ANGELA KAAIHUE'S REPLY BRIEF IN APPEALLANT COURT, CAAP-19-0000806 VERSUS NEWTOWN ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION HAWAII LAND COURT JUDGE GARY CHAN CORRUPTION AT IT'S FINEST, Judge CrabTree, Judge Holma, Judge Sonja M. P. McCullen, Hawaii Chief Judge Lisa Ginoza, Hawaii Associate Judge Keith Hiraoka, Hawaii Judge Katherine G. Leonard, Hawaii Judge Karen T. Nakasone, Hawaii Judge Clyde J. Wadsworth

1. NO. CAAP-19-0000806
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
Angela Sue Kaaihue, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellant, Yong Nam Fryer,
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff
APPELLANT
vs.
Newtown Estates Community Association (NECA), Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant
APPELLEE,
...
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CIVIL CASE NO. 13-1-2161)
Angela Sue Kaaihue
Yong Nam Fryer
98-673 Kilinoe St.
Aiea, HI. 96701
(808) 358-8060
Email: akaai2674@gmail.com
Appellants
REPLY BRIEF
1
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-19-0000806
20-APR-2020
12:41 PM

2. REPLY BRIEF
I. CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE CASE-
Civil Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over discrepancies "clouds on title", and
disputes regarding Land Court Registered Properties. Land Court is the only court that has
.exclusive, "original jurisdiction over the registration of title to real property and over all
matters and disputes concerning such title subsequent to registration".
This case is a title dispute, regarding a "cloud on title", and an attempt by the
Plaintiff/Appellee's to Adversely Possess the land owned by the Defendant's!Appellant's.
After 40+ years of a Community Association ignored the neighboring 82-Acre undeveloped
land, and Plaintiffs Attorneys admitted in 2019 that the property was NEVER annexed, and
their NECA clients initially stated, "your property is NOT part ofNECA." However, in 2012,
the neighboring Community Association abruptly changed their position, and began claims
that the property now belonged to their community association and is subjected to their
community rules and by-laws. Subsequently, this quickly escalated into numerous fines,
fee's, and violations, amounting to a final judgment of approximately $600,000 injust a few
short years.
II. POINTS OF ERROR
A. POINT OF ERROR- §HRS 501-1- PROPERTY- LACK JURISDICTION- In
reference to Appellee's argument (Answering Brief, P.16) Appellee's attempts to
misconstrue the law ofjurisdiction has always been their method to meander their
way, lengthen the litigation, and elude a final decision by either of the courts
through the court system. Circuit Courts lack of Jurisdiction to hear title dispute
and discrepancies over Land Court Registered Property, thus no further Points of
Error need be evaluated. Circuit Court lacked Subject Matter Jurisdiction and
Land Court has Exclusive Jurisdiction, similarly to other State courts across this
country, Hawaii Land Court has Exclusive Jurisdiction that decides all contested
and uncontested issues pertaining to land court title, not a Civil Court Jury, for
this very reason, exclusivity.
2

