CourtListener 10778121

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
22-JAN-2026
07:56 AM
Dkt. 65 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

WEI LING FUNG, Plaintiff/
Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant,
v.
WA CHAM HOI, Defendant/Counterclaimant/
Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee,
and
FUGANG XIA aka SUMMER,
Third-Party Defendant-Appellant

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)

Self-represented Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-

Appellant Wei Ling Fung (Fung) and Third-Party Defendant-

Appellant FuGang Xia, aka Summer (Summer) (collectively,

Appellants) 1 appeal from the District Court of the First

Circuit's (district court) Judgment, filed on April 25, 2023. 2

1 Appellants are self-represented on appeal, but they were
represented by counsel during the district court proceedings.

2 The Honorable Thomas A.K. Haia presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Appellants retained Defendant/Counterclaimant/Third-

Party Plaintiff-Appellee Wa Cham Hoi (Hoi), a structural

engineer, to do work related to a construction project. Fung

subsequently filed a complaint, contending that Hoi failed to

complete the work he was contracted to do and seeking

reimbursement of Appellants' $11,500 initial payment to Hoi.

Hoi filed a counterclaim against Fung and a third-party

complaint against Summer, contending that he completed his

structural engineering work for Appellants, and that Appellants

owed him the remaining balance of his agreed-upon fees, plus

interest, attorney's fees, and costs.

The Judgment was entered in favor of Hoi, and Hoi was

awarded $18,179.58 on his counterclaim. The district court

explained its ruling as follows,

Generally speaking, [c]ourts are not supposed to go beyond
the four corners of a contract when looking at whether or
not the contract is ambiguous.

Parol evidence is not accepted generally speaking.
However, in this case the [district court] finds that the
contract, which would be the check, is ambiguous. I want
to say that it's ambiguous because the check says it's for
50 percent of the architectural design fee, the civil
engineering fee, and it's regarding TMK, and then it gives
the TMK number.

This makes no sense to the [district court] given the
representations by [Hoi] that he is not an architect.

In addition to that, because of that ambiguity, the
[district court] then looks at the text messages that were
entered into evidence this afternoon and finds that on
September 7th, 2018, [Hoi] unequivocally states, My
structural engineering fee is $23,000. He then asks, This
is before the contract exists? It appears to the [district
court] that the -- the parties are negotiating at this
point.

. . . .

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

[Hoi] on September 12th of 2018 says -- I'm sorry --
on September 9th of 2018, asks for the architectural
drawings.

On September 12th, he acknowledges receiving an email
with the architectural drawings. If you look at the
September 12th email, it shows that there are architectural
drawings from China.

On September 14th, which is two days later in 2018,
[Summer] goes to China.

On October -- it doesn't appear that there are any
communications between that date and October 10th of 2018,
where [Summer] says he'd like to engage the services of
James Lyon, a civil engineer.

[Hoi] then replies on the same date, The Lyon fee is
$30,000 and I'm looking for someone else. I'm suggesting
Structural Hawaii. There are more text messages.

On October 21st, [Hoi] says that Wesley, whoever
Wesley is, hadn't provided drawings, topographic drawings.

And then October 24th, there's a discussion in 2018
about a soil[] engineer because evidently this -- this
property is on the beach and there's a setback requirement
because of the shoreline. The request to build in concrete
because of the level of the water table. It appears [Hoi]
is concerned and is telling [Summer] that he needs a soil[]
engineer and suggests Larry Shinsato.

At that point on October 26 of 2018, there's an
exchange that occurs. And [Hoi] says it will take one
month to complete the design drawings if made in concrete -
- if it's built in concrete, but you need a soils report.

And then on October 28th of 2018, a check for $11,500
is exchanged. And as I said earlier, this check in the
memo section has a TM key reference -- TMK reference and
talks about 50 percent of an architectural design fee and
civil engineer fee.

About on New Year's Eve of 2018, so December 31st,
2018, there is a discussion about engaging the soil[]
engineer.

And then on March 3rd of 2019, there's a message from
[Summer] to [Hoi] saying, I received the soil test with a
response saying, Can be built.

The next message is on March 16th of 2019, where
[Summer] says, We're going to decide whether to do it or
not.

