Caven, Jr. v. Certified Management, Inc.

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: September 5, 2025
• Docket: SCWC-19-0000047
• Status: Published

Opinion

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX 05-SEP-2025 08:48 AM Dkt. 21 SO

SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII ________________________________________________________________

FREDERICK T. CAVEN, JR., on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated persons, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

CERTIFIED MANAGEMENT, INC., dba ASSOCIA HAWAII, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX; CASE NO. 1CC161001778)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Devens, JJ., and Ginoza, J., Dissenting)

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant Frederick T. Caven,

Jr., co-owned a condominium unit located in Koloa, Kauaʻi (Unit).

As an owner of the Unit, Caven was a member of two homeowners

associations: (1) the Poipu Kai Association (PKA), a planned

community association; and (2) the Regency at Poipu Kai

Association of Apartment Owners (Regency AOAO), a condominium

association within PKA. Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee Certified ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

Management, Inc., dba Associa Hawaii (Associa) was the managing

agent for PKA and Regency AOAO.

The following facts appear to be undisputed. In April

2016, Caven sold his Unit. In order to close on the sale, Caven

was required to obtain a Project Information Form RR105c (Form

RR105c) and a Statement of Account (SOA) from each association.

Form RR105c is “a time-sensitive disclosure form copyrighted and

used by [Hawaiʻi Association of REALTORS] to get the most up-to-

date information pertaining to the condominium association . . .

when a unit in the association is being offered for sale.” An

SOA is provided to escrow “once when escrow is opened so that

the escrow agent has an estimate of the associations’ charges

that need to be accounted for during the transaction” and “upon

request again right before the sale of the unit closes so that

escrow ensures it has the most accurate, up-to-date information

on the seller’s account.”

Caven’s realtor ordered digital copies for download of

the documents required to sell the Unit through Associa’s

website, “Community Archives.” For the document packages that

included the Form RR105c, Associa charged Caven: $390.62 for the

“Resale Disclosure Package” for Regency AOAO, including a

$360.00 processing fee, a $15.00 convenience fee, and $15.62 in

sales tax; and $182.29 for the “Documents Only Package” for PKA,

including a $165.00 processing fee, a $10.00 convenience fee,

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

and $7.29 in sales tax. Additionally, Associa charged Caven

$437.50 for each SOA for Regency AOAO and PKA. 1 In total,

Associa charged Caven $1,447.91 for the documents required to

complete the sale of Caven’s Unit.

Caven challenged the propriety of those fees in the

Circuit Court of the First Circuit, 2 arguing that Associa

unlawfully charged unit owners unreasonable and excessive fees

for copies of documents it was legally required to maintain in

violation of Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 514B. 3

Associa filed a series of motions for partial summary judgment,

which the circuit court granted. On December 26, 2018, the

circuit court entered final judgment in favor of Associa.

Relevant here are two circuit court orders granting

partial summary judgment for claims relating to Regency AOAO. 4

The Order Granting Defendant Certified Management, Inc., dba

1 The record reflects Caven was charged $437.50 for each SOA for PKA and Regency AOAO. The $437.50 SOA charges included a $195 processing fee, $80 expedite fee, $145 transfer fee, and $17.50 in taxes.

2 The Honorable James H. Ashford presided.

3 Although Caven initially filed his complaint “on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated persons,” no class was certified. Caven’s First Amended Complaint alleged violations of HRS chapters 514B (Count I), 421J (Count II), and 480 (Count III). Only Caven’s challenges under HRS chapter 514B are relevant in this appeal. HRS § 514B-21 (2018) provides in relevant part that “[t]his chapter applies to all condominiums created within this State[.]”

4 Caven’s claims against Associa arising from fees for the PKA documents were separately dismissed by the circuit court because PKA, a planned community association, is not a condominium association within the meaning of HRS chapter 514B. Caven does not challenge the dismissal.

