Ching v. Dung. ( 2020 )

*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX
21-DEC-2020
08:28 AM
Dkt. 40 OP
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
---o0o---
DONNA LEE CHING,
Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
vs.
NANCY LOO DUNG, Individually, and as Trustee under that certain
unrecorded Nancy Loo Dung Revocable Living Trust dated
September 8, 1993; The Estate of DENNIS QUAN KEONG DUNG,
DECEASED AS Trustee under that certain unrecorded Irrevocable
Trust for Dixon Quan Hon Dung, dated June 21, 1995, and as
Trustee under that certain unrecorded Nancy Loo Dung Revocable
Living Trust dated September 8, 1993; PATSY BOW YUK DUNG,
Individually, and as Trustee under that certain unrecorded
Revocable Trust Agreement dated August 19, 2003;
DIXON QUAN HON DUNG; BILLIE DUNG; ANNETTE KWAI FAH DUNG;
DENBY DUNG; DARAH DUNG; DEAN DUNG,
Respondents/Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
(CIVIL NO. 07-1-1116-06)
DONNA L. CHING, Individually,
Petitioner/Plaintiff/Counterclaim
Defendant-Appellant/Cross Appellee,
vs.
ANNETTE KWAI FAH DUNG, Personal Representative of the Estate of
Dennis Quan Keong Dung; PATSY BOW YUK DUNG, Trustee of the
Revocable Trust of Patsy Bow Yuk Dung, Individually; BILLIE DUNG,
Individually; DARAH DUNG, Individually; DEAN DUNG, Individually;
DENBY DUNG, Individually,
Respondents/Defendants/Counterclaim
Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
(CIVIL NO. 13-1-2929-11)
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX)
DECEMBER 21, 2020
NAKAYAMA, ACTING C.J., WILSON, AND EDDINS, JJ., AND
CIRCUIT JUDGE TONAKI, IN PLACE OF MCKENNA, J., RECUSED,
WITH CIRCUIT JUDGE CRABTREE, IN PLACE OF RECKTENWALD, C.J.,
RECUSED, CONCURRING
OPINION OF THE COURT BY WILSON, J.
I. INTRODUCTION
This case arises from a dispute that began in 2007
between neighbors, Donna Lee Ching (“Ching”) and the Dung family1
(“Dungs”), over an easement located on the Dungs’ property that
provides Ching access to her landlocked property. The easement
dispute escalated into numerous incidents of alleged wrongful
conduct by both Ching and the Dungs, culminating in a $616,000
jury verdict in favor of Ching in 2016.
Both parties appealed to the Intermediate Court of
Appeals (“ICA”). The ICA vacated the First Circuit Court’s
September 15, 2016 Judgment; November 14, 2016 Order Denying
Additur; April 12, 2016 Order Granting in Part, and Denying in
Part Judgment as a Matter of Law (“JMOL”); January 4, 2017 Order
1
For the purposes of this case, the Dung family consists of
Annette Dung (“Annette”), Dixon Dung (“Dixon”), Darah Dung (“Darah”), Dean
Dung (“Dean”), and Denby Dung (“Denby”).
2
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Denying Further JMOL; and January 4, 2017 Order Denying New
Trial, holding that the circuit court made numerous errors. The
ICA also vacated the jury’s verdicts as to Ching’s claims for
nuisance, civil conspiracy, and malicious prosecution because it
found that it was impossible to determine whether the jury’s
unspecified lump-sum damages award was based on one of the
improper grounds that it had vacated. To reach this conclusion,
the ICA applied the “general verdict rule”2 to vacate the entire
jury award and remanded the case for a new trial.
On certiorari, Ching raises four points of error and
alleges that the ICA erred by (1) sua sponte raising and
subsequently misapplying the “general verdict rule,” (2) sua
sponte raising and then misapplying the law of civil conspiracy,
(3) improperly vacating the circuit court’s order on judicial
admissions and judicial estoppel, and (4) improperly vacating
the jury’s verdict on nuisance, invasion of privacy, and
malicious prosecution claims.
