Molfino v. Yuen. , 134 Haw. 181 ( 2014 )

*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCWC-10-0000150
13-NOV-2014
07:45 AM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
---oOo---
________________________________________________________________
GEOFFREY MOLFINO,
Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
CHRISTOPHER J. YUEN, in his capacity as Planning Director,
County of Hawaiʻi; COUNTY OF HAWAIʻI,
Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.
________________________________________________________________
SCWC-10-0000150
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(CAAP-10-0000150; CIV. NO. 07-1-0378)
NOVEMBER 13, 2014
RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, AND POLLACK, JJ., AND
CIRCUIT JUDGE NAKASONE, IN PLACE OF ACOBA, J., RECUSED
OPINION OF THE COURT BY McKENNA, J.
I. Introduction
At issue in this appeal is whether this court should impose
a duty of reasonable care on the Planning Department of the
County of Hawaiʻi to a property owner, leading to potential
negligence liability for damages allegedly sustained due to the
Planning Department’s failure to maintain all pertinent
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
correspondence in its property files at all times. We hold that
policy considerations counsel against the judicial creation of
such a legal duty under the common law, and also hold that there
is no basis under Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (“HRS”) Chapter 92F
(the Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified), or “UIPA”),
or Rule 1-8 of the Hawaii County Planning Department Rules of
Practice and Procedure, to impose negligence liability upon the
Planning Department based on the temporary absence of a
government record from its files. We therefore affirm the
judgment of the ICA, which affirmed the Circuit Court of the
Third Circuit’s1 order granting the County’s motion for summary
judgment on Molfino’s negligence claim.
II. Background
In this case, Molfino bought a piece of property on the
Hamakua Coast of the Island of Hawaiʻi, identified by Tax Map Key
(“TMK”) Number 3-2-002-035, for $350,000 in June 2003. Molfino
wanted to create a subdivision on the property. He visited the
Planning Department and made copies of the property’s TMK file.
Based on the property’s zoning classification, Molfino
understood that his property might consist of only two pre-
existing lots. Allegedly missing from the TMK file at that time
was an April 2000 letter from a realtor to the former Planning
Director, which requested a pre-existing lot determination, and
1
The Honorable Greg K. Nakamura presided.
2
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
the former Planning Director’s May 2000 response letter, which
stated that the property consisted of six pre-existing lots.
Unaware of the prior six-lot determination, Molfino wrote a
letter to the Planning Department in December 2003 requesting a
pre-existing lot determination. Based on the size of the
property and the number of homes already built upon it, Molfino
stated to the Planning Department that there was a possibility
the property actually consisted of seven pre-existing lots.
Christopher Yuen, the Planning Director, responded to Molfino’s
letter in June 2004. Yuen’s letter stated that Molfino’s
property consisted of two pre-existing lots. Apparently, the
April 2000 and May 2000 letters were also missing2 from the
Planning Department’s TMK files when Yuen and his employee,
Edward Cheplic, prepared the June 2004 letter.
While awaiting Yuen’s response, Molfino entered into a
contract to sell the property for $795,000 to Mikhail Pruglo,
and the deal was closed in July 2004. When Pruglo applied to
subdivide the property, the May 2000 letter resurfaced. The
Planning Department honored the May 2000 determination that the
property consisted of six pre-existing lots and granted Pruglo a
2
The County does not dispute that these letters were temporarily
missing from the TMK file. Yuen testified in a deposition that the Planning
Department’s policy is to keep all correspondence related to a property in
the property’s TMK file “essentially forever.” There is no allegation in the
complaint, and no evidence in the record, that anyone at the Planning
Department intentionally or maliciously removed the April and May 2000
letters from the TMK file.
3
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
six-lot subdivision. The Planning Director inadvertently
excluded a sliver of land on the property in granting the six-
lot subdivision approval, so he revised his final subdivision
plat map to include the sliver of land as a seventh lot. See
Kellberg v. Yuen, 131 Hawaii 513, 518, 319 P.3d 432, 437 (2014).