3 ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

Associa Hawaii’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count I

and II of the First Amended Complaint (Order IV), filed July 19,

2018, found the Form RR105c and the SOA prepared by Associa were

not subject to HRS chapter 514B. The Order Granting Defendant

Certified Management, Inc., dba Associa Hawaii’s Motion for

Partial Summary Judgment on Count I of the First Amended

Complaint (Order V), filed September 20, 2018, concluded that

there were no genuine issues of material fact on Caven’s claims

arising under HRS §§ 514B-154(e) and (g) (2018) because those

subsections “apply to ‘association[s],’ not ‘managing

agent[s],’” and therefore Associa was entitled to judgment as a

matter of law on those issues.

Caven appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals

(ICA) and, in a March 22, 2024 summary disposition order, the

ICA affirmed in part and vacated in part Orders IV and V. As is

relevant here, the ICA concluded the circuit court erred in

finding that (1) HRS chapter 514B only applies to general

association documents and not the Form RR105c or the SOA for

Regency AOAO and (2) Associa, as a managing agent, is not

required to provide the Form RR105c and the SOA for Regency AOAO

for free under HRS § 514B-154.5(e) (2018). Thus, the ICA

vacated Order IV in part and Order V in its entirety and

remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. Id.

at 9.

4 ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

Judgment on Appeal was entered on May 24, 2024.

Associa applied for writ of certiorari, which this court

granted.

Associa presents three questions to this court,

asserting the ICA gravely erred by reversing the circuit court’s

Orders IV and V. Specifically, Associa argues that the ICA

erred by holding (1) HRS § 514B-154.5(e)’s requirement that

documents made available at no cost for download applies both to

associations and their managing agents, (2) the document and

disclosure requirements of HRS § 154.5(a) are “not limited to

what the condominium association keeps . . . [or] pre-existing

documents,” and (3) Associa, as a managing agent, has a duty to

provide the Form RR105c and the Regency AOAO SOA. We affirm the

ICA.

Statutory interpretation is “a question of law reviewable de novo.” This court’s construction of statutes is guided by established rules:

First, the fundamental starting point for statutory interpretation is the language of the statute itself. Second, where the statutory language is plain and unambiguous, our sole duty is to give effect to its plain and obvious meaning. Third, implicit in the task of statutory construction is our foremost obligation to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself. Fourth, when there is doubt, doubleness of meaning, or indistinctiveness or uncertainty of an expression used in a statute, an ambiguity exists.

When there is ambiguity in a statute, “the meaning of the ambiguous words may be sought by examining the context, with which the ambiguous words, phrases, and sentences may be compared, in order to ascertain their true meaning.” Moreover, the courts may resort to extrinsic aids in determining legislative intent,

5 ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

such as legislative history, or the reason and spirit of the law.

Citizens Against Reckless Dev. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 114 Hawaiʻi 184, 193–94, 159 P.3d 143, 152–53 (2007) (citations omitted).

In re Maui Fire Cases, 155 Hawaiʻi 409, 424-25, 565 P.3d 754,

769-70 (2025) (quoting State v. Wheeler, 121 Hawaiʻi 383, 390,

219 P.3d 1170, 1177 (2009)).

At base, Associa argues that because the Form RR10c

and the SOA are “reports prepared specifically for individual

association members,” those documents are not documents “kept”

by Regency AOAO within the meaning of HRS § 514B-152 (2018).

Thus, Associa, as the managing agent for Regency AOAO, was not

required to make the Form RR105c and the SOA available at “a

reasonable fee for duplication, postage, stationery, and other

administrative costs associated with handling the request” or

“at no cost” if available for download pursuant to HRS

§ 514B-154.5(b) and (e). Associa misreads the relevant

statutes.

