Starr v. Levin

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
18-JUN-2026
11:39 AM
Dkt. 56 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

MARY STARR, also known as MARY STARR LITTLE,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
STACY LEVIN, Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
WAILUKU DIVISION
(CASE NO. 2DRC-XX-XXXXXXX)

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

Defendant-Appellant Stacy Levin (Levin) appeals from

the District Court of the Second Circuit's March 22, 2024

"Findings of Fact; Conclusions of Law and Order"; April 8, 2024

order for attorneys' fees and costs; and April 8, 2024 Judgment

in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee Mary Starr, also known as Mary

Starr Little (Starr). 1 (Formatting altered.)

On appeal, Levin contends the district court "erred by

finding that there was no effective written agreement to modify

1 The Honorable Christopher M. Dunn presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the parties' agreement" and "there was no new consideration in

exchange for the monthly payment plan." 2 (Formatting altered.)

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve this

appeal as discussed below and affirm.

In October 2021, Starr and Levin executed a promissory

note (the Note) in which Starr loaned Levin $15,000.00. Under

the Note's terms, Levin was to repay Starr within two months,

and should Levin fail to pay in full by the due date, any unpaid

amounts would accrue interest. Additionally, should either

party "sue[] to enforce [the] Note or obtain a declaration of

its rights hereunder, the prevailing party [would] be entitled

to recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in

the proceeding . . . from the non-prevailing party." Any

2 In her points of error, Levin also contends the district court "erred
by finding that [Starr]'s deposit of [Levin]'s monthly checks constituted
merely mitigation of her damages." Levin however provides no argument as
required under Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(7). In
the argument section of her opening brief, Levin contends that promissory
estoppel overcomes the Note's integration provision, but fails to indicate
where in the record she raised this issue before the district court as
required by HRAP Rule 28(b)(4).

Thus, these contentions are waived. See Ass'n of Apartment Owners of
Wailea Elua v. Wailea Resort Co., 100 Hawaiʻi 97, 110, 58 P.3d 608, 621 (2002)
("Where an appellant raises a point of error but fails to present any
accompanying argument, the point is deemed waived."); State v. Moses, 102
Hawai‘i 449, 456, 77 P.3d 940, 947 (2003) ("As a general rule, if a party does
not raise an argument at trial, that argument will be deemed to have been
waived on appeal[.]").
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

modifications or amendments to the Note were to be made in a

signed, written agreement.

Levin failed to timely repay the loan.

After failing to repay the $15,000.00 as scheduled,

Levin text messaged Starr that she did not have the money and

would make monthly payments:

As I told you before, I have every intention of paying you.
I wish I had the money to pay you in full now.
Unfortunately, I just don't. . . .

I'm willing to send you a payment on a monthly basis as I
told you initially. Presently I can only commit to $300
per month. I know that is not a lot, but even that is a
stretch for me. As soon as I have more, I'll send more.
You'll get all your money plus interest.

Starr replied that Levin needed to pay her debts, a cashier's

check was okay, and Starr started charging interest:

The most important fact is that u owe me money—i do not owe
u, so whatever money will be handled should be at MY
discretion, not yours. . . .

. . . .

I know u can get an equity loan on your signature. . . . So
do it, and start paying debts u owe.

Cashier's check will be ok. I'm starting u at January 1,
2022, 10% interest—that's much lower than most credit
cards!! If u are lax, i will not hesitate to take u to
Court, but i would rather stay on a friendly basis—i do
miss your friendship, which your lack of communication has
messed up.

In March 2023, Starr filed a complaint with the

district court alleging that Levin owed her "$11,620.54,

including principal of $11,432.61 and interest through

[March 17, 2023] of $187.93" pursuant to the Note.

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

On the day of the scheduled trial, Levin paid Starr

$6,000.00, which represented the remaining principal owed on the

Note. Trial was rescheduled. Six days before the rescheduled

trial date, Levin paid Starr the remaining interest owed on the

Note.

Neither Levin nor Starr disputed that Levin did not

pay Starr any of the $15,000.00 by the due date or that Levin

was required to pay Starr this amount plus interest if she did

not pay by the due date. And neither disputed that Levin paid

all amounts owed under the Note by the start of trial.

Nonetheless, trial commenced as Starr sought a

judgment regarding whether there was a breach of the Note and

whether she was entitled to attorneys' fees and costs. 3

The district court ruled that Starr proved a breach of

contract, Levin did not prove an affirmative defense, and the

Note was not modified. The district court rejected Levin's

assertion that the text messages between her and Starr modified

the Note to allow monthly payments.

Levin appealed. On appeal, Levin argues that the text

messages "constituted a signed writing" and her monthly payments

were consideration.

3 We note that Starr requested $28,497.50 in attorneys' fees and
$1,753.28 in costs. The district court awarded $2,905.14 in attorneys' fees,
which is twenty-five percent of the $11,620.54 Starr sought in her complaint,
and $637.34 in costs.
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

"Whether or not the parties entered into an agreement

is essentially a question of fact." Island Directory Co. v.

Iva's Kinimaka Enters., Inc., 10 Haw. App. 15, 23, 859 P.2d 935,

940 (App. 1993). The "essential elements of a contract" are

"(1) capacity to enter the contract, (2) offer, (3) acceptance,

and (4) consideration." Calipjo v. Purdy, 144 Hawaiʻi 266, 280,

439 P.3d 218, 232 (2019).

"It is an elementary rule of contract law that there

must be mutual assent or a meeting of the minds on all essential

elements or terms in order to create a binding contract."

Malani v. Clapp, 56 Haw. 507, 510, 542 P.2d 1265, 1267 (1975).

"The existence of mutual assent or intent to accept is

determined by an objective standard. A party's words or acts

are judged under a standard of reasonableness in determining

whether [it] has manifested an objective intention to agree."

Earl M. Jorgensen Co. v. Mark Constr., Inc., 56 Haw. 466, 470,

540 P.2d 978, 982 (1975).

Here, Levin texted, "I'm willing to send you a payment

on a monthly basis"; "I can only commit to $300 per month"; and

"[a]s soon as I have more, I'll send more. You'll get all your

money plus interest." Starr replied, in part, "start paying

debts u owe. Cashier's check will be ok. I'm starting u at

January 1, 2022, 10% interest . . . . If u are lax, i will not

hesitate to take u to Court, but i would rather stay on a

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

friendly basis[.]" The text messages do not indicate an

agreement by Starr to modify the Note, excuse Levin's pre-

existing default, or forego any lawsuit if Levin paid each

month.

Thus, the district court's finding that "[t]here was

no written agreement signed by [Starr] and [Levin] that modified

or amended" the Note was not clearly erroneous. As there was no

modification of the Note, we need not address Levin's contention

that the district court erred by concluding that "no new

consideration was given by [Levin] to [Starr] for any alleged

modifications."

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court's

March 22, 2024 "Findings of Fact; Conclusions of Law and Order";

April 8, 2024 order for attorneys' fees and costs; and April 8,

2024 Judgment.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, June 18, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Presiding Judge
Anthony L. Ranken,
for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Associate Judge
Loren K. Tilley,
Caitlin S.D. Musson, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
(Horovitz Tilley) Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

6