Molfino discovered that Yuen admitted making a mistake in
the June 2004 letter, which initially determined that the
property consisted of only two pre-existing lots. Molfino then
sued Yuen and the County of Hawaiʻi for negligence (among other
claims, which are no longer at issue on certiorari), alleging
that they breached a legal duty to use reasonable care in
maintaining the TMK file, and that this breach caused Molfino
monetary damages. The County filed its Answer, raising as a
defense that it owed no duty to Molfino.
The County later filed a motion for summary judgment on
Molfino’s negligence claim. The County pointed out that Molfino
based his negligence claim solely on a duty to maintain records
purportedly contained in the Hawaii County Planning Department
Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 1-8 (“Rule 1-8”), which
provides the following:
1-8 Public Records.
All public records shall be available for inspection by any
person during established office hours unless public
inspection of such records is in violation of any other
state, federal, or county law; provided that, except where
such records are open under any rule of court, the
Corporation Counsel or Prosecuting Attorney may determine
which records may be withheld from public inspection when
4
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
such records pertain to the preparation of the prosecution
or defense of any action or proceeding to which the County
is or may be a party, or when such records do not relate to
a matter in violation of law and are deemed necessary for
the protection of the character or reputation of any
person.
Copies of records printed or reproduced for persons other
than governmental agencies shall be given to any person,
provided that the fees or costs prescribed in the Hawaii
County Code are paid.
(Emphasis added). The County argued that Rule 1-8 mandates
inspection of public records, not the maintenance of those
records. The County then cited to Cootey v. Sun. Inv. Inc., 68
Haw. 480, 485, 718 P.2d 1086, 1090 (1986), for the proposition
that the County “is not intended to be an insurer of all the
dangers of modern life, despite its ever-increasing effort to
protect its citizens from peril.” Further, “[w]ithout a
reasonable and proper limitation of the scope of duty of care
owed by the County, the County would be confronted with an
unmanageable, unbearable, and totally unpredictable liability.”
68 Haw. at 484, 718 P.2d at 1090. The County concluded that
imposing a legal duty upon it to maintain records that it has no
duty to keep would impermissibly reallocate the County’s
resources (a task better suited to a legislative body); expose
the County to potentially infinite liability; lengthen the
permit process timeline; and dissuade the County from enacting
subdivision rules, regulations, and laws, contrary to the public
interest. Molfino counter-argued that “the duty to maintain
5
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
accurate records follows from [Rule 1-8’s] duty to make public
records available to any person.”
The circuit court agreed with the County. In an order
granting the County’s motion for summary judgment, the circuit
court reasoned as follows:
1. There is no express requirement in Rule § 1-8 of the
Planning Department Rules of Practice and Procedure that
the Planning Department records be kept in any particular
condition. Rather, this rule allows records to be open for
public inspection. It does not require that the records be
maintained so that they can be relied upon by the general
public in making major decisions;
2. The Hawaii County Code contains a formal mechanism for
subdivision approval which identifies how to determine
whether real property is subject to subdivision and under
what conditions. This determination should not be based
upon a review of the Planning Department’s records.
Whether or not real property is subject to subdivision and
under what conditions based upon a review of Planning
Department records only would be speculative, at best;
3. Imposing a duty of care to maintain Planning Department
records with reasonable accuracy invites unremitted
liability. For example, it would be too easy for a person
to manufacture a case by reviewing the records and claiming
reliance upon the status of the records for their actions
or omissions;
4. If a duty and liability is to be imposed upon the
County to maintain Planning Department records with
unerring accuracy, it should be imposed by a legislative
body. A legislative body is the proper entity to determine
whether [to spend] the County’s scarce resources on such a
duty and is capable of providing additional economic
resources which may be necessary;
5. The Planning Department owes no duty to keep its
records accurate and complete for persons who seek
information regarding the degree to which real property may
be capable of subdivision.