We hold that the ICA erred when it vacated the jury’s
civil conspiracy verdict, when it vacated the circuit court’s
order on judicial admissions and judicial estoppel, and when it
vacated the jury’s verdict on Ching’s nuisance, invasion of
2
The ICA defines the general verdict rule as “where several counts
are tried, a general verdict will be upheld if any one count is supported by
substantial evidence and is unaffected by error, in the absence of an
objection to the form of verdict.”
3
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
privacy, and malicious prosecution claims. Our review of the
ICA’s application of the general verdict rule is unnecessary to
the disposition of this case because all of the grounds upon
which the jury verdict rested are affirmed. We consequently
reverse the ICA’s September 16, 2019 Judgment on Appeal.
II. BACKGROUND
A. The Easement
Ching is the owner of the property located at 1212A
Wilder Avenue (“Lot 28”). The Dungs are the owners of the
adjacent property (“Lot 27”). Originally owned as a single
undivided property, Lot 27 and Lot 28 were divided into two
parcels on September 29, 1944, with an easement running along
the edge of Lot 27 so that Lot 28 would have access to Hoonanea
Street.3
In the 1970s or 1980s, the Dungs constructed a paved
driveway from Hoonanea Street over the easement to the border of
Lot 28 for their own use. According to the Dungs, the Ching
family did not use the driveway (or the easement) because the
properties were separated by a wall, which was later partially
removed. Historically, Ching’s property was mainly accessed via
3
The subdivision was approved in light of “the Petition stating
that Lot 28 will have access to Hoonanea Street over Easement ‘A’[,]” and the
approving order (“Order 5938”) also included Map 8, identifying “Easement A”
as running along the edge of Lot 27. Map 8 noted that the easement is 12
feet wide, 1866 square feet, and that “Lot 28 will have access to Hoonanea
Street over Easement ‘A.’”
4
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
pedestrian pathways from Wilder Avenue and did not have any
vehicular access directly to the property.
B. 2007 Litigation
The easement conflict began in 2007, when Ching
started construction of a paved ramp connecting her property to
the Dungs’ driveway and the easement. To build the ramp, Ching
had construction vehicles use the easement for access as it was
the only vehicular access to her property. The Dungs protested
the use of their driveway by construction vehicles and
eventually erected a chain across the driveway.
On June 21, 2007, Ching filed a Complaint (“2007
Complaint”) against the Dungs alleging they had blocked her
access to the Easement and interrupted her use and enjoyment of
the Easement. On October 5, 2007, the Dungs filed an Answer to
Ching’s complaint and a Counterclaim asserting nine counts. In
their Answer, the Dungs acknowledged the existence of an
easement for ingress, egress, and temporary parking while
unloading and loading. Following the Dungs’ Answer, the 2007
Complaint and the Dungs’ Counter-complaint were “informally
resolved” by the parties. Although the Dungs’ counsel sent a
letter indicating that the Dungs were prepared to stipulate to
the existence of the easement, the record does not indicate
whether the stipulation was ever finalized or submitted to the
5
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
courts. Despite the informal resolution, the case remained
pending in circuit court.
C. 2013 Injunction Against Harassment
Though the parties informally resolved the 2007 Suit,
the conflict over the easement continued. According to Ching,
the Dungs would impede her access to the easement by placing
objects and plants or parking their cars in the access,
preventing her visitors and workers from using the easement, and
frequently calling the police when she used the easement.
According to the Dungs, Ching would bother their dogs, trespass
against their property and chattel by pushing objects and plants
out of the easement, and drive her car recklessly up and down
the driveway.
On June 20, 2013, Annette Dung received a Temporary
Restraining Order and Injunction Against Harassment (“Injunction
Against Harassment”) against Ching related to her use of the
easement. At the district court’s February 4, 2014 hearing
regarding the Injunction Against Harassment,4 the court
recognized the existence of the easement but granted a permanent
Injunction Against Harassment for a period of three years
4
The Honorable James S. Kawashima presided.
