Iriarte v. Reyes

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 21, 2025
• Docket: CAAP-23-0000095
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 21-NOV-2025 07:48 AM Dkt. 58 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

PETER TAISIPIC IRIARTE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MATTHEW REYES, Defendant-Appellant

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.) Defendant-Appellant Matthew Reyes (Reyes) appeals from

the Writ of Possession and the Judgment for Possession, both

entered on December 27, 2022, in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee

Peter Iriarte (Iriarte) by the District Court of the First

Circuit, Wai anae Division (District Court).1

Reyes raises two points of error on appeal, contending

the District Court erred when it granted: (1) Iriarte's motion

to conform the pleadings to the evidence; and (2) the Writ of

Possession.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

1 The Honorable Thomas A.K. Haia presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we

conclude that this appeal must be dismissed as moot.

It is undisputed that the tenancy at issue in this case

stems from a lease agreement entered into by and between Reyes

and Iriarte's predecessor-in-interest with a 20-year term

beginning July 16, 2004, and ending July 16, 2024 (2004 Lease).

It is well-settled that: A case is moot if it has lost its character as a present, live controversy of the kind that must exist if courts are to avoid advisory opinions on abstract propositions of law. The rule is one of the prudential rules of judicial self-governance founded in concern about the proper — and properly limited — role of the courts in a democratic society. We have said the suit must remain alive throughout the course of litigation to the moment of final appellate disposition to escape the mootness bar.

For Our Rights v. Ige, 151 Hawai i 1, 12, 507 P.3d 531, 542 (App.

2022) (citations omitted).

Mootness is appropriate "where events subsequent to the

judgment of the trial court have so affected the relations

between the parties that the two 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) (citations omitted).

At no point has either party disputed that the 2004

Lease expired in July of 2024. Consequently, Reyes's interest in

the tenancy expired in July of 2024. See Int'l Market Place

Corp. v. Liza, Inc., 1 Haw. App. 491, 494, 620 P.2d 765, 768

(1980) ("At the time this case was set for oral argument on this

limited question, the lease agreement had terminated.

Consequently, the issue before us has been rendered moot."). The

only issues raised on appeal concern the termination of Reyes's

tenancy, including whether the District Court properly conformed

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

the pleadings to consider whether Reyes was in payment default

under the 2004 Lease and whether the District Court erred in

issuing the Writ of Possession. As the 2004 Lease has expired,

there is no effective remedy available to restore Reyes's tenancy

under the lease. We conclude this renders the appeal moot and,

in light of the limited issues before us and the expiration of

the lease, no exceptions to mootness are applicable here.

For these reasons, Reyes's appeal from the December 27,

2022 Writ of Possession and the Judgment for Possession is

dismissed as moot.2

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, November 21, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Presiding Judge Keith M. Kiuchi, for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge Terrence M. Lee (Lee & Martin, LLLP), /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry for Plaintiff-Appellee. Associate Judge

2 This Summary Disposition Order is a dismissal order. No subsequent judgment will be entered. See Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 40.1(a)(1).