Oral Arguments before the Intermediate Court of Appeals
No. 29179 – Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 10 a.m.
JOSEPH PAVSEK and IKUYO PAVSEK, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. TODD W. SANDVOLD; JULIANA C. SANDVOLD; KENT SATHER; JOAN SATHER; WAIALUA OCEANVIEW LLC; HAWAII BEACH HOMES, INC.; HAWAII BEACH TRAVEL, INC. and HAWAII ON THE BEACH, INC., Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN DOES 1-10, JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10 and DOE ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants.
Attorney(s) for Plaintiffs-Appellants
Paul Alston and Thomas E. Bush (Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing)
Ken T. Kuniyuki
Attorney(s) for Defendants-Appellees
Gregory W. Kugle and Noelle B. Catalan (Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert)
(for Todd W. Sandvold, Juliana C. Sandvold, & Hawaii Beach Homes, Inc.)
David B. Rosen
(for Waialua Oceanview LLC, Hawaii Beach Travel, Inc., & Hawaii on the Beach, Inc.)
Rosemary T. Fazio, Francis P. Hogan and Zachary J. Antalis (Ashford & Wriston)
(for Kent Sather & Joan Sather)
COURT: Nakamura, CJ; Fujise and Reifurth, JJ.
SPECIAL NOTE: The above argument will take place in the Supreme Court courtroom on the Second Floor of Aliʻiolani Hale, 417 South King Street, Honolulu, Hawai`i.
Plaintiff-Appellants Joseph Pavsek and Ikuyo Pavsek (the Pavseks) appeal from the final judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) in favor of Defendant-Appellees Todd Sandvold, Juliana Sandvold, Kent Sather, Joan Sather, Waialua Oceanview LLC, Hawaii Beach Homes, Inc., Hawaii Beach Travel, Inc., and Hawaii on the Beach, Inc. (Appellees). The Pavseks own residential property on Oahu’s North Shore and Appellees own or manage property that is on the same street as the Pavseks’ property. The Pavseks filed a complaint against Appellees alleging, among other things, that Appellees have been using the properties Appellees’ own or manage as transient vacation units and/or bed and breakfast homes in violation of the City and County of Honolulu (City) Land Use Ordinance. The circuit court granted the Appellees’ motions to dismiss the Pavseks’ complaint and entered final judgment in favor of Appellees.
On appeal, the Pavseks argue that the circuit court erred in dismissing their complaint by ruling that: 1) the Pavseks had no direct statutory right to seek an injunction to enforce the City’s zoning ordinance under Hawai`i Revised Statutes § 46-4(a) (Supp. 2009); 2) the Pavseks had failed to name the City as an indispensable party; 3) the Pavseks have failed to state a claim for nuisance; 4) the Sandvolds owed the Pavseks no fiduciary duties regarding a jointly-owned easement; and 5) the Pavseks cannot maintain a claim for unjust enrichment.