6
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
because Ching abused the easement by using it “as a way to annoy
her neighbors[.]”5
D. 2013 Litigation
On November 1, 2013, Ching filed a complaint against
the Dungs, which was later amended on May 27, 2015 (“2013
Complaint”). The 2013 Complaint asserted twelve claims: (1)
Easement by Grant; (2) Easement by Necessity; (3) Easement by
Estoppel; (4) Declaratory Relief; (5) Injunctive Relief; (6)
Constructive Trust; (7) Breach of Contract; (8) Invasion of
Privacy; (9) Defamation/Slander; (10) Civil Conspiracy; (11)
Malicious Prosecution; and (12) Nuisance. The 2007 litigation
and the 2013 Complaint were consolidated by order of the court
on January 8, 2015.
On August 29, 2014, the Dungs filed an Answer to the
2013 Complaint and a Counterclaim asserting six claims: (1)
Abuse of Process; (2) Malicious Prosecution; (3) Trespass; (4)
Assault and Battery; (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional
5
Ching appealed the district court’s grant of the Injunction
Against Harassment, and the ICA affirmed the grant of injunction on June 25,
2015. Dung v. Ching, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2015 WL 3936910, at *3 (App. June
25, 2015) (SDO). In its SDO, the ICA acknowledged the existence of the
easement and noted that easement did “not specify whether it was established
for pedestrian access, vehicular access, or both, but Mrs. Dung’s family did
not have vehicular access to the street until the 1970s and Ms. Ching did not
have vehicular access until 2007.” Id. at *1 n.3. Ching petitioned this
court for a writ of certiorari, which was denied on October 29, 2015. Dung
v. Ching, No. SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX (S.Ct. Oct. 29, 2015) (cert denied).
7
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Distress; and (6) Declaratory and Injunctive Relief that Ching
had no rights to the easement, that the easement was “null and
void and of no legal force and effect[,]” and that Ching be
enjoined from using the Dungs’ driveway.
As Ching’s 2013 Complaint was pending, the Dungs
obtained a permit and constructed a gate across the easement,
closed it, and put up signs warning that trespassers would be
prosecuted. The gate required Ching to park her car on Hoonanea
Street (because the Dungs’ Injunction Against Harassment
prevented her from parking on the easement), walk down the
easement and open the gate, walk back up the easement to her
car, and drive down the easement onto her property.
On October 2, 2014, Ching filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction enjoining the Dungs from obstructing her
use of the easement for ingress and egress. At the November 7,
2014 hearing, the court noted that the Dungs “did not dispute
the existence of the easement for ingress and egress in the 2007
litigation, and the evidence indicates that the plaintiff holds
a 12-foot easement over defendants’ property for access to
Hoonanea Street.”6 The court found that “the gate pose[d] an
unreasonable interference with [Ching’s] right to use the
easement for ingress and egress” and that Ching “has shown that
6
The Honorable Jeannette H. Castagnetti presided.
8
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
she is likely to prevail on the merits[.]”7 The court ordered
the Dungs to (1) remove the signs at the top of the driveway
warning that the driveway may not be used to service the Ching
residence, (2) remove a bar at the top of the driveway that
prevented work trucks from using the driveway, (3) keep the gate
open at all times, and (4) refrain from “obstructing or
interfering with [Ching’s] right to use the easement for ingress
and egress[.]”
On July 1, 2015, Ching filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment (“MSJ”) as to the existence of the easement. Relevant
to this appeal, Ching argued that the court should take notice
of the Dungs’ prior judicial admission to the existence of the
easement made in the 2007 litigation.8 According to Ching, the
7
The court also held that:
Under Hawai‘i law, where the width, length and location of
an easement for ingress and egress have been expressly set forth
in the instrument, the easement is specific and definite. The
express terms of the grant or reservation are controlling in such
case and considerations of what may be necessary or reasonable to
a present use of the dominant estate are not controlling. If,
however, the width, length and location of an easement for
ingress and egress are not fixed by the terms of the grant or
reservation, the dominant estate is ordinarily entitled to a way
of such width, length and location as is sufficient to afford
necessary or reasonable ingress or egress. That’s the
Consolidated Amusement Company case, 6 Hawai‘i App. 312, 317-18.
