Rees v. Gordon

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
19-AUG-2025
07:58 AM
Dkt. 101 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

DAVID REES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
JEFF GORDON, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
LĪHU E DIVISION
(CASE NO. 5DRC-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Leonard and Guidry, JJ.)
Self-represented Defendant-Appellant Jeff Gordon

(Gordon) appeals from the January 20, 2023 Judgment for

Possession (Judgment) and the January 20, 2023 Writ of Possession

(Writ), entered by the Līhu e Division of the District Court of

the Fifth Circuit (District Court) in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee

David Rees (Rees).1

Gordon raises eleven points of error on appeal, 2

contending that the District Court erred in: (1) not

transferring, upon Gordon's request, this District Court case

into a case that was separately filed in 5CCV-XX-XXXXXXX in the

Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit (Circuit Court) (Pending

1
The Honorable Michael K. Soong presided.
2
Gordon asserts thirteen points of error, but makes arguments on
eleven points of error.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Circuit Court Case) for a jury trial on all issues; (2) not sua

sponte transferring the District Court case to the Pending

Circuit Court Case for jury trial; (3) ruling that the facts,

i.e., the evidence adduced at trial, were not applicable to

retaliatory eviction; (4) trying the case based on an

unauthorized Amended Complaint; (5) trying the case based on the

failure to pay rent claim; (6) considering an alleged threat to

kill as a basis for summary relief under Hawaii Revised Statutes

(HRS) § 521 et seq. and finding that Gordon threatened Rees; (7)

entering judgment for possession based in part on the termination

of a month-to-month tenancy; (8) allowing into evidence a

recording made in violation of HRS § 711-1111(e) (Supp. 2024);

(9) disallowing Gordon's tender of alleged back due rent at the

end of trial; (10) not according Gordon the leeway and deference

that courts are required to show pro se litigants; and (11)

purposely scheduling the return date of Gordon's January 16, 2023

Motion to Stay Judgment and for Supersedeas Bond (Stay Motion) to

render it moot.

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 Gordon's

points of error as follows:

(1 & 2) Gordon argues that the District Court erred in

denying his motions to consolidate the District Court case into

the Pending Circuit Court Case because Gordon was absolutely

entitled to a jury trial upon demand. Gordon also contends that

it was plain error for the District Court to not sua sponte

transfer the District Court case to the Circuit Court upon

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

Gordon's demand for a jury trial. Gordon argues that his

assertion of a retaliatory eviction defense entitled him to a

jury trial on the issue of possession.

HRS § 604-5(b) (2016) provides in relevant part:
The district courts shall try and determine all actions
without a jury, subject to appeal according to law.
Whenever a civil matter is triable of right by a jury and
trial by jury is demanded in the manner and within the time
provided by the rules of court, the case shall be
transferred to the circuit court.

Hawai i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 38(b)

provides, in relevant part: "Any party may demand a trial by

jury of any issue triable of right by a jury[.]" However, the

right to a jury trial does not extend to all civil matters,

specifically suits of an equitable nature. Porter v. Hu, 116

Hawai i 42, 57, 169 P.3d 994, 1009 (App. 2007) (citing Harada v.

Burns, 50 Haw. 528, 532-33, 445 P.2d 376, 380 (1968)).

There is no right to a jury trial in a summary

possession action. HRS § 604-5(a) provides, in pertinent part:

"[T]he district courts shall have jurisdiction in . . . civil

actions involving summary possession or ejectment[.]" The

Hawai i Supreme Court has also stated, "we had made it clear in

Lum v. Sun, 70 Haw. 288, 769 P.2d 1091 (1989), that actions for

summary possession are triable in the district court without a

jury[.]" K.H. Props. v. Mitchell, 72 Haw. 373, 374, 818 P.2d

1177, 1178 (1991); accord Kimball v. Lincoln, 72 Haw. 117, 125,

809 P.2d 1130, 1134 (1991) ("Appellant had no right to a jury

trial of a summary possession action."). The assertion of

retaliatory eviction as an affirmative defense does not remove

the claim for summary possession from the District Court's

jurisdiction and entitle a litigant to a jury trial on the issue

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

of possession. See HRS § 604-5(a) (providing that in civil

actions involving summary possession or ejectment, "the district

court shall have jurisdiction over any counterclaim otherwise

properly brought by any defendant in the action if the

counterclaim arises out of and refers to the land or premises the

possession of which is being sought"). 3

Gordon's first two points of error are without merit.

