In re: Application of Hind to Register Land Situate at Wailupe, Honolulu, Oahu

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
13-APR-2026
08:17 AM
Dkt. 64 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ROBERT HIND
TO REGISTER LAND SITUATE AT WAILUPE, HONOLULU, OAHU

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
TAI SHAN SHI YE LLC, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
ELSIE T. HARADA and CHAD K. ARAKAWA,
Trustees of the Francis K. Harada Family Trust under an
unrecorded Francis K. Harada, Revocable Living Trust
dated October 4, 1990;
ELSIE T. HARADA and CHAD K. ARAKAWA,
Trustees of the Elsie T. Harada Revocable Living Trust
under an unrecorded Trust Instrument dated October 4, 1990;
ANN FIDDLER, Executor of the Estate of Robert Fiddler,
deceased, Respondents-Appellants

APPEAL FROM THE LAND COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
(CASE NO. 1CLD-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)

This case involves a disputed easement over land court-
registered property in #Âina Haina.1 Tai Shan Shi Ye LLC owns
Lot 1688 (the Dominant Property). Elsie T. Harada, Chad K.
Arakawa, and Ann Fiddler own Lot 1232-A-3 (the Servient

1
Lit., Hind's land (named for Robert Hind, who started the Hind-
Clarke Dairy there in 1924). Mary Kawena Pukui, Samuel H. Elbert & Esther T.
Mookini, Place Names of Hawaii 7 (1976).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Property). The Land Court granted Tai Shan's Petition to amend
the Servient Property's certificate2 to note an Easement giving
the Dominant Property access to Hao Street. Harada, Arakawa, and
Fiddler appeal from the Land Court's Amended Judgment.3 We
affirm.
Land Court Order 68604 created the Dominant Property.
It granted the Dominant Property access to what would become Hao
Street by an easement over the Servient Property. It stated:

4. Said Lots 1653 through 1688, inclusive, will
have access to a public road as follows:
. . . .

G. Said Lot 1688 has access by way of an
easement over, along and under Lot 1232-A-3 (Roadway),
as shown on Map 125[ 4] of Land Court Application
No. 656.

The Easement was noted on the Dominant Property's
certificate,5 but not on the certificate for the Servient
Property.
On October 15, 2020, Tai Shan filed the Petition to
amend the Servient Property's certificate to note the Easement.
Harada, Arakawa, and Fiddler answered and objected to the
Petition.
On August 22, 2022, Tai Shan filed a memorandum that
attached a copy of Order 68604 marked as Exhibit E, Land Court
Order 31179 marked as Exhibit L, and other land court documents.

2
"Certificate means a certificate of title showing the owner's
name, a description of the land and a summary of encumbrances affecting the
land, if any." Rules of the Land Court, Rule 1.2.
3
The Honorable Gary W.B. Chang presided.
4
Map 125 shows the Servient Property is a "(44-ft. Road)"
terminating on Hao Street.
5
Certificate No. 1033825 described the Dominant Property as 100.963
acres,

TOGETHER WITH a right of way across Lot 1232-A-3 as
provided by Land Court Order 68604[.]

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

An evidentiary hearing was held on September 12, 2022.
Harada, Arakawa, and Fiddler's attorney, Mark Kawata, requested
permission to ask Tai Shan's attorney, Michael Lam, questions.
The court granted the request but stated, "we won't call it
cross-examination since Mr. Lam is not a witness[.]" Kawata
replied, "Yes."
Kawata asked Lam — who was not placed under oath —
questions about Exhibit L (Order 31179). Page three of Exhibit L
stated:

NOTE:
Petition states "Lot 1463-A-2 shall have an easement
12 feet wide over and across Lot 1463-A-1 for access to
public roadways. At such time as said land is developed and
a roadway lot or roadway lots are created serving Lot
1463-A-2, said easement shall be confined to said roadway
lot or roadway lots and the remainder of Lot 1463-A-1 is
released."

This exchange took place:

MR. KAWATA: Turn to page three. Let's go back to the
section that's under the words capital -- all caps, NOTE.

Now, the easement referred to here is a 12 foot wide
easement over and across Lot 1463 A-1 [sic]. Is that
correct?
MR. LAM: There's a 12 foot notation.

MR. KAWATA: And it -- so is [Tai Shan] asking for a
12 foot wide notation -- a 12 foot wide easement over Lot
1232-A-3?