That’s a 1986 case.
8
Ching also identified other places where the Dungs demonstrated
their belief and acknowledgement that an easement exists for ingress and
egress, including an October 7, 2006 email from Annette to Ching, an October
31, 2006 letter from Annette to Ching, and a June 21, 2007 letter from the
Dungs’ attorney, Bert T. Kobayashi, to Ching’s attorney, Wayne Mau.
(continued . . .)
9
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Dungs’ acceptance of the easement’s existence is further
evidenced by the fact that the 2007 litigation was informally
(continued . . .)
In the October 7, 2006 email to Ching, Annette wrote:
1. I understand that the new curb cut and necessary
connections from the street to the existing easement are
your responsibility.
2. I will remove the low rock wall on the Dung property at
the top of the driveway. Please note that access to the
easement from the street is blocked by a No Parking sign
and a utility pole.
In the letter to Ching dated October 31, 2006, Annette wrote:
1. The measurement of the 12 foot easement shall be from
the property line as staked by our professional licensed
surveyor. The official land use documents do not specify
that the measure of the 12 foot easement shall be taken
from the “inside” of our rock wall.
. . . .
6. As previously discussed, the easement is for
ingress/egress purposes only.
7. . . . The time of the easement agreement dates back to
the early 1940’s [sic]. According to our findings, the
only specified language defining the easement is, “a grant
of a right to use a strip of land for a specific purpose.”
In Mr. Kobayashi’s letter, he wrote in pertinent part:
With regard to the injunctive relief requested, Mrs.
Dung agrees for the land owners that what is being
requested is consistent with what her understanding is at
this time and that there is no need to request injunctive
relief through the Courts. The only point that my [sic] be
in question is the ability to park on the easement as the
easement is one that can be used by both the land owners
and the Chings. I have advised Mrs. Dung and she agrees
that parking is within the use of an ingress and egress
easement if it is for the purposes of loading and unloading
. . . . Therefore, I am authorized to advise you that my
clients, who are named as defendants: . . . agree that I
have the authority upon presentation (if you believe such
stipulation to be necessary) to execute a stipulation to
the effect that they will not block, interfere with or
obstruct the easement in question.
10
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
resolved after the Dungs admitted to the existence of the
easement for ingress and egress in the 2006 and 2007
correspondence and in their answer to the 2007 Complaint. Ching
argued that following this informal resolution, the Dungs did
not object to the construction of the ramp connecting her
property to the easement over the Dungs’ driveway, and she
thereafter made frequent use of the easement for ingress and
egress.
In response, the Dungs argued that Ching cannot
establish that an easement exists based on judicial admissions
or under a theory of judicial estoppel because, (1) “the Dungs
are not competent to testify as to legal conclusions such as the
creation or termination of easements,” (2) their 2007 litigation
statements were a legal position rather than a factual
admission, (3) the 2007 position was not inconsistent with the
Dungs’ current position, (4) the 2007 proceeding is not part of
the “same proceeding[,]” (5) “the legal landscape . . . changed
from the law in 2007” because there was new precedent in Hawai‘i
providing for the termination of easements by prescription, and
(6) had the Dungs been able to retain their requested expert,
“they would have known, as they do now, that Easement ‘A’ was,
if anything, a ‘paper’ easement.”
11
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
On August 13, 2015, a hearing was held on Ching’s MSJ.9
The court noted that in the 2007 case, the Dungs’ legal counsel
“was prepared to stipulate to the existence of that easement”
and that “it is clear to this Court that an easement was
recognized by the parties and does exist.” The court granted
Ching’s MSJ in part and denied it in part, by recognizing the
easement as valid but leaving to the jury the determination of
whether the easement is for vehicular use, pedestrian use, or
both, among other issues.