3. . I
§501-1 Court; jurisdiction; proceedings; location; rules, practice, etc. A
court is established, called the land court, which shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction of all applications for the registration of title to land
and easements or rights in land held and possessed in fee simple within
the State, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon
such applications, and also have jurisdiction over such other questions
as may come before it under thi_s chapter, subject to the rights of appeal
under this chapter. The proceedings upon the applications shall be
proceedings in rem against the land, and the decrees shall operate
directly on the land and vest and establish title thereto.
B. POINT OF ERROR- §HRS 501-1- Multiple Verdicts- In Reference to appellee's
Answering Brief and Argument On page 22, that multiple issues and multiple
verdicts were rendered by a Circuit Court Jury including a special verdict all
confirmed by the Appellant's Opening Brief.
The law states: §501-1 Court; jurisdiction; proceedings; location; rules,
practice, etc. " ... Upon demand for jury trial, issues shall be framed
therefor by the circuit judge to whom the case has been assigned. No· ··
other issues shall be presented to the jury, and a special verdict shall be
rendered."
The Circuit Court Jury rendered their multiple verdicts and found that the (1) Lot is part
ofNewtown Estates, (2) the Lot is subjected to the MDCCR, (3) Defendants are members of
NECA, (4) Defendant's are required to comply with the MDCCR, and (5) NECA did not inflict
emotional distress on Defendant.(Page 22, Appellee's Answering Brief filed on April61h, 2020).
The jury issued multiple verdicts including special verdicts is clearly contradictory and out of
Jurisdiction as the law is stated. As a result, approximately a combined final judgment of
$600,000 was implemented onto the Defendant's and their properties.
C. POINT OF ERROR-SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE- In reference to Appellee's
argument (Answering Brief, P.16) Appellant's provided sufficient evidence by
presenting the Jury's 1st and Second Verdict Forms filed on January 20th, 2019.
All the records that were retrieved provides sufficient evidence that (1) there was a case,
(2) what this case was about, (3) the issues at stake, (3)who the parties were, (4)where this case
was heard, (5) the related cases, (6) their case numbers, (7)and the Plaintiffs Verdict Forms all
demonstrated the issues. The jury special verdict form asked the Jury to make a ruling whether or
not the Appellant's property was subjected to the MDCCR's or Newtown Estates. In addition to
3

4. the special verdict, multiple other verdicts were also rendered simultaneously. This was all
presented in the Opening Brief, The Answering brief, along with the final order, and therefore,
the Appellant deemed it unnecessary to seek transcripts.
D. POINT OF ERROR- LACKS ADMINISTRATIVE ASSIGNMENT- When
multiple courts and judges were involved, only an administrative judge can assign
a land court matter to a circuit court judge of the first circuit. In this case, there
was no assignment by an administrative judge.
§501-2 Judges; assignment of cases. The administrative judge of the circuit
court ofthe first circuit, subject to the direction of the chiefjustice as provided
by section 601-2(b)(2)(B), shall assign all land court matters to such judge or
judges ofthe circuit court ofthe first circuit as shall be deemed appropriate.
There was no assignment by Hawaii's Chief Justice for this land court matter to be
judged by a Jury of the Circuit Court.
E. POINT OF ERROR- HRS§ 501-1603-21.5- LACKS GENERAL
JURISDICTION In reply to Appellee's argument (Answering Brief, Table of
Contents ii)- Appellee's reference HRS §603-21.5, in regards to General
Jurisdiction and their basis for Circuit Court Jurisdiction. The statue is described
as follows:
HRS §603-21.5 General. (a) The several circuit courts shall
have jurisdiction, except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, of:
(1) Criminal offenses cognizable under the laws ofthe State, committed
within their respective _circ~its or transferred to them for trial by change of
venue from some other circuit court; .
(2) Actions for penalties and forfeitures incurred under the laws of the
State;
(3) Civil actions and proce~dings, in addition to those listed in sections
603-21.6, 603-21.7, and 603-21.8; and
(4) Actions for impeachment of county officers who are subject to
impeachment.
(b) The several circuit courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the
family court over:
There is no mention of General jurisdiction over Land Court. In fact, it
specifically states in the Case-Notes: Court has jurisdiction over all civil causes of
action unless precluded by state constitution or statute. 63 H. 55, 621 P.2d
4

