defendant Fryer.
2. On Count II of Plaintiffs Complaint seeking all unpaid assessments owed by
Defendants to Plaintiff, judgment is entered for Plaintiffon the jury verdict and against Defendant
Kaaihue and Defendant Fryer jointly and severally in the amount of Thirty Thousand Seven
Hundred Forty-Eight and 98/IOOths Dollars ($30,748.98).
3

3. Plaintiff is also awarded attorney's fees and costs against Defendant Kaaihue and
Defendant Fryer, jointly and severally in a total amount of$265,701.02 as follows:
Attorney's fees of
General excise taxes of
Costs of
Total
$243,364.00
$ 11,720.86
$ 10,616.16
$265,701.02
THE COUNTERCLAIMS
1. On Count IV of Counterclaim Plaintiff Kaaihue's Counterclaim for Infliction of
Emotional Distress, Judgment is entered in favor of Counterclaim Defendant and against
Counterclaim Plaintiff Kaaihue.
2. All other Counts of Counterclaim Plaintiff Kaaihue's Counterclaim including
Count I for Bad Faith, Count II for Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, Count III for Failure to
Provide Accurate Information, Count V for Estoppel, and Count VI for Punitive Damages are
hereby dismissed with prejudice.
3. On Count I of Counterclaim Plaintiff Fryer's Counterclaim for Declaratory
Relief, Judgment is entered in favor of Counterclaim Defendant and against Counterclaim
Plaintiff Fryer.
4. Count II of Counterclaim Plaintiff Fryer's Counterclaim alleging that the claims
raised in the Complaint are frivolous is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
5. Counterclaim Defendant is awarded attorney's fees and costs against Counterclaim
PlaintiffKaaihue and against Counterclaim PlaintiffFryer,jointly and severally in a total amount
of$273,381.19 as follows:
Attorneys' fees of:
General excise taxes of:
Costs:
Total:
$251,910.00
$11,869.99
$9,601.20
$273,381.19
4

There are no other claims in the Complaint or Counterclaims filed in this case and there
are no remaining parties.
The Court reserves jurisdiction to enter an award ofadditional attorneys' fees and costs
upon submittal of appropriate motions by Plaintiff and/or Counterclaim Defendant Newtown
Estates Community Association.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE
Counterclaim Plaintiff
YONG NAM FRYER
Counterclaim Defendant
JUDGE OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT
NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITYASSOCIATION V ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE; YONG
NAM FRYER ETAL., Civil No. 13-1-2161-08 JPC (Other Civil Action) FINAL JUDGMENT
5

OPENING BRIEF-CAAP-19-0000806 -: HAWAII APPELLANT SUPREME COURT OPENING BRIEF ANGELA KAAIHUE -VS- NECA

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie OPENING BRIEF-CAAP-19-0000806 -: HAWAII APPELLANT SUPREME COURT OPENING BRIEF ANGELA KAAIHUE -VS- NECA

Ähnlich wie OPENING BRIEF-CAAP-19-0000806 -: HAWAII APPELLANT SUPREME COURT OPENING BRIEF ANGELA KAAIHUE -VS- NECA (20)

Mehr von Angela Kaaihue

Mehr von Angela Kaaihue (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

OPENING BRIEF-CAAP-19-0000806 -: HAWAII APPELLANT SUPREME COURT OPENING BRIEF ANGELA KAAIHUE -VS- NECA