ROARING LION, LLC, a Montana Limited Liability Company; DAVID COWAN and NATHALIE COWAN; UMANG P. GUPTA and RUTH M. GUPTA, as Trustees of the Umang and Ruth Gupta Trust under Trust Agreement dated January 18, 2000; and PAUOA BEACH 8 LLC, a Hawaii Limited Liability Company, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. EXCLUSIVE RESORTS PBL1, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and EXCLUSIVE RESORTS PBL3, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants-Appellants, and PAUOA BAY PROPERTIES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; WHITE SAND BEACH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware Limited Partnership; PAUOA BEACH REALTY LLC, a Hawaii Limited Liability Company, John Does 1-50, Defendants.
The above-captioned case was set for argument on the merits at:
Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`olani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants:
Robert G. Klein, R. John Seibert, and Lisa W. Cataldo of McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees:
Margery S. Bronster, Rex Y. Fujichaku, and Jae B. Park of Bronster Hoshibata
COURT: Foley, Fujise and Ginoza, JJ.
Appellants Exclusive Resorts PBL1, LLC and Exclusive Resorts PBL3, LLC (Appellants) appeal from the Amended Final Judgment, filed December 5, 2011, in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit (circuit court). Appellants' appeal concerns a ruling by the circuit court that the parties reached an enforceable settlement agreement and a subsequent order enforcing the settlement agreement.
In brief summary, Appellees Roaring Lion, LLC; David Cowan and Nathalie Cowan; Umang P. Gupta and Ruth M. Gupta Trust under Trust Agreement dated January 18, 2000; and Pauoa Beach 8 LLC (Appellees) own real estate lots in the Pauoa Beach subdivision (Pauoa Beach) of the Mauna Lani Resort in the County of Hawaiʻi. Appellants also own lots at Pauoa Beach and provide its members with access to vacation homes in Pauoa Beach. Appellees alleged that this use violates the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions of the Pauoa Beach subdivision. After a number of motions and orders in the circuit court, the parties participated in a court-supervised settlement conference and put an alleged settlement agreement on the record. Appellees subsequently sought to enforce the agreement. The circuit court ruled there was an enforceable settlement agreement and subsequently issued an order enforcing the agreement.
On appeal, Appellants contend that (1) the circuit court erred in finding that terms placed on the record at the settlement conference, along with post-conference negotiations, constituted an enforceable settlement agreement; and (2) the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enter the second enforcement order because the pending appeal of the first enforcement order divested the court of jurisdiction to materially and substantially change the first enforcement order.