NO. 27695 - Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 9 a.m.
ALVAREZ FAMILY TRUST; SERGIO S. ALVAREZ and MARGARET J. ALVAREZ, Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF THE KAANAPALI ALII; JOHN DOES 1-100; JANE DOES 1-100; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-100; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-100, and DOE ENTITIES 1-100, Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.
(Contract; Non-Vehicle Tort; Other Civil Action)
Attorney(s) for Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellant(s)
Terrance M. Revere and Rebecca A. Szucs (Motooka Yamamoto & Revere)
Attorney(s) for Respondents/Defendants-Appellee(s)
Matt A. Tsukazaki (Li & Tsukazaki)
NOTE: Order assigning Judge Rhonda A. Nishimura due to a vacancy, filed 02/20/09.
COURT: RTYM, CJ; PAN, SRA & JED, JJ, and Circuit Judge Rhonda A. Nishimura assigned
by reason of vacancy.
Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants Alvarez Family Trust, Sergio S. Alvarez and Margaret J. Alvarez (Petitioners) filed an Application for Writ of Certiorari (Application) seeking review by this court of the decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (the ICA) in Alvarez Family Trust v. Association of Apartment Owners of the Kaanapali Alii, No. 27695 (App. Nov. 21, 2008). In Alvarez, the ICA affirmed the final judgment of the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (the court) and held in favor of Respondent/Defendant-Appellee Association of Apartment Owners of the Kaanapali Alii (Respondent or the Association). In their Application, Petitioners argue that the ICA erred in concluding (1) that a vote taken by the Board of Directors of the Association (the Board) validly "approved," pursuant to Robert's Rules of Order and the voting requirement set forth in the Association's By-Laws, a "pricing policy" setting the price at which the Association would sell leased fee interests; (2) that the Association, in realizing a profit on its sales of leased fee interests pursuant to the pricing policy, did not violate the prohibition in the By-Laws on "conduct[ing] an active business for profit" or overstep the powers conferred upon the Association by HRS chapter 514C (1993 and Supp. 2004); and (3) that the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees and costs to Respondent.