From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gee v. Loo

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i.
Oct 12, 2015
136 Haw. 372 (Haw. Ct. App. 2015)

Opinion

No. CAAP–14–0000888.

10-12-2015

Phillip GEE, Agent for Estate of Beatrice Pang and Family Trust, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Richard G. LOO, Sherrie Lynn Loo, Wallace D. Loo, Defendants–Appellees.

Jacob M. Merrill, on the brief, for Plaintiff–Appellant.


Jacob M. Merrill, on the brief, for Plaintiff–Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

[136 Hawai'i 1]

Plaintiff–Appellant Philip Gee, Agent for the Estate of Beatrice Pang and Family Trust (Gee), appeals from the Judgment entered on May 15, 2014 in the District Court of the First Circuit (district court).

On appeal, Gee contends the district court erred in:

(1) determining that he had failed to produce sufficient evidence to support an award of damages for breach of contract in the amount of $8,026.12;

(2) denying his request to deduct $850.00 from the security deposit;

(3) refusing to award him pre-judgment interest of $827.31; and

(4) denying his “Non–Hearing Motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” (Motion for FOF/COL) for purposes of this appeal.

I. BACKGROUND

Gee, as a landlord, entered into a rental agreement with tenants, Defendants–Appellees Richard Loo, Sherrie Lynn Loo, and Wallace D. Loo (Wallace) (collectively, Appellees), on February 20, 2009. On December 22, 2011, the condominium association, Association of Apartment Owners of Kaimana Lanais (AOAO), sent a demand letter to Gee to evict his tenants based on violations of AOAO rules. In January 2012, Appellees signed a letter acknowledging that they would vacate the rental unit by February 23, 2012, but did not do so.

Gee filed a complaint against Appellees.in the district court on April 12, 2012. Appellees vacated the rental unit on May 3, 2012. On or around May 23, 2012, Gee sent Wallace a letter outlining charges to be passed on to Appellees and deductions from their security deposit.

On May 20, 2013, Gee filed a “Non–Hearing Motion for Default Judgment” (Motion for Default Judgment) The district court granted in part a renewed version of the motion on May 8, 2014. The district court received Gee's Motion for FOF/COL on May 12, 2014 and filed the denial of the motion on June 5, 2014. The district court entered the Judgment on May 15, 2014.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (FOF/COL)

A trial court's findings of fact (FOF) are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Leslie v. Estate of Tavares, 91 Hawai‘i 394, 399, 984 P.2d 1220, 1225 (1999). “An FOF is also clearly erroneous when the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding. [The Hawai‘i Supreme Court has] defined ‘substantial evidence’ as credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion.” Id. (quoting State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai‘i 319, 328, 984 P.2d 78, 87 (1999)) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

“A trial court's conclusions of law [ (COL) ] are reviewed de novo, under the right/wrong standard of review.” In re Estate of Kam, 110 Hawai‘i 8, 18, 129 P.3d 511, 521 (2006) (quoting Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Roe, 96 Hawai‘i 1, 11, 25 P.3d 60, 70 (2001) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

“However, a COL that presents mixed questions of fact and law is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard because the court's conclusions are dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case.” Chun v. Bd. of Trustees of Employees' Ret. Sys. Of State of Hawai‘i, 106 Hawai‘i 416, 430, 106 P.3d 339, 353 (2005) (quoting Allstate Ins. Co. V. Ponce, 105 Hawai‘i 445, 453, 99 P.3d 96, 104 (2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

B. Pre–Judgment Interest Awards

[136 Hawai'i 2]

“An award of prejudgment interest is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Tri–S Corp. V. Western World Ins. Co., 110 Hawai‘i 473, 489, 135 P.3d 82, 98 (2006) (citing Amfac, Inc. V. Waikiki Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Haw. 85, 137, 839 P.2d 10, 36 (1992)). An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court has “clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant.” Amfac, 74 Haw. at 114, 839 P.2d at 26.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Breach of Contract Award

Gee argues that the district court's reduction of the principal amount claimed from $8,026.12 to $5,115.26

B. Security Deposit Deduction

Gee argues that the district court's denial of his requested deductions from the security deposit was reversible error because the district court's explanation was inadequate.

The district court entered a line-item subtraction from the total default judgment award in the amount of $1,400 for “security deposit.” The district court gave no explanation for this amount other than its summary conclusion “Damages not awarded were due to insufficiency of proof.”

In his Motion for Default Judgment, Gee listed a number of deductions from the security deposit that totaled $850. In his declaration, Gee listed the deductions: “i. $400.00 for one half rug replacement costs; ii. $150.00 to purchase and install vanity mirror; iii. $150.00 to purchase and replace toilet; iv. $50.00 to clean jalousie and oven; and v. $100.00 to repair holes in walls.” Attached as Exhibit 11 to Gee's declaration, Gee provided a more detailed explanation for the deductions in a note he sent to Wallace on or around May 23, 2013:


Summaries of

Gee v. Loo

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i.
Oct 12, 2015
136 Haw. 372 (Haw. Ct. App. 2015)
Case details for

Gee v. Loo

Case Details

Full title:Phillip GEE, Agent for Estate of Beatrice Pang and Family Trust…

Court:Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i.

Date published: Oct 12, 2015

Citations

136 Haw. 372 (Haw. Ct. App. 2015)