Morinoue v. Roy
947 P.2d 944, 86 Haw. 76, 1997 Haw. LEXIS 91 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claimant seeking title through adverse possession on a motion for summary judgment must provide clear and positive proof of each element, and vague, conclusory affidavits regarding land use are insufficient to meet this high burden. If a cotenancy may exist, the claimant has a heightened duty to prove they acted in good faith, which typically requires providing actual notice to cotenants of the adverse claim.
Facts:
- The Morinoue and Roy families both trace their claims to a parcel of land (L.C.A. 9932) back to an ancestor, John A. Hoopale.
- On October 13, 1920, John A. Hoopale conveyed his interest in the property to Kinshiro Yamamoto.
- Yamamoto sold the property to Mitsuru Mizukami (Ayako Morinoue's mother) on April 12, 1924. The Morinoue family claims they began farming the property and tending to existing coffee trees around this time.
- Around 1952, John A. Hoopale visited Ayako Morinoue and stated that when he sold the property in 1920, he had not intended to sell his sisters' shares in it.
- On April 6, 1954, John Hoopale's widow, Lily K. Hoopale, sold her interest in the property to Josephine Roy, the mother of defendant Carlton A. Roy.
- Between 1958 and 1960, David K. Roy, Jr. also purchased the interests of several other heirs of John A. Hoopale.
- Ayako Morinoue asserted that her family posted signs and told the Roys they were the rightful owners, but did not specify when these actions occurred.
Procedural Posture:
- The Morinoues filed an action to quiet title in the circuit court (trial court).
- The Roys filed an answer and a counterclaim asserting their own title to the property.
- The Morinoues filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing they had acquired title through adverse possession.
- The circuit court granted the Morinoues' motion for summary judgment, quieting title in their favor.
- The Roys (appellants) appealed the amended judgment to the Supreme Court of Hawai'i after two previous appeals were dismissed for procedural defects.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a claimant's affidavit containing vague assertions about farming and tending coffee trees, without specifics on the extent, visibility, or timing of these activities, provide the 'clear and positive proof' necessary to establish the elements of adverse possession and warrant summary judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Levinson, Justice
No. A claimant's affidavit with vague assertions about farming and tending trees does not meet the 'clear and positive proof' standard required to establish a prima facie case of adverse possession on a motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that the burden to prove adverse possession is exceptionally high, requiring 'clear and positive proof' of actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous, and exclusive possession. Ayako Morinoue's affidavit, which stated the property was 'farmed' and that they 'tended the coffee trees,' was deemed too vague and conclusory. It lacked crucial specifics about the extent of the cultivation, its visibility to the public, and its continuity, failing to establish that the use was notorious enough to put the world on notice. Furthermore, the court found a genuine issue of material fact regarding a potential cotenancy between the parties. If they are cotenants, the Morinoues bear a special burden to show they acted in good faith by providing actual notice of their hostile claim. John Hoopale's 1952 visit put the Morinoues on notice of other potential ownership interests, undermining any claim that they had 'no reason to suspect' a cotenancy. While the Morinoues claimed to have posted signs and told the Roys they were the owners, the affidavit failed to state when this occurred, making it impossible to determine if the statutory period for adverse possession had been met.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the stringent evidentiary requirements for adverse possession claims, particularly at the summary judgment stage where the moving party's evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. It clarifies that general, conclusory statements about land use in an affidavit are legally insufficient to satisfy the 'clear and positive proof' standard. The ruling also underscores the special burden on claimants who may be cotenants, requiring them to affirmatively prove they acted in good faith, which usually means providing actual notice to their cotenants of the adverse claim. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for parties to win adverse possession cases on summary judgment without detailed, specific, and dated evidence of their use and communications.
