CourtListener 10766672

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
30-DEC-2025
07:55 AM
Dkt. 101 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

CENTURY 21 PARADISE INTERNATIONAL, managing agent,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
SUSAN KURATA; WILLIE KURATA, Defendants-Appellants, and
CINDY KURATA, Defendant-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
HONOLULU DIVISION
(CIVIL NO. 1DRC-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)
Defendants-Appellants Susan Kurata (Susan), Willie

Kurata, and Cindy Kurata (Kuratas) appeal from the September 12,

2023 Judgment for Possession (Judgment) and the September 12,

2023 Writ of Possession (Writ) entered in favor of Plaintiff-

Appellee Century 21 Paradise International, managing agent

(Century 21), in the District Court of the First Circuit,

Honolulu Division (District Court).1

The Kuratas raise two points of error on appeal,

contending that the District Court erred in: (1) entering

1
The Honorable Shellie K. Park-Hoapili entered the Judgment and the
Writ; the Honorable William M. Domingo presided over the Kuratas' Motion for
Stay Pending Appeal and Century 21's Motion for Summary Judgment.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

summary judgment in favor of Century 21; and (2) denying the

Kuratas' motion for stay pending appeal.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve the

Kuratas' points of error as follows:

(1) The Kuratas argue that the District Court erred in

entering summary judgment in favor of Century 21 on two grounds.

First, the Kuratas' main argument is that no admissible evidence

was presented to establish the existence of a written or oral

lease. Second, the Kuratas argue that the District Court erred

in denying their request for a continuance pursuant to District

Court Rules of Civil Procedure (DCRCP) Rule 56(f).

While the Kuratas couch their first argument in terms

of "no lease," the gravamen of their argument is that there is no

tenancy here because their occupancy of the property located on

Rooke Avenue in Honolulu (Property), and the payments made by

them from 2001 to 2022, arise out of an oral repurchase agreement

between Susan and Jean S. Nagao (Nagao).

In the Declaration of Susan Kurata (Kurata

Declaration), Susan avers, inter alia, the following. Nagao is

her hanai mother who raised her and lives next door to the

Property. In 2001, when Susan was facing foreclosure on the

Property, Jean and Susan agreed that Jean would acquire a loan to

pay off Susan's mortgage, Susan would transfer title to the

Property to Jean and make the payments due on that loan until

paid in full, at which time Jean would transfer title back to

Susan. Jean obtained the loan and Susan conveyed title to Jean's

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

irrevocable trust. Susan avers, and it is undisputed, that Susan

and her family continued to reside at the Property. Susan avers

that she made all of the necessary payments until the loan was

satisfied. Both parties assert that payments were made, but

Century 21 characterizes those payments as rent 2 and Susan

characterizes them as payments made pursuant to the repurchase

agreement.

This is an action for the summary possession of real

property, and in asserting that they had an interest in the

Property pursuant to a repurchase agreement, the Kuratas have

attempted to raise a defense which involves title to real estate.

See Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Century Ctr., Inc. v. An, 139

Hawai i 278, 286, 389 P.3d 115, 123 (2016) (holding that an

equitable interest created by an agreement of sale is sufficient

to put title at issue for the purposes of DCRCP Rule 12.1).

Century 21 argues that the Kuratas are clearly disputing the

District Court's jurisdiction in accordance with Hawaii Revised

Statutes (HRS) § 604-5(d) (2016)3 and did not comply with DCRCP

Rule 12.1.

2
The Kuratas make well-founded arguments concerning the
admissibility of certain evidence offered by Century 21 concerning these
payments, namely paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Kevin Uyeda (Uyeda) and
Exhibit 2 thereto. Uyeda does not purport to have any personal knowledge of
the payments or records of the payments, and Uyeda makes hearsay statements
based on what he was "informed and believe[s]" without so much as identifying
who "informed him" of events that indisputably occurred before he was
purportedly hired in September 2022 to manage the Property. Uyeda did not,
for example, identify who created Exhibit 2, but vaguely asserted it was the
Defendants. On appeal, Century 21 admits that Exhibit 2 was not created by
the Kuratas, notwithstanding Uyeda's sworn statement to the contrary. The
Kuratas objected below, and on appeal, we conclude that the District Court
erred in relying on paragraph 2 of the Uyeda declaration and Exhibit 2 to
conclude that Century 21 was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
3
HRS § 604-5(d) provides in part: "The district courts shall not
have cognizance of real action, nor actions in which the title to real estate
comes in question[.]"

