Cash-Kaeo v. Barrett

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 20, 2025
• Docket: CAAP-22-0000389
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 20-JUN-2025 07:58 AM Dkt. 63 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

MERVINA KAUKINI MAMO CASH-KAEO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GUY K. BARRETT; RONETTE BARRETT, Defendants-Appellants, DUSTIN K. BARRETT; SHEENA ANN BARRETT; RICHARD BARRETT; LEZLEY K. BARRETT aka LEZLEY BRADBURY, Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; and DOE ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT WAI‘ANAE DIVISION (CASE NO. 1DRC-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and Guidry, JJ.)

Defendants-Appellants Guy K. Barrett and Ronette

Barrett (collectively, the Barretts) appeal from the District

Court of the First Circuit's (district court)1 May 17, 2022

Judgment for Possession. They raise three points of error,

contending that the district court abused its discretion when:

1 The Honorable Darolyn H. Lendio entered the Judgment for Possession. The Honorable Michelle N. Comeau presided over the April 26, 2022 hearing on Plaintiff-Appellee Mervina Kaukini Mamo Cash-Kaeo's (Cash- Kaeo) motion for summary judgment (MSJ). NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(1) "it defaulted [the Barretts] for [their] non[-]appearance

[at the MSJ hearing] where the facts show [the Barretts had]

defended themselves in this action by retaining counsel" who

"made eight court appearances at hearings in defense of [the

Barretts]"; (2) "it applied the extreme sanctions methodology"

by entering default judgment against the Barretts "for the

failure of their counsel to appear at the hearing on [Cash-

Kaeo's] [MSJ]"; and (3) "it allowed the hearing on [Cash-Kaeo's]

[MSJ] to proceed without first addressing [counsel's] non[-

]appearance at this hearing."

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve the

Barretts' appeal as follows.

The Barretts contend that the district court entered

default judgment against them pursuant to District Court Rules

of Civil Procedure (DCRCP) Rule 55. The record reflects,

however, that the district court entered the May 17, 2022

Judgment for Possession against the Barretts because Cash-Kaeo

demonstrated she was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of

law under DCRCP Rule 56. Pursuant to DCRCP Rule 56(c), a motion

for summary judgment may be granted "if the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,

together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no

2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party

is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." We review the

grant or denial of summary judgment de novo. Kanahele v. State,

154 Hawaiʻi 190, 201, 549 P.3d 275, 286 (2024).

The Barretts point to no evidence in the record

indicating a genuine issue of material fact disputing that Cash-

Kaeo is the sole surviving lessee of the subject property, and

that Cash-Kaeo is therefore entitled to judgment of possession

against the Barretts as a matter of law. The Barretts also cite

no authority indicating the district court was required to

address their counsel's non-appearance at the MSJ hearing before

it could grant the MSJ. Even if the district court was required

to do so, the Barretts fail to identify any legal theory or

issue of fact that could have or would have been presented in

opposition to the MSJ to defeat the motion.

We therefore conclude the district court did not err

in granting the MSJ, and affirm the May 17, 2022 Judgment for

Possession.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, June 20, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Presiding Judge Barry L. Sooalo, for Defendants-Appellants. /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge Jay T. Suemori, for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Associate Judge