Opinion
No. CAAP–13–0000075.
08-24-2015
FRANCISCAN VILLAS LLC, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. ST. FRANCIS RESIDENTIAL CARE COMMUNITY ; St. Francis Healthcare System of Hawaii, Defendants–Appellees, and John Does 1–10; Jane Does 1–10; Doe Corporations 1–10; Doe Partnerships 1–10; Doe Entities 1–10; Doe “Non–Profit” Corporations 1–10; and Doe Governmental Agencies 1–10, Defendants.
William Meheula, Natasha Baldauf, (Sullivan Meheula Lee LLLP), on the briefs, for plaintiff-appellant. Robert G. Klein, Randall K. Schmitt, Jordon J. Kimura, Jesse J.T. Smith, (McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP), on the briefs, for defendants-appellees.
William Meheula, Natasha Baldauf, (Sullivan Meheula Lee LLLP), on the briefs, for plaintiff-appellant.
Robert G. Klein, Randall K. Schmitt, Jordon J. Kimura, Jesse J.T. Smith, (McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP), on the briefs, for defendants-appellees.
FUJISE, Presiding Judge, LEONARD and REIFURTH, JJ.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Plaintiff–Appellant Franciscan Villas LLC (FVL ) appeals from the February 4, 2013 Order Granting Defendant St. Francis Residential Care Community's Motion to Expunge Franciscan Villas LLC's Notice of Pendency of Action (Expungement Order ), entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court ). Defendants–Appellees are St. Francis Residential Care Community (Residential ) and St. Francis Healthcare System of Hawai‘i (System ) (collectively, Appellees ).
The terms “notice of pendency of action” and “lis pendens ” are used interchangeably in Hawai‘i case law. See, e.g ., Lathrop v. Sakatani, 111 Hawai‘i 307, 309 n.1, 141 P.3d 480, 482 n.1 (2006).
The Honorable Karl K. Sakamoto presided.
System is the parent company of Residential.
--------
FVL raises a single point of error on appeal, contending that the Circuit Court abused its discretion in granting the Motion to Expunge and entering the Expungement Order.
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 FVL's point of error as follows:
In S. Utsunomiya Enters. v. Moomuku Country Club, 75 Haw. 480, 866 P.2d 951 (1994), the Hawai‘i Supreme Court clearly held that “the filing of a lis pendens must be limited in application to actions directly seeking to obtain title to or possession of real property[.]” Utsunomiya, 75 Haw. at 484, 866 P.2d at 956.
Acknowledging that there was some authority to the contrary, the court emphasized that it “[found] more persuasive the authority that holds that the lis pendens statute must be strictly construed and that the application of lis pendens should be limited to actions directly seeking to obtain title to or possession of real property.” Id. at 510, 866 P.2d at 966 (emphasis in original). FVL does not directly seek to obtain title to or possession of the subject real property. FVL's argument in favor of a broader interpretation of Utsunomiya 's holding, based in part on an Arizona Court of Appeals decision, is of no avail.
Accordingly, the Circuit Court's February 4, 2013 Expungement Order is affirmed.