422 P.3d 1
Haw.2018Background
- In 1915 Mikala Kaiawe conveyed ~0.722 acres to the Hawaiian Evangelical Association with a habendum clause "so that it may be used as a cemetery." A 1983 deed to Hawaii Conference Foundation recited the property was "for cemetery purposes only, forever."
- Two enclosed grave areas exist on the parcel; some graves are identified, others are not; local church members maintained graves for decades.
- In 2003 HCF sold the parcel to Daniel Ibbetson; the sales documents included an addendum preserving limited access to the two grave sites for HCF and relatives.
- Ibbetson built a residence and operated a bed-and-breakfast; Dean Kaiawe (a descendant of Mikala) entered the property, was accused of trespass, and counterclaimed that the land had been dedicated as a cemetery (common law and statutory) and sought declaratory relief and quiet title under HRS ch. 669.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Ibbetson on all of Kaiawe's counterclaims; the ICA affirmed on statutory dedication and quiet title but split on common-law dedication; the Hawai‘i Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kaiawe) | Defendant's Argument (Ibbetson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Property was dedicated for public use as a cemetery under common law (implied dedication) | Habendum clauses plus long public/community burials and maintenance show owner intent and public acceptance => implied dedication | Habendum language is precatory/ambiguous; evidence shows private/church cemetery for families, not public use; no dedication | Court: Reversed summary judgment for defendant on common-law dedication; habendum clauses ambiguous, but witness testimony raises genuine factual dispute requiring trial. |
| Whether the Property is statutorily dedicated as a cemetery under HRS §441-17 | Metes-and-bounds in 1915 deed is "substantially similar" to required map/plat; thus cemetery deemed dedicated and must be used exclusively as cemetery | Metes-and-bounds is not a map/plat and does not show internal plots/sections; statutory requirements unmet | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for defendant on statutory dedication; 1915 description does not satisfy §441-17/§441-3 map/plat requirement. |
| Whether Kaiawe could obtain relief under HRS Chapter 669 (quiet title) | Quiet title can be used to establish servitudes (e.g., cemetery use) even without superior paper title | Quiet title requires plaintiff to prove superior title (paper title or adverse possession); Kaiawe has no competing title evidence | Court: Affirmed judgment for defendant on quiet title claim; Kaiawe failed to show superior title or adverse possession as required. |
| Whether habendum clauses in earlier deeds automatically limit the estate conveyed (i.e., create defeasible fee or servitude) | Habendum language evidences dedication intent and supports restriction on use | Under Midkiff, habendum clauses generally do not alter conveyed fee simple estate; they are precatory absent clear limiting language | Court: Midkiff is distinguishable; habendum clauses may be considered as evidence of intent for dedication but are not dispositive—here they are ambiguous and factual inquiry is required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Wilder, 6 Haw. 228 (Haw. Kingdom 1879) (discusses dedication principles)
- Barker v. Hazel-Fain Oil Co., 219 S.W. 874 (Tex. Civ. App. 1920) (habendum clause coupled with public use can support dedication)
- Midkiff v. Castle & Cooke, Inc., 45 Haw. 409 (1962) (habendum clauses ordinarily do not convert a conveyed fee into a defeasible estate)
- In re Banning, 73 Haw. 297 (1992) (implied dedication: long use can evidence owner intent and public acceptance)
- Hill v. Towson Realty, 157 A.2d 796 (Md. 1960) (habendum language may be precatory and insufficient to show public dedication)
- Gold Coast Neighborhood Ass'n v. State, [citation="140 Hawai'i 437"] (2017) (overview of dedication doctrines)
- Maui Ranch Estates Owners Ass'n v. Cty. of Maui, 6 Haw. App. 414 (1986) (statutory vs. common-law dedication framework)
- Maui Land & Pineapple Co. v. Infiesto, [citation="76 Hawai'i 402"] (1994) (quiet title burden: plaintiff must prove paper title or adverse possession)