Rodrigues v. Shapley, 158 Haw. 64

Rodrigues sued Shapley, YMAAS, and Yoza for summary possession of property she owned, alleging unpermitted renovations violated the rental agreement and Hawaiʻi landlord-tenant laws. 1
Shapley moved to dismiss, asserting the agreement was really a management/purchase arrangement and outside Chapter 521. 2
YMAAS answered and demanded a jury trial, and the case was later remanded to the District Court; Yoza was dismissed for lack of timely service. 3
Rodrigues amended her complaint, and the District Court held a two-day trial on the summary possession claim. 4
At trial, the District Court found tenants materially violated building and housing laws by adding unpermitted toilets and a kitchen, dumping gray water, and running sewer pipes over the floor, then granted possession. 5
Shapley appealed, challenging jurisdiction, dismissal after Yoza's dismissal, evidentiary support, credibility findings, alleged bias, and reliance on Rodrigues's trial memorandum. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Chapter 521 jurisdiction over the rental agreement 7	Rodrigues said it was a residential rental agreement subject to Chapter 521.	Shapley said it was a management/purchase agreement outside Chapter 521.	The court held Chapter 521 applied and jurisdiction existed. 8
Effect of dismissing Yoza 9	Rodrigues could still obtain possession against Shapley.	Shapley said the case should have been dismissed because relief was impossible.	The court rejected the argument as unsupported and affirmed relief against Shapley. 10
Whether the trial court relied on extraneous matters 11	Rodrigues relied on code violations showing material noncompliance.	Shapley said permitting issues were extraneous and beyond jurisdiction.	The court held the permitting evidence was relevant, not extraneous. 12
Sufficiency of evidence and credibility findings 13	Rodrigues argued the tenants violated applicable building and housing laws.	Shapley claimed inadequate evidence and improper credibility determinations.	The court disregarded the challenge for inadequate record and briefing. 14
Judicial bias and alleged misrepresentation in memorandum 15	Rodrigues contended no bias or dispositive misrepresentation affected judgment.	Shapley alleged bias from past cases and a misrepresentation in the trial memorandum.	The court found no showing of unfair trial or reversible error and affirmed. 16

Globalmart, Inc. v. Posec Hawaiʻi, Inc., None (Haw. App. 2012) (agreements to agree are unenforceable 17)
Haw. Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, Inc., 164 P.3d 696 (Haw. 2007) (appellate court need not search the record to clarify an appellant's arguments 18)
Kienker v. Bauer, 129 P.3d 1125 (Haw. App. 2006) (appellate court need not search the record to clarify an appellant's arguments 19)
Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 909 P.2d 553 (Haw. 1995) (appellant must provide an adequate transcript and show error in the record 20)
Tradewinds Hotel, Inc. v. Cochran, 799 P.2d 60 (Haw. App. 1990) (unpreserved or unsupported alleged error may be disregarded 21)
Morgan v. Planning Dep't, Cty. of Kauai, 86 P.3d 982 (Haw. 2004) (failure to comply with appellate briefing rules can warrant affirmance 22)
Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd., 32 P.3d 52 (Haw. 2001) (failure to comply with appellate briefing rules can warrant affirmance 23)
O'Connor v. Diocese of Honolulu, 885 P.2d 361 (Haw. 1994) (courts prefer to decide cases on the merits where possible 24)
Handgards, Inc. v. Ethicon, Inc., 743 F.2d 1282 (9th Cir. 1984) (bias requires a showing that the trial was unfair 25)
Mahoney v. Mitchell, 668 P.2d 35 (Haw. App. 1983) (unfairness requires a clear and precise showing of prejudice 26)
Aga v. Hundahl, 891 P.2d 1022 (Haw. 1995) (unfairness requires a clear and precise showing of prejudice 27)