Opinion of the Court by LEONARD, J.
Defendant-Appellant Keith A. Silva (
We hold that: (1) the Circuit Court was not required to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its order granting partial summary judgment in favor of A & B and against Silva; (2) a quiet title plaintiff may seek partial summary judgment on the issue of whether a particular defendant has an interest in the subject property without the plaintiff first establishing its own prima facie claim to title; (3) as the party who will have the burden at trial to show that it has superior title, the quiet title plaintiff-movant bears the burden of production in showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendant-claimant's interest, as well as the ultimate burden of persuasion on the issue; (4) in this case, A & B failed to satisfy its initial burden of production with regard to Silva's alleged interest in Parcel 18 (described below), thus the burden never shifted to Silva, and the Circuit Court erred in granting A & B's request for partial summary judgment with respect to Parcel 18; (5) viewing all of the evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to Silva, A & B having submitted no evidence in support of its own claim of title and merely asserting that Silva's claim to title is fatally flawed because Silva does not have an unbroken chain of paper title or claim adverse possession, A & B failed to establish that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that it was entitled to judgment against Silva as a matter of law with respect to Parcel 11 (described below); (6) notwithstanding the Circuit Court's subsequent ruling in favor of A & B on its quiet title claims to Parcels 11 and 18, in light of our determination that the Circuit Court erred in granting partial summary judgment against Silva, whether A & B's evidence of title is superior to the evidence of title brought forward by Silva appears to involve a determination of disputed material facts; and (7) inasmuch as it enters judgment in favor of A & B and against Silva, the Amended Judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Circuit Court.
On February 27, 2004, A & B filed a Complaint for Quiet Title and Partition pertaining to three parcels of land located in Koloa, Hawai`i, on the island of Kaua'i. In the Complaint, A & B alleged it is the sole and exclusive owner of TMK Parcels (4)2-6-04-10 (
A & B proceeded by filing a motion for partial summary judgment on April 28, 2005, against several defendants, not including Silva, seeking an order that those defendants have no interest in the subject parcels. The Circuit Court granted the April 28, 2005 motion, concluding that the defendants identified in the motion have no interest in Parcels 10, 11, and 18.
On June 8, 2005, A & B filed another motion for partial summary judgment, this time against Silva, seeking an order determining that Silva has no interest in the subject parcels.
In addition, A & B attached a copy of a chart purportedly produced by Silva during discovery, which according to an affidavit by A & B's attorney depicted Silva's purported chain of title to Land Commission Award No. 4766. A & B's primary argument in support of its motion for partial summary judgment was that Silva's chart failed to establish a chain of paper title beginning with one of the children of Oheohekuahiwi or Monimoni.
In his memorandum in opposition filed July 6, 2005 (
On July 22, 2005, the Circuit Court issued an order pursuant to Hawai`i Rules of Civil Procedure (
On October 12, 2005, the Circuit Court issued an order granting A & B's motion for partial summary judgment against Silva, concluding that Silva has no interest in Parcels 10, 11, and 18.
Thereafter, on December 13, 2005, A & B filed another motion for partial summary judgment, this time requesting that the Circuit Court declare that A & B is the sole and exclusive owner of Parcels 11 and 18. A & B claimed it has paper title or, in the alternative, it acquired title to the two parcels through adverse possession. A & B attached thirty-seven exhibits to its memorandum in support of the motion, including certified copies of relevant documents purportedly supporting its claim of paper title. At this time, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (
On March 8, 2006, the Circuit Court denied A & B's December 13, 2005 motion for partial summary judgment without prejudice, stating that "genuine issues of material fact remain as to [A & B's] claim for adverse possession."
On September 22, 2006, A & B filed its final motion for partial summary judgment, renewing its request that A & B be declared the sole and exclusive owner of Parcels 11 and 18. A & B's September 22, 2006 motion was unopposed.
