NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 30-DEC-2025 07:55 AM Dkt. 101 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I
CENTURY 21 PARADISE INTERNATIONAL, managing agent, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SUSAN KURATA; WILLIE KURATA, Defendants-Appellants, and CINDY KURATA, Defendant-Appellee
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION (CIVIL NO. 1DRC-XX-XXXXXXX)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.) Defendants-Appellants Susan Kurata (Susan), Willie
Kurata, and Cindy Kurata (Kuratas) appeal from the September 12,
2023 Judgment for Possession (Judgment) and the September 12,
2023 Writ of Possession (Writ) entered in favor of Plaintiff-
Appellee Century 21 Paradise International, managing agent
(Century 21), in the District Court of the First Circuit,
Honolulu Division (District Court).1
The Kuratas raise two points of error on appeal,
contending that the District Court erred in: (1) entering
1 The Honorable Shellie K. Park-Hoapili entered the Judgment and the Writ; the Honorable William M. Domingo presided over the Kuratas' Motion for Stay Pending Appeal and Century 21's Motion for Summary Judgment. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
summary judgment in favor of Century 21; and (2) denying the
Kuratas' motion for stay pending appeal.
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
Kuratas' points of error as follows:
(1) The Kuratas argue that the District Court erred in
entering summary judgment in favor of Century 21 on two grounds.
First, the Kuratas' main argument is that no admissible evidence
was presented to establish the existence of a written or oral
lease. Second, the Kuratas argue that the District Court erred
in denying their request for a continuance pursuant to District
Court Rules of Civil Procedure (DCRCP) Rule 56(f).
While the Kuratas couch their first argument in terms
of "no lease," the gravamen of their argument is that there is no
tenancy here because their occupancy of the property located on
Rooke Avenue in Honolulu (Property), and the payments made by
them from 2001 to 2022, arise out of an oral repurchase agreement
between Susan and Jean S. Nagao (Nagao).
In the Declaration of Susan Kurata (Kurata
Declaration), Susan avers, inter alia, the following. Nagao is
her hanai mother who raised her and lives next door to the
Property. In 2001, when Susan was facing foreclosure on the
Property, Jean and Susan agreed that Jean would acquire a loan to
pay off Susan's mortgage, Susan would transfer title to the
Property to Jean and make the payments due on that loan until
paid in full, at which time Jean would transfer title back to
Susan. Jean obtained the loan and Susan conveyed title to Jean's
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
irrevocable trust. Susan avers, and it is undisputed, that Susan
and her family continued to reside at the Property. Susan avers
that she made all of the necessary payments until the loan was
satisfied. Both parties assert that payments were made, but
Century 21 characterizes those payments as rent 2 and Susan
characterizes them as payments made pursuant to the repurchase
agreement.
This is an action for the summary possession of real
property, and in asserting that they had an interest in the
Property pursuant to a repurchase agreement, the Kuratas have
attempted to raise a defense which involves title to real estate.
See Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Century Ctr., Inc. v. An, 139
Hawai i 278, 286, 389 P.3d 115, 123 (2016) (holding that an
equitable interest created by an agreement of sale is sufficient
to put title at issue for the purposes of DCRCP Rule 12.1).
Century 21 argues that the Kuratas are clearly disputing the
District Court's jurisdiction in accordance with Hawaii Revised
Statutes (HRS) § 604-5(d) (2016)3 and did not comply with DCRCP
Rule 12.1.
2 The Kuratas make well-founded arguments concerning the admissibility of certain evidence offered by Century 21 concerning these payments, namely paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Kevin Uyeda (Uyeda) and Exhibit 2 thereto. Uyeda does not purport to have any personal knowledge of the payments or records of the payments, and Uyeda makes hearsay statements based on what he was "informed and believe[s]" without so much as identifying who "informed him" of events that indisputably occurred before he was purportedly hired in September 2022 to manage the Property. Uyeda did not, for example, identify who created Exhibit 2, but vaguely asserted it was the Defendants. On appeal, Century 21 admits that Exhibit 2 was not created by the Kuratas, notwithstanding Uyeda's sworn statement to the contrary. The Kuratas objected below, and on appeal, we conclude that the District Court erred in relying on paragraph 2 of the Uyeda declaration and Exhibit 2 to conclude that Century 21 was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 3 HRS § 604-5(d) provides in part: "The district courts shall not have cognizance of real action, nor actions in which the title to real estate comes in question[.]"
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
DCRCP Rule 12.1 states: Rule 12.1. DEFENSE OF TITLE IN DISTRICT COURTS. Pleadings. Whenever, in the district court, in defense of an action in the nature of an action for trespass or for the summary possession of land, or any other action, the defendant shall seek to interpose a defense to the jurisdiction to the effect that the action is a real action, or one in which the title to real estate is involved, such defense shall be asserted by a written answer or written motion, which shall not be received by the court unless accompanied by an affidavit of the defendant, setting forth the source, nature and extent of the title claimed by defendant to the land in question, and such further particulars as shall fully apprise the court of the nature of defendant's claim.