The circuit court subsequently entered judgment in favor of the
County and against Molfino, and Molfino appealed. Before the
ICA, Molfino argued for the first time that the Planning
Department’s legal duty to maintain accurate, relevant, timely,
6
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
and complete records stems from HRS Chapter 92F. The County
counter-argued that, even if the ICA were to consider HRS
Chapter 92F, Molfino’s argument would still fail. The County
argued that HRS Chapter 92F simply requires access to those
records a government agency has in fact maintained. See Nuuanu
Valley Ass’n v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 119 Hawaii 90, 97, 194
P.3d 531, 538 (2008) (citing State of Hawaii Org. of Police
Officers (SHOPO) v. Soc’y of Prof’l Journalists- Univ. of Hawaii
Chapter, 83 Hawaii 378, 393, 927 P.2d 386, 401 (1996)).
In a summary disposition order, the ICA affirmed the
circuit court’s judgment, holding that the circuit court
properly concluded “that the Planning Department did not have a
statutorily-based duty to maintain its records with unerring
accuracy.” Molfino v. Yuen, CAAP-10-0000150 (App. Aug. 28,
2013) (SDO) at 5. The ICA noted that Molfino had not cited any
cases “establishing a common law duty of this nature. . . .”
Id. The ICA lastly concluded, “Strong policy considerations
compel us to reject” Molfino’s argument. Id. This case is now
before us on certiorari review.
III. Standard of Review
This court reviews a circuit court’s grant of summary
judgment de novo. See Hawaii Cmty. Fed. Credit Union v. Keka,
94 Hawaii 213, 221, 11 P.3d 1, 9 (2000). “[S]ummary judgment is
7
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Id.IV. Discussion
In order to prevail on a negligence claim, a plaintiff is
required to prove all four of the necessary elements of
negligence:
(1) A duty, or obligation, recognized by the law, requiring
the defendant to conform to a certain standard of conduct,
for the protection of others against unreasonable risks;
(2) A failure on the defendant’s part to conform to the
standard required: a breach of the duty; (3) A reasonably
close causal connection between the conduct and the
resulting injury; and (4) Actual loss or damage resulting
to the interests of another.
Takayama v. Kaiser Found. Hosp., 81 Hawaii 486, 498-99, 923 P.2d
903, 915-16 (1996) (citation and brackets omitted)). A
prerequisite to any negligence action is the existence of a duty
owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. Lee v. Corregedore, 83
Hawaii 154, 158, 925 P.2d 324, 328 (1996). The existence of a
duty is entirely a question of law. See Hao v. Campbell Estate,
76 Hawaii 77, 80, 869 P.2d 216, 219 (1994) (citation omitted).
Whether a duty exists is a “question of fairness that involves a
weighing of the nature of the risk, the magnitude of the burden
of guarding against the risk, and the public interest in the
8
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
proposed solution.” Id. (citation omitted). This court has
chosen to impose tort duties reluctantly:
In considering whether to impose a duty of reasonable care
on a defendant, we recognize that duty is not sacrosanct in
itself, but only an expression of the sum total of those
considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the
particular plaintiff is entitled to protection. Legal
duties are not discoverable facts of nature, but merely
conclusory expressions that, in cases of a particular type,
liability should be imposed for damage done. In
determining whether or not a duty is owed, we must weigh
the considerations of policy which favor the appellants’
recovery against those which favor limiting the appellees’
liability. The question of whether one owes a duty to
another must be decided on a case-by-case basis. However,
we are reluctant to impose a new duty upon members of our
society without any logical, sound, and compelling reasons
taking into consideration the social and human
relationships in our society.
McKenzie v. Hawaii Permanente Med. Group, Inc., 98 Hawaii 296,
301, 47 P.3d 1209, 1214 (2002) (citations omitted).
One such case in which this court declined to impose a duty
was Cootey, 68 Haw. 480, 718 P.2d 1086, a case which the County
relied upon in its moving papers, and which the circuit court
and ICA drew heavily from in ruling in the County’s favor. In
Cootey, plaintiff homeowners (the Cooteys) sued the County of
Hawaii for negligently approving a subdivision, the development
of which allegedly caused flooding on the Cooteys’ property. 68
Haw. at 482, 718 P.2d at 1088-89. The Cooteys claimed that the
County owed them a “duty to administer and enforce the
applicable laws, rules and regulations and directives of the
County and the State of Hawaii. . . .” 68 Haw. at 482, 718 P.2d
at 1089. This court disagreed, holding that such a duty was
9
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
“too expansive in light of public policy considerations versus
liability and remedial considerations.” 68 Haw. at 483, 718
P.2d at 1089.