On November 15, 2006, the Circuit Court entered an HRCP Rule 54(b) judgment in favor of A & B and against all defendants. The Circuit Court entered judgment against Silva pursuant to the October 12, 2005 order granting A & B's motion for partial summary judgment against Silva. The judgment concluded, inter alia, that A & B was the sole and exclusive owner of Parcel 11 and Parcel 18, but also, incorrectly, identified Parcel 11 as the parcel with unresolved claims.
Subsequently, A & B sought to amend the November 15, 2006 judgment in order to clarify that Parcel 10 was the parcel with unresolved claims. On April 20, 2007, the Circuit Court entered the Amended Judgment incorporating that change. On May 21, 2007, Silva filed a timely notice of appeal.
Silva raises the following points of error on appeal:
(1) The Circuit Court's findings and conclusions are "insufficient and conclusory" because the appellate court has no basis upon which to determine how the Circuit Court decided the subsidiary points of fact and law;
(2) The Circuit Court erred in granting partial summary judgment against Silva because A & B failed to make a prima facie showing of its own title, and Silva had no obligation to put on his case absent A & B's prima facie showing;
(3) The Circuit Court erred in finding that there are no genuine issues of material fact concerning whether Silva has an interest in the subject parcels;
(4) The Circuit Court erred in concluding that Silva has no interest in Parcels 10, 11, and 18 because (a) in response to A & B's motion for partial summary judgment, Silva claimed title through two sources and A & B offered no evidence to the contrary, and (b) there were triable issues of fact regarding Silva's interest in the subject parcels; and
(5) The Circuit Court erred in entering judgment in favor of A & B and against all defendants with respect to the ownership of Parcels 11 and 18.
The appellate court reviews "the circuit court's grant or denial of summary judgment de novo." Querubin v. Thronas, 107 Haw. 48, 56, 109 P.3d 689, 697 (2005) (citation omitted).
Silva argues, without citation to any rule, case, or other authority, that the Circuit Court reversibly erred because it did not enter findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the order granting partial summary judgment against him. This argument is without merit. See, e.g., Dalton v. City & County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 400, 403 n. 2, 462 P.2d 199, 203 n. 2 (1969) ("[F]indings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary in summary judgments. This is because disputed issues of fact cannot be resolved on
Silva argues that the Circuit Court erred in concluding that A & B carried its burden of demonstrating that there were no genuine issues of material fact concerning Silva's claims to the subject parcels.
First, we want to be clear about which parcels are at issue on appeal. Even though the Circuit Court's October 12, 2005 order granting partial summary judgment against Silva finds and concludes that Silva has no interest in Parcel 10 (as well as Parcels 11 and 18), no issue concerning Silva's claimed interest in Parcel 10 is before this court. The Amended Judgment expressly states that it does not dispose of the claims and crossclaims concerning Parcel 10. Thus, our review is limited to the Circuit Court's ruling that Silva has no interest in Parcels 11 and 18.
Silva's primary argument is that the Circuit Court erred in granting A & B's June 8, 2005 motion for partial summary judgment against him because, at the time that the motion was granted, A & B had not yet submitted evidence supporting its own claim to an interest in the subject parcels. In essence, Silva argues that it is improper for a quiet title plaintiff to try to eliminate defendant-claimants seriatum until the plaintiff first establishes a prima facie case that the plaintiff has an interest in the property by paper title or adverse possession. Silva cites Harrison v. Davis, 22 Haw. 51 (1914), and Maui Land & Pineapple Co., Inc. v. Infiesto, 76 Haw. 402, 879 P.2d 507 (1994), in support of this argument. Silva's reliance on these cases is misplaced.
Silva cites the Harrison case at page 54 of volume 22 of the Hawaiian Reports without any elucidation of the particular statement of law or factual parallels that make it apropos to his argument concerning A & B's request for partial summary judgment against him. We presume that Silva cites' Harrison for the general legal proposition: "Ordinarily, upon an issue of title, the plaintiff introduces evidence to prove that his title was in its inception derived from the government and thence passed to him by mesne conveyances, devise, descent or adverse possession." 22 Haw. at 54. Albeit of continuing legal vitality, that statement of law does not settle any questions concerning a plaintiff's use of partial summary judgment motions in quiet title actions.
