Harrison v. Casa De Emdeko, Incorporated., 418 P.3d 559

Background

Casa de Emdeko is a mixed-use condominium project in Kona with 106 residential units (Wings A & B) and 3 commercial units (Buildings C, D, L); petitioner Harrison owns two commercial units (6.726% interest) and served on the association board.
Casa’s Restated Declaration (1995) and HRS chapter 514A govern allocation of common expenses and distinguish common elements and limited common elements; Section M creates a maintenance/reserve fund assessed to all owners.
Harrison sued, claiming she was improperly assessed for expenses relating to elevators, lanai railings, drains, cable TV wiring, cable TV service, and pest control because some of those items are limited common elements appurtenant only to residential units.
The circuit court granted Casa summary judgment, holding the disputed items were common elements and alternatively applying estoppel by acquiescence; the ICA affirmed in part (common element rulings for some items) and remanded others.
The Hawai‘i Supreme Court: (1) held elevators and lanai railings are limited common elements (so commercial owner not liable for their costs as a matter of law); (2) found genuine issues of material fact about drains and cable TV wires (summary judgment improper); and (3) held summary judgment on estoppel by acquiescence was also improper given disputed facts. The case was remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are elevators common elements or limited common elements?	Elevators serve only residential buildings and thus are limited common elements to which commercial units are not liable.	Elevators are "elevators existing for common use" and therefore common elements under HRS and the Declaration.	Elevators are limited common elements under the Declaration and HRS: exclusive residential use makes them limited, so Harrison not liable as a matter of law.
Are lanai railings common elements or limited common elements?	Lanais are part of apartments; railings appurtenant to residential lanais are limited common elements.	Railings are structural "supports" or safety-related common elements and thus assessable to all.	Lanai railings are limited common elements: they are appurtenant to and exclusively used by residential apartments, so commercial owner not liable for their costs.
Are drains and cable-TV wires common elements or limited/common-appurtenant items?	Drains and cable wiring in residential buildings are appurtenant only to those apartments and thus may be limited common elements.	Declaration language treating wiring/pipes and central installations as common elements makes them common elements.	The record is unclear whether the specific drains and cable wires serve more than one apartment or run across the project; genuine issues of material fact exist, so summary judgment was improper.
Was estoppel by acquiescence a proper basis for summary judgment?	Harrison: she did object once aware; she lacked full knowledge of material particulars despite long ownership/board service.	Casa: Harrison’s long ownership and board votes approving budgets that included disputed items establish acquiescence/estoppel.	Summary judgment for estoppel was improper. Casa failed to show Harrison had full knowledge of all material particulars; factual disputes preclude resolving estoppel on summary judgment.

Key Cases Cited

Flint v. MacKenzie, 53 Haw. 672, 501 P.2d 357 (Haw. 1972) (summary-judgment entry for non-moving party where no genuine issue of material fact)
Jou v. Dai-Tokyo Royal State Ins. Co., 116 Hawai‘i 159, 172 P.3d 471 (Haw. 2007) (standards for appellate review of summary judgment)
Laeroc Waikiki Parkside, LLC v. K.S.K. (Oahu) Ltd. P’ship, 155 Hawai‘i 201, 166 P.3d 961 (Haw. 2007) (contract interpretation principles)
Panado v. Board of Trs., Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 134 Hawai‘i 1, 332 P.3d 144 (Haw. 2014) (statutory interpretation rules)
Association of Apartment Owners of Maalaea Kai, Inc. v. Stillson, 108 Hawai‘i 2, 116 P.3d 644 (Haw. 2005) (condominium instruments as contractual governance)
Cvitanovich–Dubie v. Dubie, 123 Hawai‘i 266, 231 P.3d 983 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010) (quasi‑estoppel principles)
Anderson v. Anderson, 59 Haw. 575, 585 P.2d 938 (Haw. 1978) (knowledge requirement for estoppel by acquiescence)
Ralston v. Yim, 129 Hawai‘i 46, 292 P.3d 1276 (Haw. 2013) (movant’s burden to show no genuine issue of material fact on summary judgment)