Honma v. Aana

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
13-APR-2026
08:07 AM
Dkt. 29 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

RUSSELL HONMA, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
SHEANA K. AANA, MAHINA K. HOMALON, SAMSON M.
AND UILLANI K. AANA, Defendants-Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NORTH AND SOUTH HILO DIVISION
(CASE NO. 3DRC-XX-XXXXXXX)

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

This appeal stems from a landlord-tenant dispute in
which the trial court dismissed without prejudice self-
represented Plaintiff-Appellant Russell Honma's (Honma) complaint
for summary possession, unpaid rent, and damages against
Defendants-Appellees Sheana K. Aana, Mahina K. Homalon, Samson M.
Aana, and Uillani K. Aana (together, Defendants). Honma appeals
from the Order Granting Dismissal Without Prejudice of All Claims
in Complaint Filed October 3, 2023 (Dismissal Order), entered on
March 23, 2026, by the District Court of the Third Circuit, North
and South Hilo Division (District Court).1/ Following a March 20,
2024 bench trial, the District Court orally dismissed Honma's
complaint without prejudice because he "filed [the] matter

1/
The Honorable M. Kanani Laubach presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

prematurely . . . ."2/ The Dismissal Order similarly states that
"[t]he claims were not ripe upon filing the complaint."
On appeal, Honma appears to contend that the District
Court erred in dismissing the complaint without prejudice because
"[Honma] has given more sufficient time then [sic] 45 days notice
to vacant [sic] the house on the month-to-month rental."3/ He
argues that "the Defendant never moved out and clean out the
house, making damages to the house . . . ." No answering brief
was filed.
After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant
legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues
raised and the arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve
Honma's contentions as follows and affirm.
The complaint, along with the attached eviction notice
and rental agreement, indicated that Defendants became month-to-
month tenants of Honma's property in 2019 at the end of a fixed
term that began on November 1, 2018.4/ The eviction notice, dated
September 15, 2023, stated, among other things, that "[w]ithin 45
days of the next payment date, you are hereby required to quit
and deliver possession of the Premises in accordance with your
Lease." Honma alleged in the complaint that the eviction notice
"was given to Defendant on . . . Sept[ember] 15, 2023, . . . to
correct this situation as follows: . . . 45-day termination of

2/
On March 20, 2026, we temporarily remanded the case to the
District Court for entry of an appealable dismissal order, which was then
entered on March 23, 2026.
3/
Honma's opening brief fails to comply in numerous material
respects with Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b). In
particular, Honma fails to provide: (1) "[a] concise statement of the points
of error set forth in separately numbered paragraphs[,]" as required by HRAP
Rule 28(b)(4); and (2) a statement of "where in the record the alleged error[s
were] objected to or the manner in which the alleged error[s were] brought to
the attention of the court," as required by HRAP Rule 28(b)(4)(iii). In
addition, Honma's argument is difficult to discern and fails to provide
citations to relevant authorities. HRAP Rule 28(b)(7). Nevertheless, Hawai #i
appellate courts have "consistently adhered to the policy of affording
litigants the opportunity 'to have their cases heard on the merits, where
possible.'" Marvin v. Pflueger, 127 Hawai #i 490, 496, 280 P.3d 88, 94 (2012)
(quoting Morgan v. Plan. Dep't, Cnty. of Kauai, 104 Hawai #i 173, 180–81, 86
P.3d 982, 989–90 (2004)). We thus address Honma's arguments to the extent
discernible.
4/
The March 20, 2024 court minutes indicate that Honma's exhibits 1
and 2, the rental agreement and the eviction notice, respectively, were
offered and entered into evidence at trial with no objection.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

month-to-month tenancy . . . ." (Capitalization altered.)
Based on Honma's argument, it appears that the District
Court may have dismissed the complaint, at least in part, because
it was filed on October 3, 2023, before the expiration of the 45-
day notice given in the eviction notice, in violation of Hawaii
Revised Statutes (HRS) § 521-71(a).5/ The dismissal without
prejudice would have allowed Honma to file a new complaint in
compliance with the statute.
We are otherwise unable to review the alleged error by
the District Court, as Honma has not provided a sufficient record
for that purpose. In particular, the record does not include a
transcript of any part of the March 20, 2024 trial. See Hawai#i
Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 10(b) (making it the
appellant's responsibility to include in the record on appeal
transcripts of the pertinent oral proceedings conducted by the
trial court); Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai#i 225, 230,

5/
HRS § 521-71(a)(2018) states, in relevant part:

(a) When the tenancy is month-to-month, the landlord
may terminate the rental agreement by notifying the tenant,
in writing, at least forty-five days in advance of the
anticipated termination. When the landlord provides
notification of termination, the tenant may vacate at any
time within the last forty-five days of the period between
the notification and the termination date, but the tenant
shall notify the landlord of the date the tenant will vacate
the dwelling unit and shall pay a prorated rent for that
period of occupation.

. . . .
(e) Whenever the term of the rental agreement expires,
whether by passage of time, by mutual agreement, by the
giving of notice as provided in subsection (a), (b), (c), or
(d) or by the exercise by the landlord of a right to
terminate given under this chapter, if the tenant continues
in possession after the date of termination without the
landlord's consent, the tenant may be liable to the landlord
for a sum not to exceed twice the monthly rent under the
previous rental agreement, computed and prorated on a daily
basis, for each day the tenant remains in possession. The
landlord may bring a summary proceeding for recovery of the
possession of the dwelling unit at any time during the first
sixty days of holdover. Should the landlord fail to
commence summary possession proceedings within the first
sixty days of the holdover, in the absence of a rental
agreement, a month-to-month tenancy at the monthly rent
stipulated in the previous rental agreement shall prevail
beginning at the end of the first sixty days of holdover.

(Emphases added.)

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

909 P.2d 553, 558 (1995) ("The burden is upon appellant in an
appeal to show error by reference to matters in the record, and
he or she has the responsibility of providing an adequate
transcript." (brackets omitted) (quoting Union Bldg. Materials
Corp. v. The Kakaako Corp., 5 Haw. App. 146, 151, 682 P.2d 82, 87
(1984))). We therefore disregard any asserted error based on the
evidence presented at trial or the district court's related
reasoning for dismissing the case. See Tradewinds Hotel, Inc. v.
Cochran, 8 Haw. App. 256, 266, 799 P.2d 60, 67 (1990).
For these reasons, the March 23, 2026 Dismissal Order
is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 13, 2026.

On the brief:
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Russell Honma, Presiding Judge
Self-represented Plaintiff-
Appellant.
/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Associate Judge

/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Associate Judge

4