5. 346 (1980). And that statue which precludes the General Jurisdiction of Title
Registration and disputes is Hawaii Revised Statute §501-TITLE 28-
PROPERTY, otherwise there would be no need for a Land Court.
The basic Understandings of Land Court Jurisdiction across the country is similar as
follows:
To decide a case, a court must have a combination of subject (subjectam) and either
personal (personam) or territorial (locum) jurisdiction.There are 3 Types of Subject Matter
Jursidiction: General, Limited, & Exclusive. Hawaii Land Court has exclusive jurisdiction in the
Hawai'i State Judiciary over cases involving registered land titles. The Land Court system of
land registration was created by statute in 1903 as a Torrens system of land titles.
(https://www.courts.state.hi.us/courts/landtax/land_and_tax_appeal_courts)
1. Boston Massachusetts: The Land Court's limited jurisdiction, however,
can sometimes make it difficult to know where you should file a complaint
that partially involves complex land issues but also involves other claims
over which the Land Court does not have jurisdiction.
2. Massachusetts General Law Chapter 185, section 1, the Land Court is
the only Massachusetts court that can rule on confirmation of easements
and title over property, boundary disputes, property registration, tax
foreclosure issues, and complaints to discharge mortgages. The Land
Court also has concurrent jurisdiction with the Probate and Family Court
over cases involving petitions for partition and concurrent jurisdiction
with the Massachusetts Superior Court over a wide variety of other real
estate-related matters, including zoning, subdivision and permit cases,
specific performance, and petitions to partition. Hawaii Land Court has
exclusive jurisdiction to hear a case regarding a "cloud on title", title
dispute and/or Adverse Claims to a Land Court Registered property. The
Land Court does not, however, have jurisdiction over cases seeking
monetary damages, including claims for Chapter 93A violations, which
are commonly used as a means to get punitive damages and attorneys' fees
in cases involving unfair and deceptive business practices.
5

6. 3. The Hawaii land court system consists of two components: (1) an
adjudicatory arm (that decides all contested and uncontested issues
pertaining to land court title) and (2) a recording arm (that records land
court title documents and registers title). (Hawaii Bar Journal, Mar. 2016,
Judge Gary Chang.
F. POINT OF ERROR- HRAP 1O(b)(1 )(A), (NO TRANSCRIPTS DEEMED
NECESSARY- When Circuit court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear acase .
regarding disputes of title, and an Adverse Possession Claim by the
Appellee's/Plaintiffs.
1. Based on HRAP 1O(b)(1)(A), " ...a request or request to prepare a
reporter's transcripts of such parts ofthe proceedings as the appellant
deems necessary that are not already on file in the appeal."
The appellant deemed unnecessary to detail the transcripts, when Circuit
Court lacked jurisdiction to hear a case regarding "cloud on title", and
"adverse possession". Many related documents are already on file including
the Jury's verdict for the Appeliant Court to Review. The case is simple,
Land Court is exclusively reserved for special issues including "clouds on title
& adverse possession". Therefore Appellant followed all rules ofthe HRAP.
2. HRAP 10(b)(l)(A), Appellant deemed unnecessary to provide transcripts
when the law is clear, the circuit case was a procedural defect, and it's in
the jury's verdict, and final judgment, stating what the issue was, resulting
in a defective order that lacked jurisdiction. The final judgment was
provided, along with the Plaintiffs Proposed Jury's verdicts.
G. POINT OF ERROR- HRAP 28 (b)(4)-Appellant's made it clear and concise what
the statement of the points of error was. That Circuit Court has NO jurisdiction to
cases which involve Land Court Title Disputes. Only Land Court has exclusive
Jurisdiction. And this is similar to all Land CQurts across the Country.
- ·-
H. POINT OF ERROR- HRAP 28- A Case is deemed related ... This community
association refused to service the property because they took the position that the
6
I
I