Following opposing requests by the parties, the court
held a Hearing Regarding Legal and Equitable Issues to determine
whether the scope of the Easement is a question of law for the
court to determine or a question of fact for the jury to
determine on January 25, 2016. The court then ruled and issued
an order that the Dungs were judicially estopped from: (1)
denying the existence of an access easement; (2) denying that
the easement is for ingress and egress; and (3) denying that the
easement is for vehicular travel and the reasonable loading and
unloading of material from plaintiff’s property. The court
determined that certain other terms and conditions of the
easement were open questions of fact for the jury to decide,
9
The Honorable Gary Won Bae Chang presided.
12
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
including: (1) whether the easement includes pedestrian access;
and (2) whether the easement allows stopping or parking.
Prior to trial, the court ruled on the parties’
Motions in Limine (“MIL”).10 Ching filed ten MIL. Ching’s MIL
No. 2 sought to preclude the Dungs from denying the existence of
the easement. The circuit court granted Ching’s MIL No. 2 but
allowed the Dungs to assert the defense of abandonment.
The circuit court granted Ching’s MIL No. 3, which
sought to preclude the Dungs from claiming the easement is not
for pedestrian ingress and egress.
Ching’s MIL No. 7 sought to strike the testimony of
Professor Robert Bruce Graham, Jr. (“Professor Graham”) because
Professor Graham’s testimony that the easement was “a paper
easement” that would not have been intended to include vehicular
access was irrelevant. The court denied the MIL in part,
allowing Professor Graham to “educate the jury about what
consolidation and re-subdivision involves[,]” and granted the
MIL in part to preclude “all other opinion testimony of
[Professor] Graham.”
The circuit court granted the Dungs’ only MIL, which
sought an order from the court stating that Ching’s “misuse of
the subject easement has already been adjudicated and therefore
10
Only MIL relevant to this appeal are discussed in this Opinion.
13
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Hawai‘i law principles of collateral estoppel (or issue
preclusion) apply.” The Dungs argued that the district court,
in granting the Dungs’ Injunction Against Harassment, determined
that Ching used the easement to harass the Dungs during the 2014
Injunction Against Harassment and that harassment is “identical
to the ‘misuse’ element of the Dungs’ equitable claim that
Ching’s easement should be terminated or restricted.” The
circuit court granted the Dungs’ MIL, but limited the evidence
of Ching’s “easement abuse” to the findings made by the district
court when it granted the Dungs’ Injunction Against Harassment
and precluded any reference to the phrase “easement abuse” and
limited “the evidence to the determinations of Judge Kawashima
through the date of the injunction that was issued.”
A jury trial before the circuit court began on
February 16, 2016 and concluded on March 4, 2016. In accordance
with the Special Verdict form, the jury found that: (1) the
subject easement was for both pedestrian and vehicular use; (2)
the Dungs, including Annette Dung, Dixon Dung, Dean Dung, Denby
Dung, and Darah Dung, engaged in a civil conspiracy against
Ching; (3) the Dungs, including Annette Dung, Dixon Dung, Dean
Dung, Denby Dung, and Darah Dung, committed nuisance against
Ching; (4) the Dungs, including Annette Dung, Denby Dung, and
Darah Dung, invaded Ching’s privacy; (5) the Dungs, including
14
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Annette Dung, Denby Dung, and Darah Dung, defamed Ching; and (6)
Denby Dung “and/or” Darah Dung engaged in an act of malicious
prosecution against Ching. The jury found that Ching’s damages
consisted of Special Damages of $16,600.00, General Damages of
$500,000.00, and Punitive Damages of $100,000.00 for a total
award of $616,000.00. The jury also found that: (1) Ching had
not abandoned the easement; (2) Ching had not misused her
easement rights; (3) Ching had not intentionally inflicted
emotional distress upon any of the Dungs; and (4) that the Dungs
were not entitled to damages.
After trial, on March 9, 2019, the court denied both
parties’ requests for equitable relief because both sides had
“unclean hands[.]” The circuit court entered Final Judgment on
September 15, 2016.