The Kuratas did not raise this issue in a written
answer or written motion; rather, they raised it in a written
memorandum in opposition to Century 21's summary judgment motion,
which opposition was accompanied by the Kurata Declaration.
Although not presented in full compliance with DCRCP's
requirements, we nevertheless consider whether the Kurata
Declaration set forth with sufficient particularity the source,
nature, and extent of Susan's claim of a right to title in the
Property. Here, the Kurata Declaration asserted that the source
and nature of her interest in the Property was the oral
repurchase agreement with Nagao, and included details of the
timing and specific circumstances of that agreement and her
performance under that agreement. The extent of Susan's claim to
title was stated as arising only if she completed all payment on
the Nagao loan. However, Susan averred that she had in fact
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 30-DEC-2025 07:55 AM Dkt. 101 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I
CENTURY 21 PARADISE INTERNATIONAL, managing agent, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SUSAN KURATA; WILLIE KURATA, Defendants-Appellants, and CINDY KURATA, Defendant-Appellee
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION (CIVIL NO. 1DRC-XX-XXXXXXX)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.) Defendants-Appellants Susan Kurata (Susan), Willie
Kurata, and Cindy Kurata (Kuratas) appeal from the September 12,
2023 Judgment for Possession (Judgment) and the September 12,
2023 Writ of Possession (Writ) entered in favor of Plaintiff-
Appellee Century 21 Paradise International, managing agent
(Century 21), in the District Court of the First Circuit,
Honolulu Division (District Court).1
The Kuratas raise two points of error on appeal,
contending that the District Court erred in: (1) entering
1 The Honorable Shellie K. Park-Hoapili entered the Judgment and the Writ; the Honorable William M. Domingo presided over the Kuratas' Motion for Stay Pending Appeal and Century 21's Motion for Summary Judgment. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
summary judgment in favor of Century 21; and (2) denying the
Kuratas' motion for stay pending appeal.
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
Kuratas' points of error as follows:
(1) The Kuratas argue that the District Court erred in
entering summary judgment in favor of Century 21 on two grounds.
First, the Kuratas' main argument is that no admissible evidence
was presented to establish the existence of a written or oral
lease. Second, the Kuratas argue that the District Court erred
in denying their request for a continuance pursuant to District
Court Rules of Civil Procedure (DCRCP) Rule 56(f).
While the Kuratas couch their first argument in terms
of "no lease," the gravamen of their argument is that there is no
tenancy here because their occupancy of the property located on
Rooke Avenue in Honolulu (Property), and the payments made by
them from 2001 to 2022, arise out of an oral repurchase agreement
between Susan and Jean S. Nagao (Nagao).
In the Declaration of Susan Kurata (Kurata
Declaration), Susan avers, inter alia, the following. Nagao is
her hanai mother who raised her and lives next door to the
Property. In 2001, when Susan was facing foreclosure on the
Property, Jean and Susan agreed that Jean would acquire a loan to
pay off Susan's mortgage, Susan would transfer title to the
Property to Jean and make the payments due on that loan until
paid in full, at which time Jean would transfer title back to
Susan. Jean obtained the loan and Susan conveyed title to Jean's
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
irrevocable trust. Susan avers, and it is undisputed, that Susan
and her family continued to reside at the Property. Susan avers
that she made all of the necessary payments until the loan was
satisfied. Both parties assert that payments were made, but
Century 21 characterizes those payments as rent 2 and Susan
characterizes them as payments made pursuant to the repurchase
agreement.
This is an action for the summary possession of real
property, and in asserting that they had an interest in the
Property pursuant to a repurchase agreement, the Kuratas have
attempted to raise a defense which involves title to real estate.
See Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Century Ctr., Inc. v. An, 139
Hawai i 278, 286, 389 P.3d 115, 123 (2016) (holding that an
equitable interest created by an agreement of sale is sufficient
to put title at issue for the purposes of DCRCP Rule 12.1).
Century 21 argues that the Kuratas are clearly disputing the
District Court's jurisdiction in accordance with Hawaii Revised
Statutes (HRS) § 604-5(d) (2016)3 and did not comply with DCRCP
Rule 12.1.