HRS § 514B-152 requires condominium associations to

“keep financial and other records sufficiently detailed to

enable the association to comply with requests for information

and disclosures related to resale of units” and to make those

records “available pursuant to section 514B-154.5 for

examination by any unit owner and the owner’s authorized

agents.” HRS § 514B-154.5(a), in turn, requires managing

6 ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

agents, such as Associa, to “ma[k]e available to any unit owner

and the owner’s authorized agents” “documents, records, and

information, whether maintained, kept, or required to be

provided pursuant to this section or section 514B-152.”

Read together, HRS §§ 514B-152 and -154.5 require

managing agents to make available to a unit owner sufficiently

detailed financial and other records relating to the resale of

units. On their face, these statutorily mandated disclosures

are not limited to pre-existing documents. See HRS § 514B-

154.5(a) (requiring disclosure of “documents, records, and

provided” under the subsection). Because both the Form RR105c

and the SOA are “information and disclosures related to [the]

resale of units” within the meaning HRS § 514B-152, Associa had

a duty to make them available to Caven, whether or not they are

documents that are regularly maintained by Associa or Regency

AOAO.

HRS chapter 514B permits an association to charge unit

owners “a reasonable fee for duplication, postage, stationery,

and other administrative costs associated with handling the

[disclosure] request” under HRS § 514B-154.5(a). HRS

§ 514B-154.5(b). That reasonable fee “shall not exceed $1 per

page, or portion thereof, except that the fee for pages

exceeding eight and one-half inches by fourteen inches may

7 ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

exceed $1 per page.” Id. § 514B-154.5(f). However, HRS § 514B-

154.5(e) provides:

An association may comply with this section or section 514B-152, 514B-153, or 514B-154 by making the required documents, records, and information available to unit owners or owners’ authorized agents for download through an internet site, at the option of each unit owner or owner’s authorized agent and at no cost to the unit owner or owner’s authorized agent.

(Emphasis added.)

Associa argues that HRS § 514B-154.5(e) does not apply

to it because it is a managing agent, not an association, both

of which terms are defined separately under HRS chapter 514B.

See HRS § 514B-3 (2018) (“‘Association’ means the unit owners’

association organized under section 514B-102 or under prior

condominium property regime statutes. . . . ‘Managing agent’

means any person retained, as an independent contractor, for the

purpose of managing the operation of the property.”). However,

it is clear from the structure and language of HRS § 514B-154.5

that it imposes a duty on “association[s]” to make “documents,

records, and information” available through their “managing

agent, resident manager, board through a board member, or the

association’s representative.” HRS § 514B-154.5(a). An

association may comply with its duty under the section either by

providing paper copies at a reasonable fee under subsections

(b), (d), and (f). Otherwise, “[a]n association may comply

. . . by making the required documents, records, and information

available to unit owners or owners’ authorized agents for 8 ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

download through an internet site . . . at no cost to the unit

owner or owner’s authorized agent.” HRS § 514B-154.5(e).

It is immaterial for purposes of HRS § 514B-154.5(e)

whether that internet site is maintained by the association or

its managing agent. Because Associa made the Form RR105c and

the SOA for Regency AOAO available to Caven to download through

its internet site “Community Archives,” it was required to do so

“at no cost to the unit owner or owner’s authorized agent.” See

id.

Consistent with the discussion above, we conclude that

that Associa had a duty, pursuant to HRS §§ 514B-152 and -154.5

to make the Project Information Form RR105c and the Statement of

Account for the Regency at Poipu Kai Association of Apartment

Owners available to Caven, regardless of whether they are

regularly maintained by the association or the managing agent.

We further conclude that where a managing agent makes such

documents available for download through an internet site, they

must do so at no cost to the unit owner or the owner’s

authorized agent.

9 ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

We therefore affirm the ICA’s May 24, 2024, Judgment

on Appeal.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, September 5, 2025.

David M. Louie /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald Ryan D. Louie (Nicholas R. Monlux /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna on the briefs) for petitioner/defendant- /s/ Todd W. Eddins appellee /s/ Vladimir P. Devens Margery S. Bronster Robert M. Hatch for respondent/plaintiff- appellant