In Cootey, this court noted that the determination of
whether a duty exists requires a balancing of “the policy
considerations supporting recovery by the injured party against
those favoring a limitation of the County’s liability.” 68 Haw.
at 484, 718 P.2d at 1090. The court struck the balance in favor
of limiting the County’s liability. 68 Haw. at 483, 718 P.2d at
1089. This court stated, “Government is not intended to be an
insurer of all the dangers of modern life, despite its ever-
increasing effort to protect its citizens from peril.” 68 Haw.
at 485, 718 P.2d at 1090. Government should not be “liable for
all injuries sustained by private persons as a result of
governmental activity, even though doing so would spread the
losses over the largest possible base.” Id. (citation omitted).
Government agencies must still be able to function effectively
for their own “socially approved ends.” Id. (citation omitted).
This court held that the imposition of a duty in the Cooteys’
situation would “reorder[] priorities and forc[e] reallocation
of resources upon the other branches [primarily the legislative
branch] which make policy decisions in this regard.” 68 Haw. at
485, 486, 718 P.2d at 1090-91, 1091. Specifically, “exposure to
such liability would unduly lengthen the permit process, or
10
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
could very well dissuade the County from enacting rules,
regulations and laws applicable to proposed subdivisions and
intended for the protection and welfare of the public, a result
contrary to the public interest.” 68 Haw. at 486, 718 P.2d at
1091 (citations omitted). In conclusion, this court held that
the imposition of a legal duty in Cootey would result in
“unmanageable, unbearable, and totally unpredictable liability”
for the County. 68 Haw. at 484, 718 P.2d at 1090.
We agree with the ICA that similar policy considerations in
the instant case counsel against the judicial creation of a
legal duty for potential negligence liability to be imposed upon
the County for an alleged failure to maintain the May 2000
letter in the Planning Department’s TMK files. First, we agree
with the ICA that there appears to be no common law basis for
imposing a legal duty to maintain government records in complete
condition at all times. Second, we also agree with the ICA that
there is no statutory basis for imposing such a legal duty under
these circumstances.
In this case, before the circuit court, Molfino’s sole
support for his claim that the County owed him a legal duty to
maintain accurate Planning Department records was Rule 1-8,
which requires only that “[a]ll public records shall be
available for inspection by any person,” and contains no express
duty to maintain these records in “accurate, relevant, timely,
11
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
and complete” condition. We note, however, that Rule 1-8 is
similar to HRS Chapter 92F in that both afford the public a
right to inspect government records. HRS § 92F-11(a) (2012)
states, “All government records are open to public inspection
unless access is restricted or closed by law.” Further, HRS
§ 92F-12(a)(15) (2012) requires each agency to “make available
for public inspection and duplication during regular business
hours . . . [i]nformation collected and maintained for the
purpose of making information available to the general public
. . . .” Although not an express record-keeping requirement
under HRS §§ 92F-11(a) and -12(a)(15), HRS § 92F-2(2) (2012)
provides that one of the “underlying purposes and policies” of
HRS Chapter 92F is to “[p]rovide for accurate, relevant, timely,
and complete government records. . . .” Thus, it is helpful to
examine HRS Chapter 92F and cases construing that chapter to
determine whether the County owes a legal duty to Molfino to
maintain accurate, relevant, timely, and complete government
records at all times.
Two key cases construing HRS Chapter 92F are Nuuanu Valley
Ass’n, 119 Hawaii 90, 194 P.3d 531, and SHOPO, 83 Hawaii 378,
927 P.2d 386. In these cases, we held that HRS Chapter 92F
“requires agencies to provide access to those records that are
actually maintained.” Nuuanu Valley Ass’n, 119 Hawaii at 97,
194 P.3d at 538 (citing SHOPO, 83 Hawaii at 393, 927 P.2d at
12
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
401). In Nuuanu Valley Ass’n, this court further explained,
“Whether the [records] are ‘actually maintained’ [by the
government agency] depends on whether [the agency] ‘chose[] to
retain possession or control[]’ of the records.” Id. (citation
omitted).