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

DCRCP Rule 12.1 states:
Rule 12.1. DEFENSE OF TITLE IN DISTRICT COURTS.
Pleadings. Whenever, in the district court, in
defense of an action in the nature of an action for trespass
or for the summary possession of land, or any other action,
the defendant shall seek to interpose a defense to the
jurisdiction to the effect that the action is a real action,
or one in which the title to real estate is involved, such
defense shall be asserted by a written answer or written
motion, which shall not be received by the court unless
accompanied by an affidavit of the defendant, setting forth
the source, nature and extent of the title claimed by
defendant to the land in question, and such further
particulars as shall fully apprise the court of the nature
of defendant's claim.

The Kuratas did not raise this issue in a written

answer or written motion; rather, they raised it in a written

memorandum in opposition to Century 21's summary judgment motion,

which opposition was accompanied by the Kurata Declaration.

Although not presented in full compliance with DCRCP's

requirements, we nevertheless consider whether the Kurata

Declaration set forth with sufficient particularity the source,

nature, and extent of Susan's claim of a right to title in the

Property. Here, the Kurata Declaration asserted that the source

and nature of her interest in the Property was the oral

repurchase agreement with Nagao, and included details of the

timing and specific circumstances of that agreement and her

performance under that agreement. The extent of Susan's claim to

title was stated as arising only if she completed all payment on

the Nagao loan. However, Susan averred that she had in fact

fully satisfied the conditions for her right to a transfer of

title to the Property, namely the full satisfaction of the

payments due on the 2001 loan that Nagao took out to stop the

foreclosure on the Property when it was previously owned by

Susan. Century 21 alleged only an oral rental agreement and

offered no declaration or other evidence supporting even the most

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

basic terms supporting the existence of a rental agreement,

offering only a hearsay declaration of a self-described managing

agent for an unidentified principal based on "information and

belief" that did not even identify the alleged parties to the

oral rental agreement, the monthly rents, or any other term of

the alleged rental agreement.

We conclude that the Kurata Declaration sufficiently

established that the District Court does not have jurisdiction to

determine whether or not Susan has an enforceable right to title

in the Property based on the alleged repurchase agreement,

notwithstanding that it was attached to an opposition to a

motion, rather than a written motion or written answer, thereby

creating a genuine issue of material fact as to Century 21's

right to summary possession of the Property. Accordingly, and

based on the entire record before us, we further conclude that

the District Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of

Century 21. In light of this conclusion, we need not reach the

Kuratas' other arguments concerning the entry of summary

judgment.

(2) The Kuratas argue that the District Court erred in

granting their motion for a stay pending appeal. We conclude

that the issues raised are moot because on September 13, 2023,

this court entered a temporary stay; on February 8, 2024, this

court entered an Order Granting in Part Motion for Stay; and on

February 16, 2024, this court entered an Order Granting in Part

Motion to Modify Terms of Stay on Appeal. An issue is moot

"where events subsequent to the judgment of the trial court have

so affected the relations between the parties that the two

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

conditions for justiciability relevant on appeal–adverse interest

and effective remedy-have been compromised." Lathrop v.

Sakatani, 111 Hawai i 307, 313, 141 P.3d 480, 486 (2006). There

is no effective remedy for the issues raised by the Kuratas

concerning a supersedeas bond and stay pending appeal as the

relief sought has already been granted by this court.

For the foregoing reasons, the District Court's

September 12, 2023 Judgment and Writ are vacated. This case is

remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent

with this Summary Disposition Order, e.g., a voluntary dismissal,

a written motion to dismiss based on the lack of subject matter

jurisdiction, or a sua sponte dismissal by the District Court.

See Captain Andy's Sailing, Inc. v. Dep't of Land and Nat. Res.,

113 Hawai i 184, 194, 150 P.3d 833, 843 (2006).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, December 30, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Presiding Judge
Frederick J. Arensmeyer,
for Defendants-Appellants. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge
Allison A. Ito,
Michel A. Okazaki, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
(Choi & Ito, AAL), and Associate Judge
Richard A. Yanagi,
for Plaintiff-Appellee.