The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled against Celeste M. Gonsalves, affirming an earlier eviction judgment against her. This decision, issued on June 10, 2026, came after Gonsalves filed multiple motions to challenge the eviction that stemmed from a landlord-tenant dispute. The ruling is significant as it reinforces the authority of lower courts in eviction cases and clarifies the standards for appealing such decisions.
The case originated in 2021 when Gonsalves was renting an accessory dwelling unit from landlords Stuart Glauberman and Vicky Ramil. When Gonsalves refused to vacate the unit, Glauberman and Ramil initiated legal action for summary possession and damages. Gonsalves countered with her claims, but the District Court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Glauberman and Ramil. Gonsalves appealed this decision, but the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's ruling in January 2024.
Following the appellate court's decision, Gonsalves attempted to challenge the ruling further. She filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Hawaii Supreme Court, which was denied. She then sought a similar petition with the United States Supreme Court, which also declined to hear her case. Despite these setbacks, Gonsalves continued her legal battle by returning to the District Court in June 2025, filing a motion to vacate the judgment based on claims of new evidence and violations of federal eviction laws.
In her motion, Gonsalves argued that the eviction did not comply with federal regulations and that the court lacked jurisdiction. She claimed that her due process rights were violated and that the judgment was void due to these alleged violations. However, the District Court denied her motion on July 25, 2025, and subsequently denied her request for reconsideration on August 7, 2025. Gonsalves then appealed this denial to the Intermediate Court of Appeals.
The court, led by Presiding Judge Katherine G. Leonard and Associate Judges Keith K. Hiraoka and Daniel M. Gluck, reviewed Gonsalves' arguments and upheld the District Court's decisions. The court emphasized that a judgment is only considered void if the court lacked jurisdiction or acted inconsistently with due process. The court found that Gonsalves did not present a valid argument regarding the District Court's jurisdiction, as she was not contesting the court's authority to hear the landlord-tenant dispute but rather its application of federal law.
The court ruled, "Neither condition is present here," referring to the lack of jurisdiction or due process violations in Gonsalves' case.
Additionally, the court noted that Gonsalves had ample opportunity to present her arguments during the earlier phases of litigation. The court stated, "The record in this case is clear that Gonsalves had a full opportunity to litigate her case." Gonsalves' attempts to relitigate the validity of the eviction were deemed inappropriate under the circumstances, leading to the affirmation of the District Court's ruling.
The court's decision has implications for future landlord-tenant disputes in Hawaii. It reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural rules and highlights the limited grounds on which a party can challenge a judgment after it has been rendered. This ruling may deter similar attempts to appeal eviction judgments based on claims of jurisdiction and due process violations without substantial evidence.
Moving forward, Gonsalves may consider further legal options, including potential appeals to higher courts, although the likelihood of success appears limited given the previous denials by both the Hawaii Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or future actions Gonsalves might take.