Palehua Community Association v. Kelly

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 22, 2025
• Docket: CAAP-23-0000160
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 22-OCT-2025 07:48 AM Dkt. 56 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

PALEHUA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, by and through its Board of Directors, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CORA CHARLOTTE LINDEN KELLY, Defendant-Appellant, and JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES 1-10; and DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-10, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 1CC111001958)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Guidry, JJ.) Defendant-Appellant Cora Charlotte Linden Kelly

(Kelly) appeals from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit's

(circuit court) "Order Granting Plaintiff[-Appellee] Palehua

Community Association's [(Palehua)] Motion to Release

Supersedeas Bond" (Bond Order), filed on June 8, 2022, and

"Order Denying [Kelly's] Motion for Reconsideration of Order NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Granting [Palehua's] Motion to Release Supersedeas Bond", filed

on February 16, 2023. 1

This appeal arises out of Kelly's posting of a

supersedeas bond in the amount of $30,303.55 (the Bond), on

February 27, 2018, and the circuit court's release of the Bond

to Palehua on June 8, 2022, with instructions that Palehua

"shall first apply the Bond to satisfy the February 16, 2016

Judgment [(underlying judgment)], then post-judgment interest,

and then to satisfy the Intermediate Court of Appeals' [(ICA)]

July 31, 2019 Judgment on Appeal."

Kelly raises four points of error on appeal,

contending that the circuit court erred in: (1) "granting

[Palehua's] Motion to Release [the Bond] to [Palehua], as

opposed to releasing the [B]ond to [Kelly]"; (2) "denying

[Kelly's] Motion for Reconsideration"; (3) "permitting [Palehua]

to raise and attach alleged additional amounts claimed to be

owed by [Kelly] to [Palehua] to be applied to the [Bond] which

the [B]ond was not intended to cover"; and (4) "failing to

recognize that [Kelly] had already discharged [the underlying

judgment], including attorney's fees, pursuant to [Hawaiʻi Rules

of Civil Procedure] Rule 60(b)(5)."

1 The Honorable James H. Ashford presided.

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

Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and

relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration

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

we resolve Kelly's points of error, collectively, as follows.

We review the circuit court's release of the Bond to

Palehua for abuse of discretion. See Haedge v. Cent. Tex.

Cattlemen's Ass'n, 603 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. 2020) ("Appellate

review of the calculation of the amount to be recovered from a

supersedeas bond is generally for abuse of discretion.")

(citations omitted); BOUG, LLC v. Shenandoah Holdings, LLC, 707

S.W.3d 530, 539 (Ky. Ct. App. 2025) ("Appellate courts review

trial courts' decisions on supersedeas bonds for abuse of

discretion.") (citation omitted); cf. Kelepolo v. Fernandez, 148

Hawaiʻi 182, 187, 468 P.3d 196, 201 (2020) ("The amount of a bond

or alternative security sufficient to protect the rights of an

appellee is committed to the court's sound discretion.")

(citation omitted).

Under an abuse of discretion standard, we review the

circuit court's factual determinations under the clearly

erroneous standard, and the circuit court's legal conclusions

under the right/wrong standard. See Off. of Hawaiian Affs. v.

State, 110 Hawaiʻi 338, 351, 133 P.3d 767, 780 (2006).

In 2011, Palehua, a nonprofit corporation and planned

community development, filed a complaint alleging Kelly's

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

failure to maintain her property in violation of its governing

documents. In November 2014, the circuit court granted summary

judgment in Palehua's favor, and, in February 2016, it entered

the underlying judgment which awarded damages to Palehua in the

amount of $15,658.76. 2 This amount was awarded to compensate

Palehua for $3,361.46 in cleaning expenses, and accrued and

anticipated attorneys' fees and costs.

Kelly appealed, but did not immediately move to stay,

the underlying judgment. In May 2016, while that appeal was

pending, Palehua filed a separate foreclosure action, in case

no. 1CC161000948, seeking delinquent community association dues,

late fees, attorneys' fees and costs, and "other charges"

allegedly incurred by Palehua against Kelly. Palehua

represented to the circuit court that the foreclosure action

sought, inter alia, "past due amounts assessed for attorneys'

fees and costs incurred in the instant action."

In February 2018, Kelly posted the Bond. The Bond was

in the amount of $30,303.55, which represented $15,658.76 in

principal, $3,131.76 for two years of interest, and $11,513.03

for accrued and anticipated attorneys' fees and costs. The

circuit court stayed the underlying judgment upon Kelly's

posting of the Bond. At the stay hearing, Palehua's counsel

2 The Honorable Rhonda A. Nishimura entered the underlying judgment.

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

represented that "the [$]15,000 that [Kelly] seek[s] the stay

of, . . . only constitutes a portion of the amount that is the

basis for the foreclosure." Counsel explained that, in addition

to the underlying judgment, Palehua was seeking to recover

"unpaid maintenance fees, late fees, and other legal fees," in

the foreclosure action.

It is undisputed that, in addition to posting the

Bond, Kelly paid Palehua $27,004.46 in March 2018, and $1,500 in

January 2018, for a total of $28,504.46. After Kelly made those

payments, Palehua stipulated to the dismissal of its foreclosure

action without prejudice.

In November 2018, this court entered a summary

disposition order affirming the underlying judgment in case no.

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX. In July 2019, this court concluded that

Palehua was the prevailing party, and awarded Palehua an

additional $13,950.78 in appellate attorneys' fees. Palehua

moved the circuit court, in March 2022, to release the Bond

(Bond motion) to Palehua.

