No. SCWC-19-0000704, Tuesday, February 18, 2025, 2 p.m.

In the Matter of the Application of PIONEER MILL COMPANY, LIMITED to register title and confirm its title to land situate at Lāhainā, Island and County of Maui, State of Hawai‘i and KAHOMA LAND LLC, Substituted Applicant as to Lots 1, 2 and 3A.

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

[ Watch the video recording on YouTube ]

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2^nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo Community Television 55 (olelo.org/tv-schedule).

Attorney for Petitioners GLADIOLA ALOHA SCHNEIDER, et al.:   
     Michael J. Matsukawa

Attorneys for Respondent KAHOMA LAND LLC:
     W. Keoni Shultz and Calvert G. Chipchase of Cades Schutte LLP

Attorney for Respondents ARLENE K. KAKALIA, et al:
     David B. Kaapu

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Lisa M. Ginoza, filed 08/21/24.

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge James S. Kawashima in place of Ginoza, J., recused, filed 09/18/24.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari filed 10/09/24.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Devens, JJ., and Circuit Court Judge Kawashima in place of Ginoza, J., recused.

Brief Description:

This case arises out of a land court petition originally filed by Pioneer Mill in 1919 to register fee simple title to various parcels of land in Lāhainā, Maui.  Kahoma Land LLC substituted for Pioneer Mill in 2009.  The petition asserted two claims to the parcels; (1) Pioneer Mill Company Limited had obtained title to the land by deed, and/or (2) Pioneer Mill and its predecessors in title had obtained title by adverse possession.  In 1919, a Report of the Examiner concluded that Pioneer Mill did not have good paper title to Kuhua, the parcel which remains at issue, but may have acquired it by adverse possession.

The Kuhua parcel is located in the mountains near Lāhainā, Maui, and consists of 240.90 acres, which have, historically, been used largely for agricultural purposes.  In An Act Relating to the Crown Government and Fort Lands, June 7, 1848, King Kamehameha III reserved the ahupuaʻa of Kuhua I and Kuhua II as private lands for the use of himself, his heirs, and successors.  In 1853, Eseta Kipa appeared before the Privy Council requesting title to her land in Lāhainā and was granted a Royal Patent, free of commutation, to the land known as Kuhua.  The Royal Patent was subject to Eseta Kipa securing a Land Commission Award, which apparently happened in 1855 through Land Commission Award 7582. Upon Eseta Kipa’s death, Kuhua passed to her son Levi Haalelea and, upon his death, passed to Charles Kanaina.  Descendants of Charles Kanaina’s heirs challenge Kahoma Land LLC’s claim.  Various descendants of the heirs of Charles Kanaina appeared at various points in the case and filed claims of interest.

The case was not decided for 100 years.  Over those 100 years, the petition was revised, and there were several periods where the case lay dormant for decades.  The land court heard and granted various motions for default, held a trial, and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law and order.  On appeal, in 1972, this court ruled that the land court judge lacked judicial authority because he forfeited his judgeship when, before he issued the decision, he announced his intention to seek state office.  This court remanded for a new trial.  Instead of holding another trial, in 2011, 2013, and 2017 the land court granted three separate motions.  The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed.

In their application for certiorari, the petitioners argue the ICA erred (1) by refusing to address whether the land court lost subject matter jurisdiction after Kahoma LLC revised its claim from 100% interest to 78.04% interest in Kuhua, based on Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 501-25; (2) by ruling that descendants of Charles Kanaina, as co-tenants, lack  standing to defend not only their interests but the interests of all their co-tenants, and then refusing to address issues they raised regarding the alleged adverse possession of Kuhua before 1919; (3) by failing to realize that the land court registration is based on internally inconsistent findings and conclusions; and (4) by ruling that they lacked standing to challenge the land court’s failure to conduct the new trial ordered by this court in 1972 as well as Pioneer Mill’s failure to prosecute the case after the 1972 remand order and by failing to address delay-related errors they had raised on appeal.