ROBERT GRINPAS and ESTHER GRINPAS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. KAPAA 382, LLC, a Hawaii Limited Liability Company; KULANA PARTNERS, LLC, a Hawaii Limited Liability Company; WILLIAM R. HANCOCK, and DOES 1-10, Defendants-Appellees.
KULANA PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. WILLIAM R. HANCOCK, Trustee of the Hancock and Company, Inc., Profit sharing Trust, under trust instrument dated 4/3/03, Third-Party Defendant.
Attorney(s) for Plaintiffs-Appellants: Robert Grinpas
Attorney(s) for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee:
Jade L. Ching and Laura P. Moritz (Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing)
COURT: Foley, Reifurth and Ginoza, JJ.
SPECIAL NOTE: The above argument will take place in the Supreme Court courtroom on the Second Floor of Ali`iolani Hale, 417 South King Street, Honolulu, Hawai`i.
On August 3, 2009, the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit (Circuit Court) filed an Order and entered Final Judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP), granting Defendant-Appellee Kulana Partners, LLC's (KPL) motion for partial summary judgment and denying Plaintiffs-Appellants Robert and Esther Grinpas' (Appellants) motion for partial summary judgment. The Appellants had sought a declaratory judgment claiming that their land is benefitted by an easement established across certain land currently owned by KPL. KPL claims that no such easement exists. Appellants also appeal from the Circuit Court's order denying their motion to alter or amend the summary judgment order and the final judgment.
Appellants contend on appeal that the Circuit Court erred in granting summary judgment to KPL because there were genuine issues of material fact, including as to: whether the merger doctrine applied in this case; whether Kulana Condominium Property Regime documents established the easement irrespective of the merger doctrine; whether Appellants were intended third-party beneficiaries under a real estate agreement and the condominium property regime documents; whether KPL purchased the subject property with notice of the easement; whether KPL made false representations at a hearing; and whether equity precluded the result reached by the Circuit Court.