WAILUKU AGRIBUSINESS CO., INC. v. Ah Sam
155 P.3d 1125, 114 Haw. 24 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a cotenancy may exist, a party claiming title by adverse possession must prove it acted in good faith towards its cotenants, which generally requires actual notice of the adverse claim. A claimant cannot satisfy the good faith standard's objective reasonableness requirement if publicly recorded documents would have put them on notice of the potential cotenancy.
Facts:
- In 1852, Kaluau was granted three parcels of land, including Apana 1 and Apana 3, via a Land Commission Award.
- Kaluau died intestate around 1855, survived by his parents, two sisters (Haleamau and Kahololio), and a nephew (Kaluau-Opio).
- In 1855, Kaluau's father and two other relatives, but not his mother, executed a deed purporting to convey land to John Richardson. This deed was not recorded until 1878.
- In 1873, a probate court formally declared Kaluau's sisters, Haleamau and Kahololio, and his nephew, Kaluau-Opio, as his legal heirs.
- In 1875, Haleamau and Kaluau-Opio conveyed all their interests in Kaluau's property to their sister Kahololio in a deed that was recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances. The Petitioners are descendants of Kahololio.
- Through a series of subsequent conveyances originating from the 1855 deed, Wailuku Agribusiness Co. acquired what it alleges is Apana 1 in 1894.
- From at least 1935 until the lawsuit, Wailuku and its predecessors used both Apana 1 and Apana 3 for large-scale sugar cane and pineapple cultivation.
Procedural Posture:
- Wailuku Agribusiness Co., Inc. filed a quiet title action against Petitioners in the second circuit court of Hawai'i (the trial court).
- Wailuku moved for summary judgment, claiming title to Apana 1 and Apana 3 by adverse possession.
- The trial court granted Wailuku's motions for summary judgment and entered final judgment in its favor.
- Petitioners (as Defendants-Appellants) appealed the final judgment to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA).
- The ICA affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Wailuku (as Plaintiff-Appellee).
- Petitioners filed an application for a writ of certiorari, which the Supreme Court of Hawai'i granted to review the ICA's decision.
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 the existence of a publicly recorded deed creating a potential cotenancy raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether an adverse possessor acted in good faith, thereby making summary judgment improper?
Opinions:
Majority - Acoba, J.
Yes. Summary judgment on the adverse possession claim for Apana 1 was improper because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Wailuku Agribusiness Co. acted in good faith towards its potential cotenants. A tenant in common claiming adverse possession has a heightened burden due to the fiduciary relationship between cotenants. This 'good faith' requirement generally mandates that the adverse claimant provide actual notice to their cotenants. While there is an exception for when the claimant has 'no reason to suspect that a cotenancy exists,' this standard includes an objective requirement of reasonableness. The existence of the publicly recorded 1875 deed, which conveyed title to the Petitioners' ancestor, put Wailuku on constructive notice of a potential cotenancy. This recorded instrument creates a triable issue of fact as to whether Wailuku's belief in its sole ownership was objectively reasonable, and thus, summary judgment was inappropriate. However, for Apana 3, to which Wailuku claimed no paper title, no evidence of a cotenancy between the parties existed. Therefore, the standard rules of adverse possession apply, and Wailuku successfully established its claim.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the stringent requirements for a cotenant to adversely possess property against fellow cotenants, solidifying the precedent set in City & County of Honolulu v. Bennett. The court emphasizes that the 'good faith' exception to the actual notice rule is not merely subjective belief but is judged by an objective 'should have known' standard. By holding that a publicly recorded deed can create a genuine issue of material fact regarding this objective reasonableness, the decision significantly strengthens the position of heirs with recorded interests. It makes it substantially more difficult for an adverse possessor in a potential cotenancy situation to win on summary judgment by simply claiming ignorance of other owners.
Unlock the full brief for WAILUKU AGRIBUSINESS CO., INC. v. Ah Sam