County of Hawai'i v. UniDev, LLC
128 Haw. 378
Haw. App.2012Background
- In consolidated appeals, UniDev seeks lis pendens expungement and reconsideration after a circuit court expunged its lis pendens over real property tied to a housing project in Hawai'i County.
- UniDev asserted HUFTA (HRS ch. 651C) fraudulent transfer claims as the basis for the lis pendens; the lis pendens was recorded April 6, 2010.
- The County counterclaimed for false claims, misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, and negligence; the actions were later consolidated with a separate suit.
- The Development Services Agreement (DSA) and Amended and Restated DSA (ADSA) govern arbitration provisions; the ADSA is not signed by the County.
- The circuit court expunged the lis pendens, and UniDev challenged via a motion for reconsideration; separately, the court compelled ADR/arbitration for some claims.
- The Hawai'i Supreme Court/appeals court analyze whether HUFTA supports lis pendens, and whether the DSA/ADSA arbitration framework properly governs the County and UniDev disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| HUFTA and lis pendens sufficiency | UniDev argues HUFTA enables lis pendens over property interests. | County contends HUFTA does not directly affect title/possession for lis pendens purposes. | HUFTA does not support lis pendens; expungement affirmed. |
| Arbitration obligation scope (DSA/ADSA) and applicability to County | UniDev seeks to compel arbitration under DSA/ADSA for all claims/counterclaims. | County argues ADSA not binding; only DSA governs with limited scope. | DSA arbitration applies narrowly to certain duties; ADSA not binding on County; not all claims must be arbitrated. |
| Waiver of arbitration rights | UniDev did not knowingly waive arbitration by its conduct. | County argues UniDev waived by litigating and delaying arbitration. | UniDev did not waive its arbitration rights; no prejudice shown to County. |
| Arbitrability of specific County claims under DSA | All County claims and UniDev counterclaims fall under DSA arbitration if they implicate its terms. | Only certain negligence and breach-of-contract aspects implicate DSA terms; others do not. | Only portions of the County's negligence and UniDev's breach-of-contract counterclaim are arbitrable under the DSA; others fall outside scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- S. Utsunomiya Enterprises, Inc. v. Moomuku Country Club, 75 Haw. 480 (Haw. 1994) (lis pendens validity based on face of complaint; merits not considered)
- Koolau Radiology, Inc. v. Queen’s Medical Ctr., 73 Haw. 433 (Haw. 1992) (arbitration standard; de novo review on motions to compel arbitration)
- Hawaii Med. Ass’n v. Hawaii Med. Serv. Ass’n, 113 Haw. 77 (Haw. 2006) (arbitration/summary judgment framework; de novo review on arbitration motions)
- Rainbow Chevrolet, Inc. v. Asahi Jyuken (USA), Inc., 78 Haw. 107 (Haw. 1995) (arbitration scope and construction; public policy favoring arbitration)
- Ass’n of Owners of Kukui Plaza v. Swinerton & Walberg Co., 68 Haw. 98 (Haw. 1985) (waiver and inconsistency with arbitration rights; prejudice considerations)
- Kirkeby v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 805 (Cal. 2004) (California lis pendens relies on plain statute language; influence on interjurisdictional issues)
- Urez Corp. v. Superior Court, 235 Cal.Rptr. 843 (Cal. App. 1987) (narrow construction of lis pendens; equitable remedies not sufficient for lis pendens)