The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals issued a ruling on June 23, 2026, in the case of Nomura v. Association of Apartment Owners of Iolani Court Plaza (CAAP-24-0000055). The court's decision impacts residents of the Iolani Court Plaza and addresses issues related to property disputes and noise complaints.
Dr. Alan Nomura, as Trustee of the Alan K. Nomura Revocable Living Trust, filed a lawsuit against the Association of Apartment Owners of Iolani Court Plaza and several other parties. The case arose from complaints about noise disturbances allegedly caused by flooring changes made in a neighboring apartment unit. The ruling is significant as it clarifies the responsibilities of apartment owners and associations regarding noise regulations and property modifications.
Nomura owns Unit 3201 in the Iolani Court Plaza, while the Semenovs previously owned Unit 3301, directly above his unit. In September 2019, the Semenovs replaced the flooring in their unit with new vinyl flooring. Nomura claimed that this installation disrupted his quiet enjoyment of his apartment. After the Semenovs sold the unit to the Johnsons in 2021, Nomura filed a First Amended Complaint in March 2022, alleging various claims against the defendants, including violations of Hawaii law and nuisance.
The case progressed through the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, where Nomura sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages. The Johnsons filed a cross-claim against the Semenovs, asserting that any damages to Nomura were due to the Semenovs' actions. The Semenovs attempted to dismiss Nomura's complaint, and while some claims were dismissed, a settlement was reached between Nomura and the Semenovs in late 2023.
However, the Circuit Court later denied the Semenovs' petition for a good faith settlement, leading to Nomura's appeal. The court ruled on various motions for summary judgment from both sides, ultimately granting some and denying others. The court's decision focused on whether the AOAO and the Johnsons had violated the governing documents of the association and whether the noise complaints constituted a nuisance.
The court ruled that the AOAO and the Johnsons did not meet their burden of proof regarding the claims of noise violation, stating, "The AOAO and the Johnsons did not meet their burden on summary judgment of 'presenting evidence negating an element of [Nomura's] claim' or 'demonstrating that [Nomura] will be unable to carry his . . . burden of proof at trial.'" This ruling indicates that there was still a genuine issue of material fact regarding the type of flooring installed and its compliance with the association's rules.
Furthermore, the court addressed the issue of the good faith settlement, ultimately concluding that the settlement between Nomura and the Semenovs was not made in good faith, as the Semenovs were found to be primarily at fault for the noise issues. The court stated, "It would be very unjust and inequitable to allow the Semenovs to have the Court's blessing of a good faith settlement." This ruling emphasizes the importance of fairness in settlement agreements, particularly in cases involving multiple parties.
The implications of this ruling are significant for residents of the Iolani Court Plaza and similar condominium associations. It establishes that associations must adhere to their governing documents and that residents have the right to seek relief if those documents are violated. The decision also highlights the need for clear communication and understanding between property owners and associations regarding modifications and noise regulations.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether the parties will seek further appeals or if any related cases will arise from this ruling. The court's decision has set a precedent regarding the interpretation of condominium association rules and the responsibilities of owners in maintaining a peaceful living environment.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential appeals or related cases.