Thomas v. Kidani.Â
126 Haw. 125
| Haw. | 2011Background
- In 1989, Thomas purchased real property in Hilo, Hawai‘i, based on a representation that the property had a cesspool.
- The property contains no cesspool, which Thomas discovered in 2000, prompting a prior lawsuit against Barbati for misrepresentation and related claims.
- Kidani represented Thomas in the underlying trial against Barbati, which ended with a verdict adverse to Thomas; the jury found she should have discovered the cesspool location by 1994, applying a six-year statute of limitations.
- Thomas later sued Kidani for legal malpractice, alleging he failed to argue that Barbati was Thomas’s agent, which would have rebutted Barbati’s limitations defense.
- Kidani moved for summary judgment; the circuit court granted, finding Thomas’s agency theory was not properly supported by the facts as interpreted by the court.
- The ICA affirmed the summary judgment; this court granted certiorari to review the standard of review and the burdens in a legal-malpractice summary-judgment context, ultimately affirming summary judgment on de novo review on different grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review on appeal for MSJ | Thomas argues ICA used wrong standard. | Kidani contends proper de novo standard applied. | De novo review applied. |
| Burden of proof in legal malpractice MSJ | Thomas must prove she would have prevailed absent breach. | Kidani bears no trial burden; plaintiff must prove causation and liability would change. | Thomas must prove she would have prevailed; summary judgment proper if she cannot. |
| Agency theory as defense in malpractice | Agency/fiduciary fraud would shift burden and negate limitations defense. | Agency theory lacks support and would not have changed outcome. | Agency theory inadequately supported; not proven would have changed outcome. |
| Discovery rule and statute of limitations | Actual knowledge is required in fiduciary fraud contexts. | Discovery rule starts when damages known or should have been known; actual knowledge not required. | Discovery rule governs; six-year period applied; agency theory would not revive claim. |
| Expert testimony sufficiency | Strauss opined on duty and burden-shift implications. | Strauss declaration is speculative and legally unsupported under Exotics Hawaii-Kona. | Strauss declaration insufficient to meet burden; does not create material dispute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Omerod v. Heirs of Kaheananui, 116 Hawai‘i 239 (2007) (de novo standard for MSJ on appeal)
- Bhakta v. County of Maui, 109 Hawai‘i 198 (2005) (articulated de novo standard; Morgan rule discussed)
- Fujimoto v. Au, 95 Hawai‘i 116 (2001) (de novo review for summary judgment on appeal)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (burden on movant to show lack of essential elements; summary judgment purpose)
- Exotics Hawaii-Kona, Inc. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 116 Hawai‘i 277 (2007) (expert affidavits must demonstrate cogent reasons and not mere conclusions)
- Blair v. Ing, 95 Hawai‘i 247 (2001) (duty of care in legal malpractice context)
- Yamaguchi v. Queen’s Medical Center, 65 Haw. 84 (1982) (discovery rule for accrual in medical context; relevant to discovery rule)