And then on April 28th of 2019, [Summer] asked, How's
it going?

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

On the 29th, [Hoi] represents, Need more time.

On June 26 of 2019, there's a discussion of someone
named Peter, who's charging $4,500 to be the civil
engineer.

And then on June 27th, [Hoi] responds he's willing to
reduce his fee to $18,000 to match someone named [Jimmy].

Considering all of the evidence, the testimony, what
I've just put on the record, [district court] is finding
that the agreement was [Summer] and [Fung] were going to
engage [Hoi] for purposes of structural engineering to the
tune of $23,000, as is made clear and unequivocal in a
September 7th, 2018 text message between the parties.

The [district court] is making a finding based on the
evidence heard today that $11,500 of that amount was
received by [Hoi] on September 28, 2018. Excuse me. I
stand corrected. On October 28, 2018, that check changed
hands.

The [district court] finds that [Hoi] is entitled to
the remaining balance of $11,500.

Appellants appear to make five arguments in their

Amended Opening Brief 3: (1) "[the district court's] confirmation

that [Hoi] completed his Structural Engineering design drawings

is entirely without any evidence or basis and is erroneous"; (2)

"[the district court] did not carefully review [Exhibits] I and

J provided by [Hoi] to the court and erroneously ruled [Hoi's]

quotation as a contract"; (3) "[the district court] did not

carefully distinguish between the truthfulness of [Hoi's] and

[Hoi's counsel's] testimonies during the court proceedings,

failing to exercise the commonsense judgment expected of a

3 Appellants' opening brief does not set forth points of error on
appeal, and is in other ways noncompliant with Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate
Procedure Rule 28(b). To promote access to justice, we do not automatically
foreclose self-represented litigants from appellate review for their failure
to comply with the court rules. Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawaiʻi 368, 380-81, 465
P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020).

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

judge"; (4) "[the district court] did not carefully review the

evidence of the translation of the Chinese text messages

translated into English provided by [Hoi] and [Hoi's counsel] on

mobile phones" and erred by "admitting them as evidence"; and

(5) "[the district court] did not carefully review the evidence

and testimonies of both parties, applying a double standard in

judging the content of [Fung's] check payments."

Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and

relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration

to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties,

we address Appellants' contentions as follows:

(1) Appellants appear to challenge the district

court's finding that Hoi completed his structural design

drawings as being "without any evidence or basis." We review a

trial court's findings of fact (FOFs) under the clearly

erroneous standard. Casumpang v. ILWU Local 142, 108 Hawaiʻi

411, 419, 121 P.3d 391, 399 (2005). "An FOF is clearly

erroneous when, despite evidence to support the finding, the

appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction

that a mistake has been committed." Id.

The record reflects that Appellants stipulated to the

admission of Hoi's structural design drawings into evidence as

Exhibit K. Hoi testified at trial that Exhibit K comprised "the

structural drawings based on the info [he had] from Summer," and

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

that the structural drawings were "a complete product" as of

July 9, 2019.

On this record, we conclude the district court did not

clearly err in finding that Hoi had completed his structural

design drawings for Appellants.

(2) Appellants appear to contend that the district

court "did not carefully review [Exhibits] I and J provided by

[Hoi] to the [district] court and erroneously ruled [Hoi's]

quotation as a contract." The district court's determination

that the parties entered into a contract is a question of fact

that we review under the clearly erroneous standard. WW v. DS,

149 Hawaiʻi 123, 129, 482 P.3d 1084, 1090 (2021) ("Whether the

parties entered into an agreement is essentially a question of

fact the court reviews under the clearly erroneous standard.")

(cleaned up).

Exhibits I and J, referenced by Appellants, consist of

Hoi's email communications and text messages with Summer. These

exhibits, which the parties stipulated to admit at trial,

support the district court's findings that Appellants and Hoi

entered into an agreement, whereby Hoi would provide structural

engineering services to Appellants for a $23,000 fee. 4 Exhibits

4 Exhibit J reflects a text message from Hoi to Summer that states,
"My fee changes to same as Jimmy ($18,000). You may ask Peter (civil
engineer)." At trial, Summer testified that Hoi had offered to reduce his
fee to $18,000, but Summer "did not agree." It appears that to the extent
Hoi offered to amend the contract to reduce his fee, that offer was rejected

(continued . . .)
6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

I and J also support that Hoi's work on the project was

specifically in the nature of structural engineering, and that

other types of work -- e.g., civil engineering and soil

engineering work -- would need to be addressed by others. 5

On this record, we conclude the district court did not

clearly err in finding that Appellants agreed, through their

email and text message correspondence, to pay Hoi $23,000 for

structural engineering work.

