Hawaii State Federal Credit Union v. Kahapea
CAAP-20-0000057
| Haw. App. | Oct 25, 2021Background
- In December 2016 Kahapea obtained a car loan from Hawaii State Federal Credit Union (HSFCU) for $44,254.44 and later defaulted. HSFCU sued in District Court for the unpaid balance and related charges.
- HSFCU's District Court Complaint sought approximately $25,159.20 (plus interest, fees, and costs); the District Court later entered judgment awarding $31,050.85.
- Kahapea, appearing pro se, filed multiple filings including a December 2019 affidavit challenging jurisdiction and a January 2, 2020 filing styled as an affidavit/discovery/conditional acceptance/counterclaim demanding proof of claim and asserting fanciful tender theories.
- HSFCU moved to dismiss Kahapea’s January 2 counterclaim and for summary judgment on the Complaint. The District Court granted both motions on January 27, 2020.
- Kahapea appealed, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and that HSFCU failed to prove the original contract; he did not request the hearing transcript and his opening brief failed to comply with HRAP Rule 28.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (HSFCU) | Defendant's Argument (Kahapea) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Subject-matter jurisdiction of District Court | District Court had jurisdiction under HRS § 604-5 because the amount sought was under $40,000 | District Court lacked jurisdiction because of a separate Special Proceeding and a federal action enforcing an arbitration award | Court held District Court had jurisdiction; amount was under statutory $40,000 limit and no record support that other proceedings divested jurisdiction |
| 2. Sufficiency of evidence for summary judgment (breach of contract) | HSFCU presented affidavit and business records (loan agreement, transaction history, payoff) showing contract, breach, and damages | Kahapea contended HSFCU produced no evidence of the original contract or debt | Court held HSFCU met its burden; Caluya affidavit and business records were admissible and Kahapea produced no specific contrary evidence to create a genuine issue |
| 3. Dismissal of Kahapea's January 2, 2020 counterclaim | Counterclaim contained nonmeritorious, conclusory, and legally insufficient claims (e.g., conditional acceptance/tender theories) | Kahapea asserted the filings as compulsory defenses/counterclaims and procedurally sought discovery/dismissal if unanswered | Court affirmed dismissal: counterclaim was properly dismissed as legally deficient and unsupported by admissible facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Lingle v. Hawai'i Gov't Emps.' Ass'n, AFSCME, Local 152, [citation="107 Hawai'i 178, 111 P.3d 587"] (2005) (existence of jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Omerod v. Heirs of Kaheananui, [citation="116 Hawai'i 239, 172 P.3d 983"] (2007) (HRAP compliance required; bald assertions insufficient)
- Waltrip v. TS Enterprises, Inc., [citation="140 Hawai'i 226, 398 P.3d 815"] (2016) (appellate courts afford liberal construction for pro se pleadings when reasonably ascertainable)
- Fujimoto v. Au, [citation="95 Hawai'i 116, 19 P.3d 699"] (2001) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)
- Miller v. Manuel, 9 Haw. App. 56, 828 P.2d 286 (1991) (affidavits supporting summary judgment must state facts admissible at trial and be based on personal knowledge)
- Young v. Planning Comm'n of County of Kauai, [citation="89 Hawai'i 400, 974 P.2d 40"] (1999) (opponent to summary judgment must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue)
- Nozawa v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, [citation="142 Hawai'i 331, 418 P.3d 1187"] (2018) (business‑records hearsay exception applicability and requirements)
- Pac. Concrete Fed. Credit Union v. Kauanoe, 62 Haw. 334, 614 P.2d 936 (1980) (affidavit and business records can support loan‑collection claim)