Puu Heleakala Community Association v. Collins

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
15-OCT-2024
08:00 AM
Dkt. 41 SO

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

PUU HELEAKALA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION,
by and through its Board of Directors, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
GABI KIM COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1RC181007771)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Gabi Kim Collins (Collins) appeals

from the February 22, 2021 Judgment (Judgment) entered by the

District Court of the First Circuit, Wai#anae Division (District

Court),1 against Collins and in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee Puu

Heleakala Community Association, by and through its Board of

Directors (Puu). Collins also challenges the District Court's

February 4, 2021 Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary

Judgment (SJ Order).

Collins raises two points of error on appeal,

contending that the District Court erred by: (1) assuming

1
The Honorable James C. McWhinnie presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

jurisdiction and adjudicating the case in violation of District

Court Rules of Civil Procedure (DCRCP) Rule 12.1, and Hawaii

Revised Statutes (HRS) § 604-5(d) (2016); and (2) granting

summary judgment to, and entering judgment in favor of, Puu

because Collins presented substantial evidence that the claim was

barred on multiple statutory grounds.

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, we
resolve Collins's points of error as follows:

(1) Collins argues that, pursuant to HRS § 604-5(d)

and DCRCP Rule 12.1, the District Court lacked jurisdiction to

resolve Puu's Complaint and motion for summary judgment. HRS §

604-5 (2016) states, in pertinent part:
§ 604-5 Civil Jurisdiction.
. . . .

(d) The district courts shall not have cognizance of
real actions, nor actions in which the title to real estate
comes in question . . .

DCRCP Rule 12.1 states:
Rule 12.1. DEFENSE OF TITLE IN DISTRICT COURTS.
Pleadings. Whenever, in the district court, in
defense of an action in the nature of an action of trespass
or for the summary possession of land, or any other action,
the defendant shall seek to interpose a defense to the
jurisdiction to the effect that the action is a real action,
or one in which the title to real estate is involved, such
defense shall be asserted by a written answer or written
motion, which shall not be received by the court unless
accompanied by an affidavit of the defendant, setting forth
the source, nature and extent of the title claimed by
defendant to the land in question, and such further
particulars as shall fully apprise the court of the nature
of defendant's claim.

Collins's arguments that title is in dispute are

loosely based on separate foreclosure proceedings involving the

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

subject property (Property). However, Puu's Complaint herein is

in the nature of assumpsit, seeking money owed stemming from the

time in which Collins owned the Property. Whether Bank of

America, Collins, or another person or entity currently owns the

Property is not relevant. Puu is plainly not attempting to

collect from Collins Property-related fees owed after August 15,

2016, when the Property was transferred to Federal Home Loan

Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) via a Commissioner's Deed. We

conclude that Collins's argument that the District Court lacked
jurisdiction is without merit.

(2) Collins makes several arguments in support of her

second point of error challenging the SJ Order.

The essence of Collins's first argument appears to be

that she was not in privity with About Time Acquisition, LLC, a

single member limited liability company owned by Collins (ATA).

Some of Collins's arguments are difficult to discern, but it

appears that Collins contends that she was wrongly found liable

for association fees accrued during the period of ATA's ownership

of the Property because that liability was founded in theories of

privity or piercing of the corporate veil. However, that was not
the case. To the extent that the Judgment was founded in part on

unpaid assessments prior to ATA's transfer of the Property to

Collins, the District Court's SJ Order stated:
(iv) Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes § 421J-10.5,
[Collins] is jointly and severally liable with [ATA] (the
preceding owner of the Subject Property) for all unpaid
assessments on the Subject Property which were due to the
Association prior to ATA conveying the Subject Property to
[Collins] in her individual capacity on November 26, 2014.

HRS § 421J-10.5 (Supp. 2017) states, in pertinent part:

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

§ 421J-10.5 Association fiscal matters; lien for
assessments. (a) All sums assessed by the association, but
unpaid for the share of the assessments chargeable to any
unit, shall constitute a lien on the unit.
. . . .

In the case of a voluntary conveyance, the grantee of
a unit shall be jointly and severally liable with the
grantor for all unpaid assessments against the latter for
the grantor's share of the common expenses up to the time of
the grant or conveyance, without prejudice to the grantee's
right to recover from the grantor the amounts paid by the
grantee. . . .