E. Proceedings Before the ICA
Both Ching and the Dungs appealed. The ICA entered
the Opinion of the Court on August 15, 2019 and entered its
Judgment on Appeal on September 16, 2019. In its Opinion, the
ICA held that the case must be remanded for a new trial because
the circuit court made numerous errors, discussed below.
1. Judicial Admissions and Estoppel
The ICA concluded that the Dungs’ statement that they
have “always fully accepted the idea of an easement for ingress
15
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
and egress” was “not a statement of concrete fact” and that it
was also “not an admission concerning the intent of the original
parties to the Easement’s creation[.]” The ICA then held that
the Dungs’ answers to the 2007 Complaint were not “sufficiently
clear, deliberate, and unequivocal that they should be decisive
to the outcome of an issue that is so central to the dispute
between the parties[.]”
The ICA reviewed the record and concluded that the
easement was “ambiguous” because there was “no additional
information regarding the scope or intended use of the
Easement.” Consequently, the ICA found that the scope of the
easement was a question of fact for the jury to decide, and the
circuit court was wrong to conclude that the Dungs had
judicially admitted that the scope includes vehicular access.
Thus, the ICA concluded that the circuit court erred
in ruling that the Dungs made a judicial admission, when it
estopped the Dungs from denying the scope and use of the
easement. The ICA also concluded that the circuit court erred
when it estopped the Dungs from presenting evidence concerning
the scope of the easement.
2. Limitation of Expert Testimony
The ICA suggested that the circuit court limited
Professor Graham’s testimony at trial because it had concluded
16
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
that the Dungs “judicially admitted critical facts regarding the
Easement’s scope[.]” The ICA did not decide whether Professor
Graham’s testimony should have been admitted at trial,
instructing the circuit court “to reconsider whether the Dungs’
expert’s proposed testimony meets the standards for expert
testimony and would provide relevant evidence regarding, inter
alia, the scope of the Easement.”
3. Injunction Against Harassment
The ICA concluded that the Injunction Against
Harassment was relevant at trial and “was critical to explain
(and perhaps justify) why the Dungs called the [Honolulu Police
Department (“HPD”)] to report various actions of Ching that they
believed violated the Injunction.” The ICA noted that “[t]here
were numerous instances at trial in which the Injunction was
mentioned or referred to by witnesses” and concluded that the
Injunction was “highly relevant to the issue of whether the
Dungs’ calls to the HPD were a nuisance.” Accordingly, the ICA
held that the circuit court abused its discretion when it
refused to admit into evidence the Injunction Against
Harassment. The ICA appeared to base this determination, at
least in part, on the fact that the circuit court admitted the
Preliminary Injunction in favor of Ching while excluding the
Injunction Against Harassment in favor of the Dungs.
17
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
4. JMOLs on Invasion of Privacy, Defamation, Malicious
Prosecution, Nuisance, and Damages
The ICA reviewed each of the Dungs’ JMOLs as to
Ching’s claims, including Nuisance, Invasion of Privacy,
Defamation, and Malicious Prosecution.
In its review of the circuit court’s disposition of
the Dungs’ motions for JMOL as to Ching’s nuisance claim, the
ICA “conclude[d that] there was sufficient evidence to submit
Ching’s nuisance claim to the jury.” The ICA, however, vacated
the nuisance claim because it held that the circuit court’s
ruling on the Dungs’ judicial admissions/estoppel had been
error. The ICA explained, “[i]f the Dungs could establish that
the scope of the Easement does not include vehicular use, then
acts obstructing Ching’s vehicular access to the Easement could
be considered reasonable and of right.”
Next, the ICA reviewed all three of Ching’s theories
upon which her invasion of privacy claim was based, including:
(1) intrusion upon seclusion; (2) false light; and (3)
unreasonable publicity. The ICA also identified three
categories of actions taken by the Dungs which Ching argued
supported her claims, including: (1) videotaping her; (2)
yelling offensive and derogatory statements about Ching that
others could hear; and (3) posting derogatory comments, video,
18
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
and images about Ching on Denby and Darah Dung’s Facebook
(“Dungs sisters’ Facebook”) page.