MR. LAM: My understanding is that [Tai Shan] are
requesting the easement or [sic] and along [Harada, Arakawa,
and Fiddler's] lot for roadway purposes --
MR. KAWATA: Okay, now --

MR. LAM: -- (inaudible) can be determined on
reasonableness and --
MR. KAWATA: And, Mr. Lam, aren't you -- isn't [Tai
Shan] expanding the scope of the easement past the 12 foot
wide limitation noted in the Order of Subdivision?
MR. LAM: There's nothing in our moving papers or our
evidence seeking to expand anything. We're seeking to
obtain the easement noted on the certificate of -- of title
on [Harada, Arakawa, and Fiddler's] property, as reflected
in Exhibit E, Section 4G at page 17.
. . . .

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

MR. KAWATA: And you would agree with me that Lot
1463-A-1 is a precursor to [Harada, Arakawa, and Fiddler's]
Lot Number 1232-A-3; is that correct?

MR. LAM: All I know, Mr. Kawata, is that Exhibit E is
a document that was amended and the original filing date of
that is January 26th, 1984. That document contains the
easement that we're referring to.
MR. KAWATA: Do you have a copy of a map which
delineates where on Lot 1232-A-3 the easement is located or
what the boundaries of the easement are?

THE COURT: There is no such map.
MR. KAWATA: Okay.

THE COURT: What’s your point, Mr. Kawata? This is
not to determine the location of the easement. It is --

MR. KAWATA: Yes.
THE COURT: -- to determine or note on the certificate
of title the easement over [Harada, Arakawa, and Fiddler's]
property.
MR. KAWATA: Okay. Now I agree with that, your Honor.
But should the notation not be limited to 12 feet?

THE COURT: Well, of course.

MR. KAWATA: Yes. And that's the only reason I'm
inquiring of this.
THE COURT: Well -- well -- well -- well, where does
-- it’s -- where do [Tai Shan] say that they want an
easement wider than 12 feet?
MR. KAWATA: Ah, they weren’t specific. I -- I heard
Mr. Lam to say they want the whole lot. That's my
understanding.

THE COURT: No, I’m not granting an easement over the
entire lot. It’s going to be a 12 foot wide easement.
We're -- we're wasting our time.

(Emphasis added.)
The Land Court orally ruled that a 12-foot easement in
favor of the Dominant Property burdened the Servient Property,
and orally granted the Petition. But Kawata — and apparently the
Land Court — were mistaken. Map 237, to which Order 31179
referred, showed the subdivision of Lot 1463-A into Lots 1463-A-1
and 1463-A-2. The map showed the Servient Property as existing
Lot 1232-A-3. Lot 1463-A-1 was not "a precursor" to the Servient
Property.

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

On September 19, 2022, Tai Shan filed a Motion for
Clarification of the Land Court's oral ruling. The motion stated
that although the Land Court ruled the Easement to be twelve feet
wide, "the land court order granting an access easement . . .
does not restrict, in any way, the easement within" the Servient
Property. The motion asked for clarification that the Easement's
width was not restricted.
Harada, Arakawa, and Fiddler objected to the motion.
They argued: (1) the motion was one for reconsideration, and was
based on evidence that could and should have been introduced at
trial; (2) there was no mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect; (3) there was no showing of exceptional
circumstances demonstrating a need for extraordinary relief; and
(4) the trial was over and further consideration of evidence is
barred by res judicata.
The Land Court granted the motion. The March 14, 2024
order stated:

after the evidentiary hearing concluded and before the
parties submitted their proposed findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and order, [Tai Shan] realized that an
error had been made. The references to a 12' wide easement
actually related to a different easement, not the subject
easement. The subject easement did not have any such 12
foot width restriction.

There is no evidence that any attorney or party
intentionally misled the court during the evidentiary
hearing. Furthermore, it appears that the error regarding
any dimension restriction or limitation was genuine and not
the product of any party attempting to falsify the evidence.
Therefore, the court finds and concludes that any
reference to the subject easement being a 12 foot wide
easement is a product of an honest mistake. As such,
pursuant to HRCP 60(b), the court finds and concludes that
there is good cause to amend or clarify the court's finding
and conclusion that the subject easement is a 12 foot wide
access easement. Any reference to the subject easement
being 12 feet wide shall be deleted from the court’s order.
. . . .

The court specifically prefers to include in the
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order the
following language: "subject access easement does not have
any restriction or limitation at this time."