Indeed, the Harrison case followed a trial in which Harrison, the plaintiff, sought to quiet the title to his claim of an undivided one-half interest in a certain tract of land under a twenty-five-year lease. Id. at 52. After the close of the plaintiff's case, the trial court granted the defendant's motion for non-suit (i.e., dismissal) in part on the grounds that there purportedly was a lease outstanding when the lease that was ultimately assigned to Harrison was made, and in part on the grounds that Harrison had failed to deraign his title from the government.
Interestingly, after the resumption and completion of the trial on remand, the trial court held that Davis, the defendant, had not rebutted the prima facie case made by Harrison, and Davis then took an appeal from the judgment in favor of Harrison. Harrison v. Davis, 22 Haw. 465, 465-67 (1915) (Harrison II). In Harrison II, the Hawai`i Supreme Court succinctly held:
22 Haw. at 466.
The Harrison cases clearly inform us of the parties' respective burdens at trial in a quiet title action. At trial, the quiet title plaintiff has the initial burden to prove a title in or to the land in dispute. The plaintiff's prima facie case can be made in various ways, but is usually done by bringing forward evidence of the initial land grant award and tracing ownership forward to the plaintiff through "mesne conveyances, devise, or descent" or through evidence of adverse possession, as provided in the quiet title statute. If the plaintiff fails to meet his initial burden at trial, then the defendant need not bring forward any evidence—the plaintiff's case is subject to dismissal, the plaintiff is not entitled to have its title quieted by the court, and the case ends without a determination of title. If the plaintiff and the defendant both bring forward evidence supporting their claims of title, then the court must decide, based on the evidence presented, which party has title superior to that of the other party. Harrison II also held that the defendant may not prevent the plaintiff from quieting plaintiff's title, except by demonstrating that the defendant's title is superior to the plaintiff's title, i.e., the defendant may not defeat the plaintiff's claim by relying on evidence of a third-party's superior title. 22 Haw. at 466. The Harrison cases do not, as suggested by Silva, preclude a quiet title plaintiff's use of partial summary judgment motions to narrow the issues in controversy.
In Maui Land & Pineapple, the supreme court reiterated that, in order to successfully quiet title, the quiet title plaintiff must bring forward prima facie evidence of paper title or title by adverse possession. 76 Hawai`i at 407-08, 879 P.2d at 512-13. Maui Land & Pineapple clarified that the quiet title plaintiff need not have perfect title, but must prove a substantial interest in the property and title superior to that of the defendants. Id. at 408, 879 P.2d at 513. Although the Maui Land & Pineapple decision reviewed a trial court's granting of partial summary judgment in favor of a quiet title plaintiff, the plaintiff's motion therein affirmatively sought to establish its prima facie case and was not tailored to simply eliminate particular defendant-claimants, as in the case at bar. Id. at 404, 879 P.2d at 509. Indeed, in Maui Land & Pineapple, at oral argument the defendants admitted that they could not sustain a
During the pendency of this appeal, the Hawai`i Supreme Court decided Omerod v. Heirs of Kaheananui, 116 Haw. 239, 172 P.3d 983 (2007), a quiet title action adjudicated on cross-motions for summary judgment. Omerod provides considerable guidance on and support for the principles laid out in the Harrison and Maui Land & Pineapple cases in the context of summary adjudication of quiet title disputes, but does not squarely address the issue presented in this case.
Id. at 252, 172 P.3d at 996 (internal quotation marks, brackets, ellipses, and citation omitted).