7. property was a "personal dispute" regarding an easement between two land
owners. When NECA was asked to participat~, NECA refused. Thus, Land Court
Case #1LD110000271 was a related case and demonstrates the
Appellee's/Plaintiffs failure to service the property because at that time, NECA
took the position that the Defendant's were NOT part oftheir community
association.
III. ARGUMENT
A. Although Circuit Court has NO jurisdiction to hear the Appellant's title dispute over
Land Court Registered Property, and despite the Plaintiff(s)/Appellee(s) attorneys
admitting, the vacant land parcel in it's entire history was NEVER-EVER-NEVER
annexed to Newtown Estates Community Association, the Circuit Court, a jury, a 3 week
trial, several attorneys, and a few judges, and 7 years later, the Circuit Court Jury
Member's erred and made a verdict and said "Yes, the 82-acred forested property was
subjected to the MDCCR's of a Community Association."
B. Following that, was Circuit Court Judge Crabtree's Order to the Defendant's!Appellant's
to pay the Newtown Estates Community Association and lawyers, a total of $600,000 in
fines, and fees, stemming from a few simple oftheir Community violations. Prior to that
there was never any evidence that the disputed 82-Acre property or any ofthe previous
owner's were member's ofthe Newtown Estate Community Association. Only in 2012,
when Newtown Estates Community Association stated, "Oops, we made a mistake, you
are part of our Community Association, and you must abide by our rules"
C. For the past 7 years, the development of Defendant's residential project, including
Appellant's family home was put on delay. Despite numerous motions to dismiss the
case, and efforts put into Land Court, it appeared the Judges were hesitant to judge, the
Lawyers were hesitant to resolve the case, rejected 3x to mediate, changed lawyers,
changed judges, filed repetitive documents, and found every little procedural defect or
failure in the Defendant's Land Court Petitions, Motions, Filings, Certificate of Services,
many times, claiming that Defendant's!Appellees is NOT an attorney and can not
represent Defendant Yong Fryer, which The Defendant Angela Kaaihue never stated or
claimed she was an attorney, whom is the daughter of Co-Defendant ofYong Fryer.
7

8. D. The underlying issue of whether or not this is a land court matter, and that this is a land
court registered property, or whether or NOT if Circuit Court had subject matter
jurisdiction, or No Adverse Possession, the attorney's admitting that the disputed
property was NEVER annexed, the need for lengthy costly transcripts is unnecessary.
This is a simple case, and a simple appeal, which stems from a jurisdictional claim of
Land Court Property, justifies the- overturn ofthe subsequent Circuit Court's Judgment
finding the Defendant's guilty of a few Community Association Rules, thus escalating
the cost of Attorney fee's, fine's, and penalties of more than $600,000.
E. The Plaintiffs NEVER wanted this case to be heard in Land Court, thus, argued, that The
appellant's Land Court Petition seeking Declaratory Relief was a procedural defect. It
could have simply been resolved in land court, instead the Plaintiffs wanted to plai
"ping-pong" between the court systems of Land Court and Civil Court. The Plaintiffs
never argued that Land Court lacked Jurisdiction, only argued that the documents
submitted by the Defendant's were procedurally defected similarly as their claim this
Appeal is defective, so the issue at stake could never be evaluated, except by a Jury.
F. Land Court Judge Gary Chang, States"... The Land Court subject matter jurisdiction
does relate primarily to Land Court property and questions that pertain to Land Court
property. It also has subject matter jurisdiction over the recording system of Land Court
property and questions that relate or arise out ofthe recording system." (Page ll.Reply
Memo of Appellee's)
G. This appeal meets all standards as required by the Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure
("HRAP"). It is clearly erroneous that a Land Court Matter about a title dispute which
implicates an Adverse Possession claim was heard by a Jury of a Circuit Court. Points of.
Error is clearly alleged andpoints to all important jurisdictional defect that Civil court
implied upon a title dispute of Land Court Registered Property. Transcripts are NOT
needed in case as there is nothing to transcribe in a court that lacks jurisdiction. It is very
obvious that this is· a title dispute, in which NECA is attempting to adversely possess the
lands, and Land Court is the only court that has the jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute.
The Judge's Final Judgment along with the Juries verdict against a Land Court
Registered property is sufficient evidence which demonstrated a title dispute that of
whether or not the subjected property was subjected to the MDCCR's of Newtown
8

