The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals has upheld a harassment injunction against Mark Duering, a former landlord, protecting his former tenant, Anaya Gonda. The court's decision, issued on July 31, 2026, affirms a lower court's ruling that Duering engaged in a pattern of harassment against Gonda, which included sending her numerous unsolicited text messages.
This ruling is significant as it reinforces the legal protections available to individuals facing harassment, particularly in landlord-tenant relationships. The decision emphasizes that unwanted communication can lead to legal consequences, providing a measure of safety for individuals who may feel threatened or disturbed by persistent contact.
Background
The case began when Anaya Gonda filed a Petition for an Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and an Injunction Against Harassment against Mark Duering on December 11, 2024. Gonda alleged that Duering had harassed her both before and after she vacated her apartment on September 11, 2023. She claimed he sent her over 25 disturbing text messages, which she described as having no legitimate purpose and focused on her health, particularly regarding her views on COVID vaccines.
During a trial that took place over three days, Gonda testified about her experiences with Duering. She described an incident on September 11, 2023, when she returned to her apartment to find Duering there with a painter. Gonda stated that Duering yelled at her boyfriend, Gustavo D'Amico, leading to a police intervention. Gonda asserted that she explicitly told Duering not to contact her again, except through her attorney. Despite this, she testified that Duering continued to send her messages in the months following her departure from the apartment.
The Ruling
The Intermediate Court of Appeals, led by Presiding Judge Katherine G. Leonard, reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision to grant the injunction for three years. The court found that Duering's actions constituted harassment as defined by Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 604-10.5, which outlines that harassment includes a course of conduct that seriously alarms or disturbs an individual without a legitimate purpose.
The court ruled, "The court will find that Ms. Gonda did say that to Mr. Duering and Mr. Duering was on notice that any communication, further communication outside of those exceptions were unwanted."
In its ruling, the court noted that Duering had continued to send messages despite Gonda's clear request for no further contact. The court emphasized that Gonda was seriously alarmed and disturbed by Duering's communications, which served no legitimate purpose. The judges concluded that the evidence supported the finding of harassment.
Impact
This ruling has important implications for both landlords and tenants in Hawaii. It reinforces the idea that landlords must respect the boundaries set by their former tenants, especially in terms of communication after a rental agreement has ended. The decision highlights that unwanted contact, particularly if it causes emotional distress, can lead to legal consequences.
Moreover, the ruling sets a precedent for similar cases in the future, affirming that courts will take allegations of harassment seriously and provide protection to individuals who feel threatened by persistent communication. This case serves as a reminder that the law recognizes the right of individuals to live free from harassment and intimidation.
What's Next
Duering has the option to appeal the ruling to a higher court, although details were not available in the court filing regarding whether he plans to do so. There are no related cases pending that have been mentioned in the court's opinion.