Attached to Palehua's Bond motion is a letter,

addressed to Kelly, that itemizes the amounts Palehua

represented to be "due and owing" as of December 23, 2021:

$56,275.18 for attorneys' fees and costs since December 31,

2009; $2,555.00 for late fees/fines accrued since March 31,

2010; $1,408.75 for community association dues accrued since

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

January 1, 2010; $3,361.46 for general maintenance on May 28,

2015; and $9,094.95 for interest at 10% per annum on the

underlying judgment. Palehua credited Kelly for her two 2018

payments totaling $28,504.46, deducted that amount from Kelly's

alleged debt, and calculated Kelly's outstanding balance to be

$44,190.88 as of December 23, 2021.

As the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court instructed in Kelepolo, a

supersedeas bond is meant to "preserve the status quo" and

"protect [the] nonappealing part[y] from any loss that may be

incurred as a result of the stay of a judgment." 3 148 Hawaiʻi at

188, 468 P.3d at 202 (citations omitted).

Kelly contends that the circuit court abused its

discretion, given Kelly's 2018 payments totaling $28,504.46, in

releasing the $30,303.55 Bond to Palehua. Palehua contends that

it was entitled to the Bond moneys because "as of February 22,

2018, [Kelly] owed [Palehua] $51,300.09," and Kelly was provided

3 Pursuant to Kelepolo,

It is well recognized that the purpose of posting a supersedeas bond is to preserve the status quo and protect the appellee's rights during the appeal. Hence, a supersedeas bond serves as security to protect the appellee from the risk of loss occasioned by the stay of execution should the appellee prevail on appeal. A court, accordingly, should generally attempt to protect nonappealing parties from any loss that may be incurred as a result of the stay of a judgment when setting a supersedeas bond.

148 Hawaiʻi at 188, 468 P.3d at 202 (cleaned up).

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

notice "that posting [the Bond] would not cure her account and

that additional amounts would still be due and owing."

(Emphasis omitted.)

The circuit court, in granting the release of the

Bond, explained its ruling as follows,

There's a supersedeas bond. We've all agreed what that bond secures. If [Palehua] is given that bond and applies it to the wrong thing, I have [Palehua's counsel] on the record very clearly saying that that would not be right to apply it to anything other than those three items: [the underlying] judgment, interest, and appellate fees. If [Palehua] goes beyond that, knock yourself out, [Kelly's counsel], and I hope I get to be the judge, because that would be horribly inappropriate. And -- and I'm not suggesting that [Palehua] will, and I'm not threatening [Palehua] if they do, but the three of us have communicated very effectively about what's appropriate and inappropriate use of the supersedeas bond.

I do know the purpose of the supersedeas bond, I do know that the ICA affirmed the [underlying] judgment, and I also know that the [ICA] made an additional award for appellate fees, therefore, the motion is granted.

The amount owed on the [underlying] judgment, plus post judgment interest in my estimation, is roughly $25,328 as of the date of our earlier hearing. If that -- if the bond is applied to that amount, then the -- there's roughly $5,000 or less than $5,000 left to be applied to the attorneys' fees by the ICA, which will leave a shortfall of several thousand dollars still owed. In other words, the supersedeas bond, it turns out, was not enough. So, therefore, the supersedeas bond will be released, shall be applied first to the principal amount of the [underlying] judgment, then to post judgment interest. And unless my math is very far off, it can then -- the remainder can then be applied to the ICA's own judgment on attorneys' fees, which will then leave a shortfall.

(Emphasis added.)

The record reflects that Palehua is entitled to the

$15,658.76 underlying judgment award, and the $13,950.78

appellate attorneys' fees award, for a total amount of

$29,609.54. Palehua may also be entitled to additional post-

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

judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs related to the

Bond motion. But notwithstanding the circuit court's "rough"

estimation "as of the date of [an] earlier hearing," the circuit

court did not provide an assessment of how much Kelly actually

owes Palehua with specific regard to the underlying judgment and

related post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. It

is also unclear from the record whether any portion of the

$28,504.46 paid by Kelly to Palehua in 2018 was intended by

Kelly, and/or accepted by Palehua, to cover any debt related to

the underlying judgment, or whether it was intended and accepted

to cover debts that were entirely unrelated to the underlying

judgment (e.g., unpaid association fees, and related late fees). 4

Without an assessment of the total amount owed by

Kelly on the underlying judgment (and related post-judgment

interest, attorneys' fees, and costs), and a determination by

the circuit court as to whether any part of this debt was

satisfied through Kelly's 2018 payments of $28,504.46, we are

unable to determine whether the circuit court abused its

discretion in releasing the entire amount of the Bond to

Palehua. The Bond was meant to preserve the status quo as to

the underlying judgment, and should not be released to

4 Palehua stipulated to dismiss its foreclosure action after Kelly paid the $28,504.46 to Palehua, and it therefore appears that there has not been a judicial determination as to additional amounts owed to Palehua (e.g., delinquent association fees, etc.) that are separate from the underlying judgment.

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

compensate Palehua for delinquent association fees, late fees,

or other debts unrelated to the underlying judgment.

We instruct the circuit court on remand to determine

the total amount owed by Kelly on the underlying judgment, post-

judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs awarded in the

underlying action and the appeal. The circuit court is further

instructed to determine whether any part of the $28,504.46 Kelly

paid to Palehua in 2018 was applied to the underlying judgment,

post-judgment interest, or attorneys' fees and costs awarded in

the underlying action and the appeal.

In light of our foregoing conclusion, we need not

reach the issue of whether the circuit court abused its

discretion in denying Kelly's motion for reconsideration.

We vacate the circuit court's Bond Order, and remand

for further proceedings consistent with this summary disposition

order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, October 22, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Chief Judge Paul V.K. Smith, for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge Taylor W. Gray, for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Associate Judge