358 P.3d 692
Haw.2015Background
- The disputed 11.7-acre parcel (Royal Patent No. 6667 / LCA 8723) traces to Kahoiwai and was deeded to his son Kaehuokekai (aka David), who died intestate in 1903. Probate identified four heirs (Kenoiaina, Miliama, Pahukula, and minor Pua).
- The probate inventory and related entries stated (on information) that the kuleana had been sold during David’s lifetime and listed no real estate, but no deed from David was produced or recorded.
- Three heirs (Miliama, Kenoiaina, and Pua via H.L. Holstein) executed conveyances after David’s death during the pendency of probate; mesne conveyances ultimately produced the chain by which KLL claims title.
- KLL sued to quiet title asserting (1) 100% ownership by adverse possession (arguing David sold the land pre-death so KLL’s predecessors held adverse title) and alternatively (2) paper title/cotenancy via the 2004 quitclaim from Parker Land Trust.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to KLL (100% by adverse possession). The ICA reversed, finding genuine factual disputes about a cotenancy because no recorded pre-death conveyance from David was produced. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (KLL) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether David held title at death (did a pre-death sale occur?) | Probate statements and absence of property in inventory prove David sold before death, so title did not descend to heirs. | Absence of any deed or identifying grantee, plus contemporaneous heir conveyances, show title descended to heirs; probate omission is not conclusive. | Title vested in David at death as a matter of law because probate inventory and hearsay did not conclusively prove a pre-death conveyance; real property vests in heirs immediately on death. |
| Whether KLL could prevail by relying on an unrecorded (lost) deed | KLL disclaimed reliance on a lost-deed theory, relying on adverse possession instead. | Defendants: KLL’s adverse-possession claim depends on an unrecorded pre-death conveyance (a lost deed), so KLL must meet lost-deed proof requirements. | KLL’s claim necessarily relied on a lost-deed premise; KLL failed to prove execution, contents, grantee, date, or consideration for any lost deed, so lost-deed doctrine precludes that basis. |
| Whether KLL and Defendants are cotenants (paper title flows from common grantor) | If David had sold pre-death, no cotenancy; otherwise KLL’s chain gives it superior title. | The parties derive paper interests via mesne conveyances from David’s heirs; therefore they are cotenants. | KLL and Defendants are cotenants; KLL’s evidence did not establish the purported break in record title. KLL holds only a fractional interest through its chain. |
| Whether KLL can acquire 100% by adverse possession against cotenants | KLL claimed predecessors possessed since 1961, meeting the elements for adverse possession. | Defendants argued KLL must show hostile possession with special good-faith/notice burden because of cotenancy. | Adverse-possession claim fails against cotenants: KLL did not prove the required good-faith/actual notice to cotenants (and knowledge of fractional interests in chain put KLL on inquiry); summary judgment for 100% was erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wailuku Agribusiness Co. v. Ah Sam, 114 Hawai‘i 24, 155 P.3d 1125 (Haw. 2007) (elements and special good-faith/notice rule for adverse possession among cotenants)
- Makila Land Co. v. Kapu, 114 Hawai‘i 56, 156 P.3d 482 (Haw. App. 2006) (summary judgment improper where undisputed facts admit conflicting reasonable interpretations)
- Kapuniai v. Kekupu, 3 Haw. 560 (Terr. 1874) (lost-deed doctrine: clear proof of execution and contents required for unrecorded deed claims)
- Brown v. Speckles, 18 Haw. 91 (Terr. 1906) (presumptions of lost grant in long possession; jury considerations)
- In re Kaiena’s Estate, 24 Haw. 148 (Terr. 1917) (real property vests in heirs at death without court order)
- City & County of Honolulu v. Bennett, 57 Haw. 195, 552 P.2d 1380 (Haw. 1976) (constructive notice may suffice only in narrow circumstances where cotenant had no reason to suspect cotenancy or made reasonable efforts to notify)
- Maui Land & Pineapple Co. v. Infiesto, 76 Hawai‘i 402, 879 P.2d 507 (Haw. 1994) (plaintiff in quiet-title bears burden to prove paper title or adverse possession)