The supreme court later reconfirmed which issues were decided on the cross-motions for summary judgment: "To reiterate, in its March 22, 2004 Decision and Order, the [circuit] court (1) granted summary judgment in favor of MKA and TNC against Omerod and Kaluna to the extent that they claim an interest in Hilea Nui under LCA 7715:14; and (2) denied Omerod's and Kaluna's motions for summary judgment." Id. at 254, 172 P.3d at 998 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Thus, the only issue before the supreme court in Omerod was whether the quiet title plaintiffs were entitled to judgment in their favor on the quiet title claims, as a matter of law. The supreme court in Omerod was not faced with the question of whether the quiet title plaintiffs could seek summary judgment against one or more defendant-claimants to eliminate potentially meritless claims.
In this context, and in light of the quiet title plaintiffs' burden to prove their right to title in the subject property, the supreme court held, inter alia:
Id. at 267-68, 172 P.3d at 1011-12 (some citations and emphasis omitted).
In contrast, in the case at bar, in its June 8, 2005 motion, A & B was not seeking summary judgment on its claim to title. Instead, A & B was seeking to demonstrate that there were no genuine issues of material fact concerning whether Silva has any interest in the subject properties.
Under Hawai`i law, partial summary judgment is authorized under HRCP Rule 56(a), which provides that "[a] party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory judgment may move with or without supporting affidavits for a summary judgment in the party's favor upon all or any part thereof." (Emphasis added.) Thus, a party can file a motion for summary judgment for "any part" of a claim under HRCP Rule 56(a). The aforementioned quiet title cases do not hold that a plaintiff must prove title before filing a motion for partial summary judgment asking the court to find that a particular defendant has no interest in the subject property. Indeed, the supreme court has held: "The function of a motion for summary judgment is to determine whether an issue set forth in the pleadings is in fact in dispute and, if not, to eliminate any portion of the case for which trial is not required." Hawaii Prince Hotel Waikiki Corp. v. City & County of Honolulu, 89 Haw. 381, 974 P.2d 21 (1999) (citing J. FRIEDENTHAL, M. KANE & A. MILLER, CIVIL PROCEDURE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT § 9.1, at 433 (1985)).
Accordingly, we reject Silva's argument that it is improper for a quiet title plaintiff to seek partial summary judgment on the issue of whether a particular defendant has an interest in the subject property without the plaintiff first establishing its prima facie claim to title. Quiet title plaintiffs, like any other claimant, may use the procedure set forth in HRCP Rule 56(a) to eliminate any portion of the case for which trial is not required, including the elimination of any defendant-claimant whose claim to an interest in the subject property is without sufficient evidentiary support to create a genuine issue of material fact. The elimination of such claims does not entitle the quiet title plaintiff to judgment in its favor. Whether, in this case, A & B met its burden as movant on its partial summary motion is an entirely separate question.
It is well-settled that the party moving for summary judgment has the burden "to show the absence of any genuine issue as to all material facts, which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitles the moving party to judgment as a matter of law." Jou v. Dai-Tokyo Royal State Ins. Co., 116 Haw. 159, 164, 172 P.3d 471, 476 (2007) (citation omitted). That burden has two components:
Id. (citation omitted). Furthermore, "[t]he evidentiary standard required of a moving party in meeting its burden on a summary judgment motion depends on whether the moving party will have the burden of proof on the issue at trial." Omerod, 116 Hawai`i at 267, 172 P.3d at 1011.
Thus, a quiet title plaintiff-movant is not required, in every instance, to put on a prima facie case demonstrating its own interest in the subject property; but, as the party who will have the burden of proof at trial to show that it has superior title, the plaintiff-movant does bear the burden of production in showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendant-claimant's interest, as well as the ultimate burden of persuasion on the issue.
We first consider A & B's June 8, 2005 motion as it pertains to Parcel 18. In the Complaint, A & B alleged and averred that Parcel 18 constituted the land described in Land Commission Award 5448. The only evidence in support of its partial summary judgment motion, the affidavit of Uahinui, referred exclusively to Land Commission Award No. 4766, and not to Land Commission Award No. 5448. There was no evidence in the record before the court on the partial summary judgment motion tending to support A & B's alleged interest or to negate Silva's alleged interest in Parcel 18. Thus, A & B failed to satisfy its initial burden of production with regard to Silva's alleged interest in Parcel 18. The burden never shifted to Silva with regard to Silva's alleged interest in Parcel 18.
