The Hawaii Supreme Court issued a ruling on June 25, 2026, regarding a trespass and nuisance lawsuit involving ATC Makena N Golf LLC and Azizi Kaiama. The court's decision affects property rights and the enforcement of discovery sanctions in legal proceedings.
ATC Makena, which operates a golf course in Maui, filed a lawsuit against Kaiama, who claimed to be the rightful heir to certain parcels of land within the property. The court's ruling has implications for how property ownership disputes are handled and the authority of courts to impose sanctions for non-compliance in discovery processes.
The case arose from ATC Makena's complaint alleging that Kaiama trespassed on their property, altered the land, and refused to vacate despite repeated requests. The lawsuit sought damages and a court order to remove Kaiama from the property. Kaiama countered by asserting her claim of rightful ownership based on her familial ties to the original land grant recipient.
Background
ATC Makena N Golf LLC, along with several related entities, purchased a large parcel of land in Maui at a public auction following a foreclosure. The property, approximately 489 acres, includes two smaller parcels known as the Piena Parcels. These parcels were originally granted to a person named Piena in the mid-1800s.
Kaiama, representing herself, argued that she was the rightful heir to the Piena Parcels and claimed that ATC Makena was trespassing on her family's land. The dispute escalated to the Circuit Court, where ATC Makena sought to compel discovery from Kaiama, alleging that she had not provided adequate responses to their requests.
The Circuit Court granted ATC Makena's motion to compel and imposed a discovery sanction against Kaiama, ordering her to pay $5,067.67 in attorney fees. Additionally, ATC Makena filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted, leading to a final judgment in favor of ATC Makena.
The Ruling
The Hawaii Supreme Court reviewed the case and ruled that the Circuit Court had improperly granted summary judgment regarding the Piena Parcels. The court noted that there was a genuine issue of material fact concerning ATC Makena's ownership of these parcels, specifically regarding the chain of title from Piena to Kaiama's ancestor, Kapeka.
The court stated, "there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether and how Kapeka acquired title to or an ownership interest from Piena in the Piena Parcels before she purportedly sold those parcels in the 1901 recorded deed."
As a result, the Supreme Court vacated the Intermediate Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case back to the Circuit Court for further proceedings. The court maintained that the discovery sanctions imposed on Kaiama were appropriate and upheld the lower court's decision on that matter.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for property rights in Hawaii, particularly in cases involving claims of inheritance and historical land grants. It emphasizes the necessity for plaintiffs to establish clear ownership of property when pursuing trespass claims, especially when the defendant challenges the title.
The decision also reinforces the authority of courts to impose sanctions for discovery violations, highlighting the importance of compliance with legal procedures in civil litigation. This ruling may influence how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly in terms of the burden of proof required to establish property ownership.
What's Next
The case will return to the Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. It is unclear if Kaiama will pursue any additional legal actions or if there are related cases pending.