Elder v. The Bluffs at Mauna Kea Community Association
CAAP-16-0000266
| Haw. App. | Jun 25, 2021Background
- In March 2011 Elder sued the Gundersons and The Bluffs, alleging the Gundersons’ naupaka hedge obstructed Elder’s coastal view and that The Bluffs failed to enforce the CCRs.
- After a bench trial Judge Strance entered FFCLJ finding the naupaka was limited to the height of the adjoining wall, breached CCRs, and ordered the Gundersons to cut and not maintain the naupaka above the wall; Final Judgment (Mar. 16, 2015) reflected those rulings.
- This court initially dismissed Elder’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because counterclaims remained unresolved; later the Circuit Court entered an Amended Final Judgment that added the phrase limiting the cutback "to the height of the adjacent wall between the Gundersons and Elder properties."
- Elder moved under HRCP Rule 60(b) arguing the Amended Final Judgment misstated the court’s original ruling and thereby restricted the height limitation to the wall-line segment rather than the entire naupaka hedge (including the special setback area).
- The Circuit Court denied Rule 60(b) relief; on remand from the Hawai‘i Supreme Court the ICA concluded the amended language created a material mistake and that denying Rule 60(b)(1) relief was an abuse of discretion, vacated the denial, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Amended Final Judgment substantially altered the Final Judgment by adding limiting language | Elder: the added phrase narrowed the injunction to only the segment of hedge along the adjoining wall, contrary to the FFCLJ and Final Judgment which set wall-height as the assigned height for the entire naupaka hedge | Bluffs/Gundersons: the amended phrase can be read as identifying where trimming must occur (along the adjoining wall), not changing the height limitation; no relief required | Court: the Amended Final Judgment mistakenly changed the Final Judgment’s scope; the added language created confusion and was a factual mistake warranting Rule 60(b)(1) relief; vacated the denial and remanded |
| Whether the naupaka hedge height limitation applies to the entire special setback area (not just the wall-adjacent segment) | Elder: the wall height, as the agreed/assigned height in design approval, set the height limit for all assigned landscaping including the entire naupaka hedge in the special setback so as not to obstruct Elder’s view | Bluffs/Gundersons: (implicit) the Amended Final Judgment’s wording limited trimming to the adjoining wall area; no broader trimming required | Court: interpreting the FFCLJ and CCRs as a whole, the assigned wall height applied to the naupaka generally (including the special setback); the amended wording caused ambiguity and relief was appropriate to give effect to the court’s intent |
Key Cases Cited
- PennyMac Corp. v. Godinez, 474 P.3d 264 (Haw. 2020) (standard of review and deference for HRCP Rule 60(b) rulings)
- Hawai‘i Hous. Auth. v. Uyehara, 883 P.2d 65 (Haw. 1994) (trial court discretion under Rule 60(b))
- Moyle v. Y & Y Hyup Shin, Corp., 191 P.3d 1062 (Haw. 2008) (abuse of discretion when court errs in law or clearly misassesses evidence)
- Ditto v. McCurdy, 80 P.3d 974 (Haw. 2003) (appellant bears heavy burden to show abuse of discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief)
- State v. Guyton, 351 P.3d 1138 (Haw. 2015) (interpretation/construction of judgments is a question of law for courts)
- Wohlschlegel v. Uhlmann-Kihei, Inc., 662 P.2d 505 (App. 1983) (judgment must be construed as a whole and read in context of the record)