(3) Gordon argues that the District Court erred when

it found the evidence adduced at trial to be inapplicable to a

retaliatory eviction defense. However, Gordon provided no trial

transcripts or other support in the record for his assertion of

error. In the absence of an adequate record on appeal, we are

unable to review an appellant's asserted errors and therefore

leave the trial court's determinations undisturbed.

Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai i 225, 231, 909 P.2d 553,

559 (1995) (cleaned up); accord Lepere v. United Pub. Workers,

Local 646, 77 Hawai i 471, 474, 887 P.2d 1029, 1032 (1995)

(holding pro se appellant had a duty to include relevant

transcripts as part of record on appeal); Hawai i Rules of

Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 10(b)(1)(A) ("When an appellant

desires to raise any point on appeal that requires consideration

of the oral proceedings before the court appealed from, the

appellant shall file . . . a request or requests to prepare a

3
It appears that, after the District Court's bench trial on the
summary possession issues and the entry of the Judgment and Writ, on
January 23, 2023, the District Court entered an order approving and so
ordering Gordon's demand for a jury trial on all issues triable as of right by
a jury. On February 10, 2023, the District Court committed the case to the
Circuit Court. Thereafter, on May 8, 2023, in 5CCV-XX-XXXXXXX, the Circuit
Court entered an Order Remanding to District Court because after notice was
given that payment was required and due to effect transfer, the payment was
not made.

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

reporter's transcript of such parts of the proceedings as the

appellant deems necessary that are not already on file in the

appeal.").

(4) Gordon argues that the First Amended Complaint

filed on November 7, 2022 (Amended Complaint) was unauthorized

because it alleged unpaid rent, and the proposed Amended

Complaint attached to [Rees's] Motion to Amend Complaint (Motion

to Amend Complaint) filed on October 20, 2022, did not include

this unpaid rent allegation. Gordon further argues that the

District Court erred when it reversed itself by first denying the

Motion to Amend Complaint and then, without notice, entering an

order granting the Motion to Amend Complaint.

The proposed Amended Complaint attached to Rees's

Motion to Amend Complaint did not allege that Gordon broke the

rental agreement because of unpaid rent. However, it stated,

"Rent itemized as follows: Compliance with Act 57 is pending.

Plaintiff will seek leave to amend." On appeal, Rees submits

that at the hearing on the Motion to Amend Complaint, he sought

leave to add allegations pertaining to unpaid rent, to which

Gordon did not object. With regard to the initial denial and

then granting of the Motion to Amend Complaint, Rees argues that

the initial denial was because the proposed Amended Complaint

contained a typo, not because the District Court had any

objection to the substantive contents of the proposed order.

As noted above, Gordon did not include any transcripts

from these proceedings. There is an insufficient record upon

which to conclude there was error in conjunction with the

District Court's denial and then granting of the Motion to Amend

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

Complaint. See Bettencourt, 80 Hawai i at 231, 909 P.2d at 559.4

(5) Gordon argues that the Amended Complaint was void

because HRS § 521-68(b) (Supp. 2021) prohibited the filing of a

complaint alleging failure to pay rent sooner than thirty days

following his receipt of the fifteen-day notice.

In 2021, the legislature enacted Act 57 to reduce the

large number of summary possession cases that were expected to

follow the expiration of the eviction moratorium issued by the

governor in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 2021 Haw. Sess.

Law Act 57, § 1 (June 16, 2021). Act 57 amended HRS § 521-68 to

require landlords to engage in mediation and delay filing an

action for summary possession due to failure to pay rent. Id.

Upon the one year anniversary of the expiration date of the final

eviction moratorium, the Act 57 provisions would expire, and HRS

§ 521-68 would be reenacted in the form in which it read on the

day prior to the effective date of Act 57. Id. § 7. The last

eviction moratorium expired on August 6, 2021, and therefore,

Act 57 expired on August 6, 2022. See Twenty-First Proclamation

Related to the COVID-19 Emergency, 2021 HI EO P21-05 (June 7,

2021).

Accordingly, from June 16, 2021, to August 6, 2022, HRS

§ 521-68 required in relevant part, "If a tenant schedules

mediation within the fifteen-calendar day period, regardless of

whether the scheduled mediation session occurs within the

4
Gordon also argues that his due process rights were violated by
the District Court rushing the January 13, 2023 trial. However, with no trial
transcripts, we have an insufficient basis to conclude that this argument has
any merit. Gordon also makes various other arguments concerning the filing of
the Amended Complaint, without any reference whatsoever to the record on
appeal. These arguments will be disregarded in accordance with HRAP
Rule 28(b)(4).