(3) Appellants appear to challenge the district

court's determination of Hoi and Hoi's counsel's credibility.

"[T]he credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their

testimony are within the province of the trier of fact and,

generally, will not be disturbed on appeal." Tamashiro v.

Control Specialist, Inc., 97 Hawaiʻi 86, 92, 34 P.3d 16, 22

(2001) (citations omitted). "An appellate court will not pass

upon issues dependent upon the credibility of witnesses and the

4(. . . continued)

by Summer, and the contract was therefore not amended for lack of mutual
agreement.

5 The district court's findings are further supported by Hoi's
testimony at trial. The memo note on Fung's initial payment check states, in
relevant part, "Artectur [sic] design fee 50% deposit include civil engineer
fee." Hoi testified that upon seeing the memo note, he told Summer: "Hey,
I'm a structural engineer. The [$]11,500 is a structural fee. . . . This is
incorrect. It has to be structural engineer fee only." Hoi testified that
he accepted the check after Appellants told him, "okay," and that Appellants
"underst[ood he was] a structural engineer only."

Hoi also testified to informing Summer that Appellants needed an
"architect," "surveyor," "soil engineer," and "civil engineer" for the
project. He explained that, "[Summer was] responsible [for] look[ing] for
those consultant[s] and hir[ing] them independently. But to assist [Summer],
[Hoi] said, Hey, I can give you some name[s], you can call them if you like."

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

weight of the evidence." Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency,

Ltd., 96 Hawaiʻi 408, 422, 32 P.3d 52, 66 (2001) (cleaned up).

We therefore decline to address the district court's credibility

determinations.

(4) Appellants appear to contend that the district

court erred by admitting the translated text messages between

the parties into evidence. Appellants characterize the text

messages as "false evidence . . . contain[ing] multiple

misleading translations." As discussed in section (2), supra,

Appellants stipulated to the admission of Exhibit J -- which

included the translated text messages that Appellants challenge

on appeal -- into evidence at trial. We therefore deem

Appellants' argument to be waived. See Tax Appeal of Subway

Real Est. Corp. v. Dir. of Tax'n, 110 Hawaiʻi 25, 30, 129 P.3d

528, 533 (2006) ("[A]s a general rule, if a party does not raise

an argument at trial, that argument will be deemed to have been

waived on appeal[.]") (citation omitted).

(5) Appellants contend that the district court "did

not carefully review the evidence and testimonies of both

parties, applying a double standard in judging the content of

[Fung's] check payments." The record reflects that the district

court appropriately considered the evidence introduced by the

parties at trial to determine the parties' intent at the time

they entered into the agreement. See Hawaiian Ass'n of Seventh-

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Day Adventists v. Wong, 130 Hawaiʻi 36, 48, 305 P.3d 452, 464

(2013) (instructing that "the fact-finder may consider

additional evidence, including parol evidence, regarding the

intent of the parties at the time of drafting" where the

contract terms were ambiguous). Appellants make no discernible

arguments in support of their contentions that the district

court relied on "false evidence," and that Hoi and Hoi's counsel

"intentionally deceived" the district court, and we therefore

decline to address them. See Kahoʻohanohano v. Dep't. of Hum.

Servs., 117 Hawaiʻi 262, 297 n.37, 178 P.3d 538, 573 n.37 (2008)

(stating that the supreme court will "disregard a particular

contention if the appellant makes no discernible argument in

support of that position") (cleaned up).

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Judgment.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, January 22, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Presiding Judge
Wei Ling Fung,
Self-represented /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Associate Judge
Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
FuGang Xia, aka Summer, Associate Judge
Self-represented Third-Party
Defendant-Appellant.

Gale L. F. Ching,
for Defendant/
Counterclaimant/Third-Party
Plaintiff-Appellee.