9. Estates after 40 years of no evidence of annexation is a clear demonstration of Circuit
Court's lack ofJurisdiction.
H. Appellee's argue that Land Court Judge and Circuit Judge Crabtree claims that Circuit
Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate title claims ofLand Court Registered Properties in
both courts. However, only Land Court has the jurisdiction to alter or amend title. This is
true, and an impartial incorrect statement. Only Land court has the jurisdiction to settle
disputes as to Adyerse Possession and Title Disputes or discrepancies of~and Court
Registered Properties as state in HRS 501. This case is about a community association
and their attempts to Adversely possess a neighboring lands after 40+ years, suddenly
began claiming that they have the right to apply their Community Association House
Rules to the appellant's unannexed property which sat on the outside of a residential
developed community.
I. Appellee's argue that the Hawaii Supreme Court case Rice, 68, Hawi. 334, 335, 713, p.2d
426, 427 (1986) that Land Court lacked jurisdiction regarding a sale of lands and
damages. This is a completely different case and situation to the current Appellant's case
regarding a Community Association's attempts to adversely possess and undeveloped
land that was never annexed.
J. Again HRS 501-1 states: " ... has the power to hear and determine all questions arising
upon such applications. This case is a Land Court matter because the Plaintiffs attempts
to adversely possess undeveloped lands which began in 2013 by attempting to suddenly
implement their MDCCR's upon the Appellant's property.
K. The Secondary issue after proven that IF there was NO DEFECT, then it was to obtain
compliance to a Master Declaration of Codes and Covenants and Declarations to the
appellee's property, however, never properly annexed just as admitted by the Appellee's
attorney's themselve~ "Phillip Li & Carol Rosenberg". Because first ofall,_ if a property
that was never annexed into a community association, a property left vacant and
undeveloped of 40+ years, and of 82 acres, then there would be no reason to find a land
owner defiant of it's MDCCR's which is the secondary issue. For a land owner of vacant
land that large to be in compliance of a community association is absolutely impossible!
The very Exhibit that created the MDCCR ofNewtown Estates recorded in May of 1972,
clearly stated the property was excluded. Again, this is a land court matter, and no jury
9

10. has the abilities to decipher or the jurisdiction to "decode" the documents ofLand Court
Registered properties. This was clearly a question of title which was absolutely reserved
for Land·court.
L. Incompetent- in other words, the Plaintiffs, continue to argue the Defendant's level of
incompetency, the claims for emotional distress was dismissed, the claim for liED was
dismissed,every argument that we could defended was dismissed because lack of, or
incompetency, or the ignorance of professionalism and disregarded of it exemplary
purpose as this is Appellant court, written in Land Court, and in Civil Court, which gave
rise to the Appellee's continuance eluding of the appropriate answer in the appropriate
court which would have been Land Court to address the Adverse Possession of Newtown
Estates, and claiming rights to enforce their Community Association Rules onto the 82-
Acre Vacant Undeveloped Moutainous Terrain, Forested Land Parcel.
Therefore, we humbly request that the Appellant Court vacate the Civil Court Jury's 1st
Verdict, 2nd Verdict, and Special Verdict filed on Jan. 30th, 2019, and Judge Crabtree's signed
order on April 1st, 2019 and the final Judgment order on Dec.4th, 2019 for Civil Court's lack of
Subject Matter jurisdiction over title and rights of Appellant's Land Court Registered Property.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii; April 19th, 2020
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii; April 19th, 2020
10
Angela Sue Kaaihue
(
APPELLANT
Yong Nam Fryer
YONG NAM FRYER
APPELLANT

11. 11

12. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that this Opening Brief, pursuant to Rule 32(a)(7)(C) ofthe Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure is proportionately spaced, double-spaced, using a Times New Roman
Typeface, 12-point size, with a total word count ofOOOO words as determined by the Windows
XP word processing operating system used to prepare said document.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii; April 19th, 2020
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii; April 19th, 2020
12
APPELLANT
~f YongNamFryer
YONG NAM FRYER
APPELLANT

13. ..
. -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the date first written below a true and correct copy of the aforementioned
Reply Briefwas duly filed by personal hand delivery, thereby served upon the following
attorneys representing the Appellees in this Appeal:
Phillip A. Li, Esq.
733 Bishop Street, Ste. 1770
Honolulu, HI. 96813
Attorneyfor Counterclaim Defendant
Newtown Estates Community Association
Motooka & Rosenberg
1000 Bishop Street, Suite 801
Honolulu, HI., 96813
Attorneyfor Plaintiff
Newtown Estates Community Association
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii; April 19th, 2020.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii; April 19th, 2020.
13
~t6t~
A GELA SUE KAAIHUE
APPELLANT
Yong Nam Fryer
YONG NAM FRYER
APPELLANT