(Emphasis added).

Collins, acting for ATA, voluntarily conveyed the
Property to herself via quitclaim deed on November 26, 2014.

Thus, pursuant to HRS § 421-J-10.5, Collins, as grantee, is

jointly and severally liable with ATA, as grantor, for ATA's

unpaid assessments, and her arguments concerning privity are

without merit.

Collins's next argument appears to be that Puu should

be collaterally estopped from this collection action because the

claim is barred by the final judgment in the foreclosure action;

Collins contends that the claim was thus extinguished in the

foreclosure action. However, contrary to Collins's assertion,

the circuit court in the foreclosure action specifically found
that Puu had a statutory lien against the Property pursuant to

HRS § 421J-10.5, which was not extinguished by the foreclosure.

Collins's argument is without merit.

Collins further argues that Puu's claim is barred

pursuant to HRS § 514B-146(b) (2018) because the purchaser of the

Property, FHLMC, should have been responsible for expenses or

assessments at an earlier date. It appears, however, that

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Collins's argument may be based on an incomplete or incorrect

reading of the statute.
§ 514B-146 Association fiscal matters; lien for
assessments.
. . . .
(b) Except as provided in subsection (j), when the
mortgagee of a mortgage of record or other purchaser of a
unit obtains title to the unit as a result of foreclosure of
the mortgage, the acquirer of title and the acquirer's
successors and assigns shall not be liable for the share of
the common expenses or assessments by the association
chargeable to the unit that became due prior to the
acquisition of title to the unit by the acquirer. The
unpaid share of common expenses or assessments shall be
deemed to be common expenses collectible from all of the
unit owners, including the acquirer and the acquirer's
successors and assigns. The mortgagee of record or other
purchaser of the unit shall be deemed to acquire title and
shall be required to pay the unit's share of common expenses
and assessments beginning:

(1) Thirty-six days after the order confirming the
sale to the purchaser has been filed with the
court;

(2) Sixty days after the hearing at which the court
grants the motion to confirm the sale to the
purchaser;
(3) Thirty days after the public sale in a
nonjudicial power of sale foreclosure conducted
pursuant to chapter 667; or
(4) Upon the recording of the instrument of
conveyance;

whichever occurs first; provided that the mortgagee of
record or other purchaser of the unit shall not be deemed to
acquire title under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) , if transfer
of title is delayed past the thirty-six days specified in
paragraph (1), the sixty days specified in paragraph (2), or
the thirty days specified in paragraph (3), when a person
who appears at the hearing on the motion or a party to the
foreclosure action requests reconsideration of the motion or
order to confirm sale, objects to the form of the proposed
order to confirm sale, appeals the decision of the court to
grant the motion to confirm sale, or the debtor or mortgagor
declares bankruptcy or is involuntarily placed into
bankruptcy. In any such case, the mortgagee of record or
other purchaser of the unit shall be deemed to acquire title
upon recordation of the instrument of conveyance.

(Emphasis added).

In the subject foreclosure action, the order to confirm

sale was entered on April 28, 2016. Collins filed a motion for

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

reconsideration of, inter alia, the April 28, 2016 order to

confirm sale. Therefore, the final sentence (bolded) above is

controlling. Title was conveyed on August 15, 2016, by way of

Commissioner's Deed filed in the Office of the Assistant

Registrar of the Land Court of the State of Hawai#i. Collins's

argument based on HRS § 514B-146(b) is without merit.

Collins cites HRS § 667-33 (2016) and contends that the

foreclosure on the Property extinguished junior liens against the

Property. Collins provides no discernible arguments regarding
her request for relief from the District Court's money judgment

against her. We conclude that this argument is without merit.

Collins makes additional arguments regarding assumpsit

and bad faith. However, these arguments are difficult to discern

and are not made in compliance with Hawai#i Rules of Appellate

Procedure Rule 28(b)(4), (7). We conclude that these arguments

are waived and/or no appellate relief is warranted based on these

arguments.

For these reasons, the District Court's February 22,

2021 Judgment is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 15, 2024.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Acting Chief Judge
Gabi Kim Collins,
Defendant-Appellant Pro Se. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Associate Judge
R. Laree McGuire,
(Porter McGuire Kiakona, LLP), /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
for Plaintiff-Appellee. Associate Judge

6