ICA’s Disposition on Remand. On remand, the ICA held that the language of the 2009 Dismissal Order did not xxx Xxxxxxx from commencing a quiet title action against Xxxxxxx because it expressly limited the requirement that Xxxxxxx pay $750 before commencing a subsequent quiet title action to the Fas and Peni. The ICA therefore affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Xxxxxxx’x Precondition Motion. As to Xxxxxxx’x Indispensable Party Motion, the ICA held that “[t]he circuit court did not err in denying” it “because dismissal was not the proper remedy for Xxxxxxx’x failure to name [Xxxx] in his complaint.” The ICA reasoned that, although Xxxx is a person that should be joined if feasible under Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 19, he was not an indispensable party under that rule; hence, dismissal was unnecessary. The ICA also noted that Xxxx’x joinder was feasible because he became an intervenor at a later stage of the circuit court proceedings. Consequently, the ICA affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Xxxxxxx’x Indispensable Party Motion. As to the circuit court’s denial of Xxxxxxx’x motion for reconsideration of her two motions to dismiss, the ICA held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion because “Xxxxxxx presented no ‘new evidence and/or arguments that could not have been presented during the earlier adjudicated motion[s].’” The ICA therefore affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Xxxxxxx’x motion for reconsideration. Finally, the ICA held that the circuit court erred by granting both summary judgment motions in their entirety. The ICA explained that Xxxxxxx was able to raise a genuine issue of material fact by producing the quitclaim deed that purported to convey to her and Peni the entire 10,000-square-foot parcel within Parcel 33. The ICA therefore concluded that whether Xxxxxxx has an interest to the entire 10,000-square-foot parcel within Parcel 33 or an interest to only a portion of the 10,000- square-foot parcel “was an issue of fact to be determined at trial, not on summary judgment.” However, the ICA held that “Xxxxxxx’x argument that she acquired the 10,000 square foot portion of Parcel 33 by adverse possession is without merit because she has not established possession for the required twenty-year period.”7 7 Chief Judge Xxxxxxxx would have affirmed the circuit court’s orders in their entirety. In his view, the Teisinas “did not make any discernible argument based on a claim of paper title that the Circuit Court erred in determining t...