In this case, Yuen testified at his deposition that the
Planning Commission’s policy is that “any incoming or outgoing
correspondence is supposed to be kept essentially forever” in a
property’s TMK files. Therefore, the Planning Commission
generally chooses to retain possession and control over letters
like the 2000 letters. Thus, under Nuuanu Valley Ass’n and
SHOPO, the Planning Department failed to provide Molfino with
access to the May 2000 pre-existing lot determination, which the
Planning Department admittedly should have maintained in its TMK
files but did not.
We must determine, however, whether this failure triggers a
legal duty under tort law leading to potential negligence
liability. In examining the rest of Chapter 92F, however, we
fail to discern any legislative intent to impose tort liability
upon a government agency for its failure to maintain government
records in accurate, relevant, timely, and complete condition at
all times. Legislative intent may be gleaned from reading
“statutory language in the context of the entire statute and
construing it in a manner consistent with its purpose.” Lingle
13
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
v. Haw. Gov’t Emps. Ass’n, AFSCME, Local 152, AFL-CIO, 107
Hawaii 178, 183, 111 P.3d 587, 592 (2005) (citation omitted).
Other provisions of HRS Chapter 92F speak to the consequences
for violating the UIPA. HRS § 92F-17 (2012) provides the
following:
Criminal penalties. (a) An officer or employee of an agency
who intentionally discloses or provides a copy of a
government record, or any confidential information
explicitly described by specific confidentiality statutes,
to any person or agency with actual knowledge that
disclosure is prohibited, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,
unless a greater penalty is otherwise provided for by law.
(b) A person who intentionally gains access to or obtains a
copy of a government record by false pretense, bribery, or
theft, with actual knowledge that access is prohibited, or
who intentionally obtains any confidential information by
false pretense, bribery, or theft, with actual knowledge
that it is prohibited [by] a confidentiality statute, shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor.
HRS § 92F-16 (2012) provides immunity from liability as follows:
“Anyone participating in good faith in the disclosure or
nondisclosure of a government record shall be immune from any
liability, civil or criminal, that might otherwise be incurred,
imposed or result from such acts or omissions.” Thus, HRS
Chapter 92F only expressly imposes criminal penalties for
intentional violations of confidentiality statutes.3 HRS Chapter
92F, when read as a whole, does not reflect a legislative intent
to impose tort liability for merely negligent acts or omissions
of government agencies in the maintenance of public records. In
3
We express no opinion as to whether HRS Chapter 92F imposes tort
liability for bad faith disclosures or nondisclosures of government records,
as bad faith nondisclosure was not alleged in this case, nor does the record
show that the absence of the May 2000 letter from the Planning Department's
TMK files was in bad faith.
14
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
other words, HRS Chapter 92F does not create a statutory legal
duty, flowing from the Planning Department to Molfino, to
maintain a property’s TMK file in accurate, relevant, timely,
and complete condition at all times, such that the Planning
Department should be liable for negligence because the May 2000
letter was temporarily missing from the file.
V. Conclusion
We hold that neither Rule 1-8 of the Hawaii County Planning
Department Rules of Practice and Procedure nor HRS Chapter 92F
provides a statutory basis for imposing negligence liability
upon the Planning Department of the County of Hawaii based on a
breach of any duty to maintain its TMK files in accurate,
relevant, timely, and complete condition at all times. We hold
that policy considerations counsel against the judicial creation
of a legal duty under the common law, leading to negligence
liability, under the circumstances present on the record in this
case. We therefore affirm the ICA’s judgment on appeal, which
affirmed the circuit court’s order granting the County’s motion
for summary judgment.
Peter Van Name Esser /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
for petitioner
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
Laureen L. Martin
for respondents /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
15