*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
NO. 23155
VOULA PARASKEVI MARELA, trustee of the Voula Paraskevi Marela
Trust, Plaintiff-Appellant
vs.
DION G. WATTS, DOROTHY PETERSON, EDWARD L. WATTS, JOHN ANZALONE,
JUDY DADY and THE
KAILANI ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS, an
unincorporated association, Defendants-Appellees
Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs submitted and having given due consideration to the issues raised and arguments advanced, we hold that: (1) the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the appellees, inasmuch as the declaration, bylaws, and plain language of HRS § 514C-6(a)(3) and 514C-1 authorized the association to use the common expense funds to cover expenses incurred in acquiring the fee interest in the forty-six leasehold units, see Hawai`i Cmty. Fed. Credit Union v. Keka, 94 Hawai`i 213, 11 P.3d 1 (2000); Bowers v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 88 Hawai`i 274, 965 P.2d 1274 (1998); Schmidt v. Board of Dir. of Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Marco Polo Apartments, 73 Haw. 526, 836 P.2d 479 (1992); HRS §§ 514C-6(a)(3) and 514C-1; (2) the circuit court did not violate the equal protection clause by interpreting HRS §§ 514C-1 and 514C-6(a)(3) to include fee simple owners, inasmuch as the plain language of HRS §§ 514C-6(a)(3) and 514C-1 does not prevent Marela, as a member of the association, from being classified as an association member, and, therefore, the circuit court's interpretation was not so arbitrary or irrational as to violate equal protection, see State v. Peseti, 101 Hawai`i 172, 65 P.3d 119 (2003); Del Rio v. Crake, 87 Hawai`i 297, 955 P.2d 90 (1998); and (3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $5,423.41 in attorneys' fees to the appellees, inasmuch as the plain language of HRS § 514A-94 expressly provides that attorneys' fees may be awarded to a condominium association, based on an unsubstantiated claim brought by an owner against a condominium association, for costs incurred in, inter alia, enforcing any provision of the declaration, bylaws, house rules, and the Condominium Property Act, see TSA Int'l Ltd. v. Shimizu Corp., 92 Hawai`i 243, 990 P.2d 713 (1999); Canalez v. Bob's Appliance Serv. Ctr., Inc., 89 Hawai`i 292, 972 P.2d 295 (1999); HRS § 514A-94. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the circuit court's (1) February 3, 2000 judgment, (2) November 12, 1999 order denying Marela's motion for summary judgment and granting the appellees' cross-motion for summary judgment, (3) January 13, 2000 order denying Marela's motion for reconsideration, and (4) January 13, 2000 order granting the appellees' motion for attorneys' fees, from which the appeal is taken, is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, July 20, 2004.
William F. Crockett of
Crockett Nakamura & Schmidt
for the defendant-appellant
Kevin P.H. Sumida, Milton S.
Tani, and Ward F. N. Fujimoto
of Matsui Chung Sumida &
Tsuchiyama for defendants-
appellees
1. Marela specifically contends that the circuit court erred in "concluding" in relevant part as follows:
4) That [Marela] occupies two roles as an individual apartment owner and as a member of the Association;
6)
That [Marela] is called upon to participate in the
leased fee purchase as a member of the Association and not
as an
individual apartment owner;
8)
That the responsibilities and obligations are to
contribute to the Association's purchase of the remaining
leased fee
interest as provided in Hawai`i Revised Statutes [§] 514C-6;
10) That the only reasonable interpretation of the use of the term "condominium unit lessee" is that this is the
phrase and
description given to all apartment owners "prior" to any purchase by an individual and/or the
Association of a leased fee
interest and when the lessor first offered the leased fee interests for sale; and