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

The Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and
Order Granting Petition to Amend Certificate of Title No. 536,208
to Note Easement was entered on April 15, 2024.6 Finding of fact
no. 11 — the only one challenged by Harada, Arakawa, and Fiddler
— states: "At this time and on the record before the Court, no
restriction or limitation of the subject access easement exists."
As we discuss below, that finding was not clearly erroneous.
The Amended Judgment was also entered on April 15,
7
2024. This appeal followed. Harada, Arakawa, and Fiddler state
fourteen points of error. Their six-point argument does not
follow their points of error. We analyze their arguments; points
not argued are waived. Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure
Rule 28(b)(7).
(A) Harada, Arakawa, and Fiddler argue the Motion for
Clarification should have been denied because Tai Shan failed "to
show or prove any 'mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect' in this case as required under Rule 60(b)(l) HRCP."
The Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) apply to
proceedings before the Land Court. See HRCP Rule 81(b)(1). HRCP
Rule 60 covers motions for relief "from a final judgment, order,
or proceeding" (emphasis added). When Tai Shan moved for
clarification, proceedings on its Petition were not final because
the Land Court had not entered a final judgment or final order
from which an appeal could have been taken. The Land Court's
oral order about a 12-foot easement was interlocutory. HRCP
Rule 60 did not apply to the motion. See PennyMac Corp. v.
Godinez, 148 Hawai#i 323, 328, 474 P.3d 264, 269 (2020) (stating
that the "primary purpose" of an HRCP Rule 60(b) motion "is to
authorize the reopening of a closed case or a final order"
(quoting Cho v. State, 115 Hawai#i 373, 383, 168 P.3d 17, 27
(2007))).

6
It is unclear why the document was titled "Amended," because the
record shows no previous entry of written findings, conclusions or an order on
the Petition.
7
Again, it is unclear why the judgment was titled "Amended" because
the record shows no previous entry of a judgment.

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The Land Court's order granting the Motion for
Clarification cited HRCP Rule 60(b), but the error was harmless.
A "trial court has inherent power to reconsider interlocutory
orders." Cho, 115 Hawai#i at 383, 168 P.3d at 27. The record
clearly shows the Land Court made a mistake — induced by Kawata —
by referring to a 12-foot easement that did not burden the
Servient Property. Contrary to Harada, Arakawa, and Fiddler's
argument, Lam did not make the same mistake; he stated that
Exhibit E (Order 68604) "contains the easement that we're
referring to." Order 68604 contained no 12-foot limitation. The
Land Court acted within its discretion by exercising its inherent
power to correct the mistake induced by Kawata.
(B) Harada, Arakawa, and Fiddler's argument that there
was "no other reason justifying relief from judgment" lacks
merit.
(C) Harada, Arakawa, and Fiddler's argument that an
"evidentiary hearing was necessary to have [the] relief
requested" lacks merit. The Motion for Clarification was not
based on new evidence. The Land Court reconsidered its
interlocutory oral order based on evidence admitted during the
evidentiary hearing.
(D) Harada, Arakawa, and Fiddler's argument that "the
case was decided on the merits and thus relief should be denied
under res judicata and collateral estoppel" lacks merit.
PennyMac Corp., 148 Hawai#i at 329-30, 474 P.3d at 270-71
(concluding that res judicata did not apply because a motion for
reconsideration "was not a new action but rather a continuation
of the original foreclosure case").
(E) Harada, Arakawa, and Fiddler's argument that Lam
was precluded "from testifying as a witness" is utterly without
merit. Kawata acknowledged that Lam was not a witness.
(F) Harada, Arakawa, and Fiddler's argument that the
evidence on which the Motion for Clarification was based was
"inadmissible due to lack of foundation" lacks merit. The motion
was based on the content of documents admitted into evidence for
the evidentiary hearing. Those documents had also been filed in

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the land court, and were subject to judicial notice. See
Rule 201, Hawaii Rules of Evidence, Chapter 626, Hawaii Revised
Statutes (2016).
The Land Court acted within its discretion by granting
Tai Shan's Motion for Clarification. The Amended Judgment
entered on April 15, 2024, is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 13, 2026.

On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Mark S. Kawata, Presiding Judge
for Respondents-
Appellants. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Associate Judge
Michael L. Lam,
Lisa K. Broulik, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Steven E. Tom, Associate Judge
Kenneth V. Go,
for Petitioner-Appellee
Tai Shan Shi Ye LLC.

8