2 The Kuratas make well-founded arguments concerning the admissibility of certain evidence offered by Century 21 concerning these payments, namely paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Kevin Uyeda (Uyeda) and Exhibit 2 thereto. Uyeda does not purport to have any personal knowledge of the payments or records of the payments, and Uyeda makes hearsay statements based on what he was "informed and believe[s]" without so much as identifying who "informed him" of events that indisputably occurred before he was purportedly hired in September 2022 to manage the Property. Uyeda did not, for example, identify who created Exhibit 2, but vaguely asserted it was the Defendants. On appeal, Century 21 admits that Exhibit 2 was not created by the Kuratas, notwithstanding Uyeda's sworn statement to the contrary. The Kuratas objected below, and on appeal, we conclude that the District Court erred in relying on paragraph 2 of the Uyeda declaration and Exhibit 2 to conclude that Century 21 was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 3 HRS § 604-5(d) provides in part: "The district courts shall not have cognizance of real action, nor actions in which the title to real estate comes in question[.]"
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
DCRCP Rule 12.1 states: Rule 12.1. DEFENSE OF TITLE IN DISTRICT COURTS. Pleadings. Whenever, in the district court, in defense of an action in the nature of an action for trespass or for the summary possession of land, or any other action, the defendant shall seek to interpose a defense to the jurisdiction to the effect that the action is a real action, or one in which the title to real estate is involved, such defense shall be asserted by a written answer or written motion, which shall not be received by the court unless accompanied by an affidavit of the defendant, setting forth the source, nature and extent of the title claimed by defendant to the land in question, and such further particulars as shall fully apprise the court of the nature of defendant's claim.
The Kuratas did not raise this issue in a written
answer or written motion; rather, they raised it in a written
memorandum in opposition to Century 21's summary judgment motion,
which opposition was accompanied by the Kurata Declaration.
Although not presented in full compliance with DCRCP's
requirements, we nevertheless consider whether the Kurata
Declaration set forth with sufficient particularity the source,
nature, and extent of Susan's claim of a right to title in the
Property. Here, the Kurata Declaration asserted that the source
and nature of her interest in the Property was the oral
repurchase agreement with Nagao, and included details of the
timing and specific circumstances of that agreement and her
performance under that agreement. The extent of Susan's claim to
title was stated as arising only if she completed all payment on
the Nagao loan. However, Susan averred that she had in fact
fully satisfied the conditions for her right to a transfer of
title to the Property, namely the full satisfaction of the
payments due on the 2001 loan that Nagao took out to stop the
foreclosure on the Property when it was previously owned by
Susan. Century 21 alleged only an oral rental agreement and
offered no declaration or other evidence supporting even the most
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
basic terms supporting the existence of a rental agreement,
offering only a hearsay declaration of a self-described managing
agent for an unidentified principal based on "information and
belief" that did not even identify the alleged parties to the
oral rental agreement, the monthly rents, or any other term of
the alleged rental agreement.
We conclude that the Kurata Declaration sufficiently
established that the District Court does not have jurisdiction to
determine whether or not Susan has an enforceable right to title
in the Property based on the alleged repurchase agreement,
notwithstanding that it was attached to an opposition to a
motion, rather than a written motion or written answer, thereby
creating a genuine issue of material fact as to Century 21's
right to summary possession of the Property. Accordingly, and
based on the entire record before us, we further conclude that
the District Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of
Century 21. In light of this conclusion, we need not reach the
Kuratas' other arguments concerning the entry of summary
judgment.
(2) The Kuratas argue that the District Court erred in
granting their motion for a stay pending appeal. We conclude
that the issues raised are moot because on September 13, 2023,
this court entered a temporary stay; on February 8, 2024, this
court entered an Order Granting in Part Motion for Stay; and on
February 16, 2024, this court entered an Order Granting in Part
Motion to Modify Terms of Stay on Appeal. An issue is moot
"where events subsequent to the judgment of the trial court have
so affected the relations between the parties that the two
5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
conditions for justiciability relevant on appeal–adverse interest
and effective remedy-have been compromised." Lathrop v.
Sakatani, 111 Hawai i 307, 313, 141 P.3d 480, 486 (2006). There
is no effective remedy for the issues raised by the Kuratas
concerning a supersedeas bond and stay pending appeal as the
relief sought has already been granted by this court.
For the foregoing reasons, the District Court's
September 12, 2023 Judgment and Writ are vacated. This case is
remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent
with this Summary Disposition Order, e.g., a voluntary dismissal,
a written motion to dismiss based on the lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, or a sua sponte dismissal by the District Court.
See Captain Andy's Sailing, Inc. v. Dep't of Land and Nat. Res.,
113 Hawai i 184, 194, 150 P.3d 833, 843 (2006).
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, December 30, 2025.
On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Presiding Judge Frederick J. Arensmeyer, for Defendants-Appellants. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge Allison A. Ito, Michel A. Okazaki, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry (Choi & Ito, AAL), and Associate Judge Richard A. Yanagi, for Plaintiff-Appellee.