You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Kaanapali Hillside Homeowners' Ass'n ex rel. Board of Directors v. Doran

Citations: 114 Haw. 361; 162 P.3d 1277; 2007 Haw. LEXIS 175Docket: No. 25585

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court; June 21, 2007; Hawaii; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves a dispute between a homeowners' association (KHHA) and property owners over the obligation to pay assessments and the recovery of attorney fees. KHHA filed a writ of certiorari challenging the Intermediate Court of Appeals' (ICA) ruling that it was not a 'planned community association' under HRS 421J-2. The ICA had affirmed the circuit court's judgment on assessment obligations but vacated the fees and costs award, finding KHHA lacked authority to impose mandatory payments. The Supreme Court affirmed the ICA's ruling on KHHA's status under HRS 421J-2 but reversed the ICA's fee award limitation, recognizing KHHA as a 'planned community association' under HRS 607-14, which allows for full recovery of attorney's fees without a cap. The case was remanded for fee and cost reassessment based on the correct statutory grounds. The decision underscores statutory interpretation principles and the distinction between different statutory definitions of associations.

Legal Issues Addressed

Covenants Running with the Land

Application: The court confirmed that the covenants in the First Amended Declaration run with the land, fulfilling the statutory requirements and supporting KHHA's classification under HRS 607-14.

Reasoning: Consequently, the covenants in the First Amended Declaration run with the land, qualifying KHHA as a 'planned community association' under HRS. 607-14.

Definition of Planned Community Association under HRS 421J-2

Application: The court determined that KHHA does not qualify as a 'planned community association' under HRS 421J-2 because its recorded instruments do not grant it the authority to mandate assessments.

Reasoning: The ICA determined that KHHA lacked the authority to impose mandatory payments on lot owners under HRS 421J-2, as its ability to require payments for architectural approval or to collect damages did not equate to a collective obligation for all lot owners.

Remand for Attorney Fees and Costs

Application: The circuit court is instructed to award KHHA specific fees and reassess others based on applicable statutes, excluding the vacated fee award under HRS 421J-10.

Reasoning: The case is remanded to the circuit court with specific instructions: (1) to award KHHA $2,995.06 in fees to be paid by the Dorans, and (2) to reassess any additional fees KHHA may be entitled to under HRS § 607-14.5.

Statutory Interpretation of HRS 607-14

Application: KHHA is recognized as a 'planned community association' under HRS 607-14, exempting it from the 25% cap on attorney's fees since the statute provides a broader definition than HRS 421J-2.

Reasoning: KHHA qualifies as a 'planned community association' under HRS 607-14, exempting it from the twenty-five percent cap on fee awards.