Next, we consider A & B's June 8, 2005 motion as it pertains to Parcel 11. As reported above, the affidavit of Uahinui states in its entirety:
In his Opposition and at the July 12, 2005 hearing, Silva objected to the admissibility of A & B's evidence, noting that no certified documents support any of Uahinui's assertions and that there were no stipulations that the assertions could be treated as admissible evidence under HRCP Rule 56(e).
Nevertheless, in his Opposition and Supplemental Opposition, Silva submitted copies of deeds, probate orders and minutes, marriage licenses, birth and death certificates, and other records in support of the following title history, which is taken from Silva's Opposition and Supplemental Opposition:
From the point of conveyance to A.K. Mika, Silva claims title to Parcel 11 through two sources: (a) through Wahinealoha Keo, and (b) through Kauhane Mika.
Silva's claim through Wahinealoha Keo:
Silva's claim through Kauhane Mika:
Silva tacitly admits that there are flaws and/or gaps in his chain of paper title, but maintains that, along with the probate court testimony concerning Kauhane Nakai Mika's lease to a sugar plantation purported to be A & B's predecessor-in-interest, he offered compelling evidence to support his claim of title to Parcel 11.
A & B again submitted no evidence in support of its own claim of title with its reply to Silva's Opposition and Supplemental Opposition. Instead, A & B asserted that Silva's claim to title is "fatally flawed" because Silva does not have an unbroken chain of paper title and does not make a claim of title by adverse possession.
We reject A & B's contention that it was Silva's burden to prove perfect title in order to defeat A & B's motion for partial summary judgment. See, e.g., Maui Land & Pineapple, 76 Hawai`i at 408, 879 P.2d at 513. Indeed, the supreme court has often stated that, on a motion for summary judgment:
Querubin v. Thronas, 107 Haw. 48, 56, 109 P.3d 689, 697 (2005) (quoting Durette v. Aloha Plastic Recycling, Inc., 105 Haw. 490, 501, 100 P.3d 60, 71 (2004)).
Viewing all of the evidence and the inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to Silva, Silva presented a genuine issue of material fact worthy of trial concerning his claim to title in Parcel 11. Accordingly, we conclude that the Circuit Court erred in granting A & B's June 8, 2005 motion for partial summary judgment against Silva with respect to Parcel 11.
In its Answering Brief, A & B argues that there are "several key facts which are fatal" to both of Silva's alleged claims to title. A & B fails to provide any record citations for the factual assertions in support of this argument. A & B provides no elaboration of which documents it is relying on, which party submitted them, or when they were submitted to the Circuit Court. Indeed, A & B's assertions seem irreconcilable with the record. For example, A & B asserts that Silva alleges that Liebert Nakai inherited title from his mother, Mary Rose Nakai, and that prior to her death, Mary Rose Nakai conveyed her interest through Warranty Deed;
Finally, A & B argues that it was required to establish its title and did so; therefore, the outcome of the litigation would be the same regardless of whether A & B's motion against Silva was granted. Apparently—although there is no elaboration or record citation or detail to support this proposition—A & B is referring to the fact that the Circuit Court later granted A & B's affirmative motion for summary judgment on its quiet title claims to Parcels 11 and 18, after Silva and the other defendant-claimants' claims had been summarily adjudicated. A & B cites no authority for the proposition that this appellate court should consider evidence that A & B could have, but did not, submit in support of its June 8, 2005 motion for partial summary judgment against Silva. Moreover, in light of our determination that the Circuit Court erred in granting partial summary judgment against Silva, whether A & B's evidence of title is superior to the evidence of title brought forward by Silva appears to involve a determination of disputed material facts that is not susceptible to summary adjudication.
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the Circuit Court's April 20, 2007 Amended Judgment inasmuch as it enters judgment in favor of A & B and against Silva, and we remand this case for further proceedings.
