Oral Arguments before the Intermediate Court of Appeals
No. 28501 – Wednesday, April 14, 2010 at 9 a.m.
RICHARD MARVIN, III, and AMY MARVIN, individually and as Next Friend of IVY MAE MARVIN, SADIE MARVIN, SAVANNAH MARVIN AND ANABELLE MARVIN, minors; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JAMES PFLUEGER, individually and in his representative capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellants, and JAMES PFLUEGER; PFLUEGER PROPERTIES; and PILAʻA 400, LLC, Counterclaim Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. RICHARD MARVIN, III, AMY MARVIN, et al., Counterclaim Defendants-Appellees.
Attorney(s) for Defendants-Appellants
Wesley H. H. Ching and Bonita Chang
Attorney(s) for Counterclaim Plaintiffs-Appellants
William C. McCorriston, David J. Minkin and Becky T. Chestnut (McCorriston Miller Mukai & McKinnon)
Attorney(s) for Plaintiffs-Appellees & Counterclaim Defendants-Appellees
Peter Van Name Esser and Teresa Tico
COURT: Foley, J., Judge Randal K.O. Lee to sit in place of Judge Eden Elizabeth Hifo and Judge Sabrina McKenna to sit due to a vacancy.
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.
In a civil lawsuit arising out of a land dispute, Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs-Appellants James Pflueger, Pflueger Properties, and Pilaa 400, LLC (collectively, Defendants) appeal from the Final Judgment filed March 20, 2007 in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit (circuit court). The circuit court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Richard Marvin, III, and Amy Marvin, individually and as Next Friend of Ivy Mae Marvin, Sadie Marvin, Savannah Marvin and Anabelle Marvin, minors; Wylie Hurd; Nicholas Fred Marvin, individually and a Next Friend of Alana Marvin; Aaron Marvin; Barbara Nelson (collectively with Richard Marvin’s family and Nicholas Marvin’s family, the Marvins); Jeffrey McBride; and Mareta Zimmerman, individually and as Next friend of Teva Dexter and Liko McBride, minors.
On appeal, Defendants contend the circuit court erred by:
(1) granting the Marvins’ motion for summary judgment because (a) there are “non-parties whose interests in their adjacent real property [the other part of a partitioned kuleana] could be affected by the resulting order,” (b) “the Marvin property is not landlocked and it is not a kuleana,” (c) the Marvins’ “property rights were determined in a prior real property partition action,” (d) there is an “absence of evidence establishing ancient and historic use,” and (e) the Marvin’s deeds “expressly note a “lack of an easement for access to Kuhio Highway (a public road)”; (2) “requiring [Defendants] to execute a recordable Non Exclusive Grant of Easement in favor of the [Marvins] where no such recorded easement is required” under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 7-1; (3) “granting the [Marvins’] motion for summary judgment on the [Marvins’] claim for entitlement to water rights”; (4) “dismissing [Defendants’] claim for trespass against the [Marvins]”; and (5) “granting the [Marvins’] motion for summary judgment over [Defendants’] argument that the claims were barred by laches.”