Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Frye v. Reyes

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii

July 31, 2013

MARY JO FRYE, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JAY F. REYES, Defendant-Appellant, HEIRS OR ASSIGNS OF W.L. PULELOA (K), ET AL, Defendants-Appellees.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT (CIVIL NO. 07-1-0455(1))

Jay F. Reyes Defendant-Appellant pro se.

Michael W. Gibson (Ashford and Wriston) for Plaintiff Appellee Mary Jo Frye.

Nakamura, C.J., Foley and Reifurth, JJ.

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

Pro Se Defendant-Appellant Jay F. Reyes (Reyes) appeals from the "Final Judgment In Favor Of Plaintiff Mary Jo Frye" (Final Judgment) entered April 26, 2 012 in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit[1] (circuit court). The circuit court entered the Final Judgment consistent with the "Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment" entered November 14, 2 011, and decreed Plaintiff-Appellee Mary Jo Frye (Frye) to be the sole and exclusive owner of a contested parcel of land.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, as well as the relevant statutory and case law, we conclude Frye's appeal is without merit.

The circuit court granted summary judgment against Reyes on the basis of collateral estoppel.

Collateral estoppel, "applies to a subsequent suit between the parties or their privies on a different cause of action and prevents the parties or their privies from relitigating any issue that was actually litigated and finally decided in the earlier action." Omerod v. Heirs of Kaheananui, 116 Hawai'i 239, 264, 172 P.3d 983, 1008 {2007) (quoting Dorrance v. Lee, 90 Hawai'i 143, 148, 976 P.2d 904, 909 (1999)).

[T]he doctrine of collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue where: (1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication is identical to the one presented in the action in question; (2) there is a final judgment on the merits; (3} the issue decided in the prior adjudication was essential to the final judgment; and (4) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or the privity with a party to the prior adjudication.

Dorrance, 90 Hawai'i at 149, 976 P.2d at 910. This four-part test provides guidance to ensure that the purpose of the doctrine, to promote judicial economy and consistency, does not interfere with a party's opportunity to fully litigate his claims. See Isobe v. Sakatani, 127 Hawai'i 368, 376-77, 279 P.3d 33, 41-42 (App. 2012).

As to the first element in the collateral estoppel test, the issue decided in Hartley v. Heirs of Aki, a civil action under Civil No. 07-1-0456, is identical to the issue presented in this case. Hartley, was a quiet title action for land situated on Apana 1 and Apana 2. Reyes, a party in that case as well, raised the issue of whether the heirs of W.L. Puleloa, including himself, held any interest in Apana 1 and Apana 2. The circuit court made, in part, the following Findings of Fact:

59. The Puleloa Defendants failed to prove that they own any interest in those portions of Apana 1 and/or Apana 2 that are contained within TMK Parcel No. (2) 2-2-05-03.
60. The Puleloa Defendants did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence the genealogy, paper title, or intestate succession necessary to establish the interest they claim in those portions of Apana 1 and/or Apana 2 that are contained within TMK ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.