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

fifteen-day period, the landlord shall only file a summary

proceeding for possession after the expiration of thirty calendar

days from the date of receipt of the notice."

However, after August 6, 2022, this requirement was

removed from HRS § 521-68, which now provides:
§ 521-68 Landlord's remedies for failure by tenant to
pay rent. (a) A landlord or the landlord's agent may, any
time after rent is due, demand payment thereof and notify
the tenant in writing that unless payment is made within a
time mentioned in the notice, not less than five business
days after receipt thereof, the rental agreement will be
terminated. If the tenant cannot be served with notice as
required, notice may be given the tenant by posting the same
in a conspicuous place on the dwelling unit. If the tenant
remains in default, the landlord may thereafter bring a
summary proceeding for possession of the dwelling unit or
any other proper proceeding, action, or suit for possession.

(b) A landlord or the landlord's agent may bring an
action for rent alone at any time after the landlord has
demanded payment of past due rent and notified the tenant of
the landlord's intention to bring such an action.

(Emphasis added).

Therefore, as of August 6, 2022, a landlord could bring

a summary possession action for a tenant's failure to pay rent at

any time five days after the tenant's receipt of notice. See id.

Here, the record indicates, and Gordon does not

dispute, that Gordon received written notice of his failure to

pay rent on October 24, 2022. The Amended Complaint was filed

fourteen days later on November 7, 2022, and sought back rent for

the months of September, October, and November of 2022. The Act

57 requirement that a landlord must wait until thirty days after

the tenant's receipt of the fifteen-day notice to file a summary

possession proceeding had already expired. See Act 57, § 7.

Rees therefore could seek summary possession for failure to pay

rent five days after Gordon's receipt of notice. See HRS § 521-

68. Accordingly, the request for relief due to back rent was not

prohibited under HRS § 521-68.

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

(6) Gordon argues that there is no basis in HRS

chapter 521 for a landlord to bring a summary proceeding to evict

a tenant based upon a threat to kill the landlord. This argument

lacks merit.

HRS § 521-69 (2018) provides for the landlord's

remedies for a tenant's waste, failure to maintain, or unlawful

use and states in relevant part:
§ 521-69 Landlord's remedies for tenant's waste,
failure to maintain, or unlawful use. (a) If the tenant is
in material noncompliance with section 521-51, the landlord,
upon learning of any such noncompliance and after notifying
the tenant in writing of the noncompliance and allowing a
specified time not less than ten days after receipt of the
notice, for the tenant to remedy the noncompliance:

(1) May terminate the rental agreement and bring
a summary proceeding for possession of the dwelling
unit or any other proper proceeding, action, or suit
for possession if the tenant is in material
noncompliance with section 521-51(1)[.]

. . . .

No allowance of time to remedy noncompliance shall be
required when noncompliance by the tenant causes or
threatens to cause irremediable damage to any person or
property[.]

(Emphasis added).

HRS § 521-51(8) (2018) provides, "Each tenant shall at

all times during the tenancy . . . [c]omply with all obligations,

restrictions, rules, and the like which are in accordance with

section 521-52 and which the landlord can demonstrate are

reasonably necessary for the preservation of the property and

protection of the persons of the landlord, other tenants, or any

other person."5 (Emphasis added). HRS § 521-69 states that a

5
HRS § 521-52 (2018) provides for the notice requirements and
certain other conditions for a landlord's obligations or restrictions relating
to a tenant's use, occupancy, and maintenance of the dwelling unit. HRS
§ 521-52 provides in relevant part:

§ 521-52 Tenant to use properly. (a) The tenant
shall comply with all obligations or restrictions, whether
denominated by the landlord as rules, or otherwise,
(continued...)

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

landlord may terminate a rental agreement due to a tenant's

noncompliance with HRS § 521-51 that threatens to cause

irremediable damage to any person. HRS § 521-51(8) provides that

a tenant must comply with obligations which are reasonably

necessary for the protection of the landlord's person.

Accordingly, we conclude that HRS §§ 521-69 and 521-51(8) provide

that harm or the threat of harm to the landlord's person is a

sufficient basis for the termination of a rental agreement.

Gordon also argues that the District Court erred in

finding that he threatened to kill Rees because (1) the alleged

threat to kill was said to a third party in a telephone

conversation in the privacy of Gordon's own home, (2) that Gordon

5
(...continued)
concerning the tenant's use, occupancy, and maintenance of
the tenant's dwelling unit, appurtenances thereto, and the
premises of which the dwelling unit is a part, if:

(1) Such obligations or restrictions are brought
to the attention of the tenant at the time of the
tenant's entry into the rental agreement; or

(2) Such obligations or restrictions, if not so
known by the tenant at the time of the tenant's entry
into the rental agreement, are brought to the
attention of the tenant and, if they work a
substantial modification of the tenant's bargain under
the rental agreement, are consented to in writing by
the tenant.

(b) No such obligation or restriction shall be
enforceable against the tenant unless:

(1) It is for the purpose of promoting the
convenience, safety, or welfare of the tenants of the
property, or for the preservation of the landlord's
property from abusive use, or for the fair
distribution of services and facilities held out for
the tenants generally;

(2) It is reasonably related to the purpose for
which it is established;

(3) It applies to all tenants of the property in
a fair manner; and

(4) It is sufficiently explicit in its
prohibition, direction, or limitation of the tenant's
conduct to fairly inform the tenant of what the tenant
must or must not do to comply.

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

had no idea Rees was eavesdropping on him, and (3) that Gordon's

statement was clearly meant figuratively, not literally.

Although the audio recording is in the record on appeal, Gordon

has not provided the January 13, 2023 trial transcript, and the

record on appeal lacks the testimony regarding the audio

recording and/or the District Court's other grounds for finding

that Gordon threatened to kill Rees. We therefore conclude that

this argument is unreviewable. See Bettencourt, 80 Hawai i at

231, 909 P.2d at 559.

(7) Gordon argues that the District Court erred in

evicting him based on the termination of a month-to-month tenancy

because it was not pled in the initial Complaint and/or the

Amended Complaint. However, termination of a month-to-month

tenancy was pled in both the Complaint and Amended Complaint.

Both Complaints were premised upon the provision of written

notice of "45-day termination of month-to-month tenancy."

Gordon further argues that the lease was not for a

month-to-month tenancy because it was a six-month renewable term

lease. However, the Rental Agreement provides that it was a

fixed rental agreement that would automatically convert to a

month-to-month rental agreement, unless the tenant or landlord

received written notice to the contrary from the other party

prior to the end of the fixed term on June 30, 2020. There is no

evidence in the record that the fixed rental agreement was not

automatically converted to a month-to-month term.

(8) Gordon argues that it was plain error for the

District Court to admit the audio recording over Gordon's

objection because it was an illegal recording in violation of HRS

10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

§ 711-1111(e). We have no transcript or written order and no

record upon which to conclude that the District Court erred in

admitting the audio recording. 6

(9) Gordon argues that the District Court erred in not

accepting his attempt to tender payment of rent at the conclusion

of the January 13, 2023 trial. Because Gordon has not provided

the transcripts for the January 13, 2023 trial proceedings, and

there is nothing else in the record to support this argument,

there is no basis to for this court to conclude that the District

Court erred in this regard.

(10) Gordon argues that the District Court made his

Stay Motion moot by setting the return date of the Stay Motion

after the effective date of the Writ.

District Court Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 6(d)

provides, "[a] written motion, other than one which may be heard

ex parte, and notice of the hearing thereof, shall be served not

later than 14 days before the time specified for the hearing,

unless a different period is fixed by these rules or by order of

the court. Such an order may for cause shown be made on ex parte

application." Gordon filed the Stay Motion on January 16, 2023.

The motion was set for hearing twenty-one days later, on

February 6, 2023. The effective date of the Writ was January 20,

2023. There is no indication in the record that Gordon filed an

ex parte application fixing a different time period for the

6
We note, however, as a general rule, evidence obtained in an
unlawful manner will not be excluded from civil proceedings. 29 Am. Jur. 2d
Evidence § 588 (2025).

11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

hearing on the Stay Motion; nor is there any indication in the

record that Gordon objected to the hearing schedule.

We conclude this argument is without merit.

(11) Gordon argues that the District Court ignored his

Rule 11 Motion against Rees's counsel and otherwise mishandled

his trial. However, the minutes to the January 13, 2023 trial

indicate that the District Court did in fact address Gordon's

Rule 11 Motion, allowed Gordon to make further arguments on the

motion, which he declined to do so, and orally denied the Rule 11

motion. There is no basis in the record to conclude the District

Court mishandled the trial.

For these reasons, the District Court's January 20,

2023 Judgment and Writ are affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, August 19, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Chief Judge
Jeffrey Gordon,
Defendant-Appellant, pro se. /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Associate Judge
Matthew Mannisto,
(Law Office of Matthew /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Mannisto), Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

12