The ICA characterized Ching’s intrusion upon seclusion
theory as being based on the Dungs’ videotaping. The ICA
concluded there was no intrusion upon seclusion because the
video cameras were directed at the easement, which is “a public,
not a private, place[.]”
Next, the ICA held that there was insufficient
evidence to support Ching’s false light and unreasonable
publicity claims based on the Dungs yelling derogatory
statements at Ching. The ICA noted that both theories require a
showing of “unreasonable publicity” to the “public at large” and
asserted that the evidence adduced at trial showed only that
Ching’s male visitors could hear the Dungs’ yelled insults and
“crude references to sexual conduct.” According to the ICA,
“the yelled statements emanating from the Dung Property were not
communications to the ‘public at large’ or ‘to so many persons
that the matter must be regarded as substantially certain to
become one of public knowledge.’” The ICA, however, did find
the Dungs sisters’ Facebook postings provided “sufficient
evidence [of] the publicity requirement” to support a jury
verdict under false light and unreasonable publicity theories.
19
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
The ICA then reviewed the evidence adduced at trial
related to the Dungs’ defamatory statements regarding Ching’s
sexual predilections and concluded that there was sufficient
“evidence presented” to warrant the “submission of the
defamation claim to the jury.” Therefore, the ICA held, the
circuit court was correct to submit the defamation claim to the
jury and the verdict should stand.
For Ching’s civil malicious prosecution claim, the ICA
addressed: (1) when Ching stopped her vehicle at the top of the
easement, got out, and took a photograph of encroachments in the
easement; and (2) when Ching was sprayed with water by Darah and
Denby, and sprayed them back.
As to the first instance, the ICA noted that the
Injunction Against Harassment was in effect at the time of the
incident and the Dungs called the police to report that Ching
had violated the Injunction by stopping on the easement, causing
Ching to be arrested and charged with harassment. According to
the ICA, “Ching testified that, at the court hearing she
attended with counsel, the prosecutor ‘downgraded’ the charge to
a parking citation to which Ching pleaded guilty[.]” The ICA
concluded that Ching had “compromised” or “bought peace” through
a plea agreement and therefore could not “assert that the
proceedings . . . terminated in [her] favor.” Because the
20
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
alleged malicious prosecution did not terminate in Ching’s
favor, the ICA held that the circuit court erred in submitting
the claim to the jury based on this incident.
As to the second instance, the ICA noted that Ching
had admitted at trial that she sprayed Darah and Denby with
water but testified that Darah and Denby had sprayed her (and
her washer/dryer) with water before she sprayed them back.
While the ICA noted that, in this instance, the proceeding had
terminated in Ching’s favor with her acquittal, the ICA held
that a prosecutor’s independent determination that there was
probable cause to proceed broke the chain of causation and
insulated the Dungs from liability for malicious prosecution.
Although not raised on appeal by Ching or the Dungs,
the ICA reviewed the jury verdict on Ching’s civil conspiracy
claim and concluded that it must be vacated due to its
“inability to determine” which underlying tort the civil
conspiracy claim was based upon. According to the ICA, “a
conspiracy claim is not an independent cause of action, but is
only the mechanism for subjecting co-conspirators to liability
when one of their members committed a tortious act.” The ICA
described Ching’s civil conspiracy claim as “unspecified” and
thus, vacated the jury’s civil conspiracy verdict.
21
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
After vacating the circuit court’s nuisance, invasion
of privacy, malicious prosecution, and conspiracy judgments, the
ICA concluded that it was required to vacate the entire damages
award and remand the case for a new trial because the special
verdict only provided a lump sum award with no allocation of the
damages. The ICA explained that because “only Annette, Denby,
and Darah’s liability for defamation is being fully affirmed,
and it is unclear what tortious conduct the jury found to be
underlying a conspiracy,” the jury’s general verdict cannot be
sustained.
The ICA concluded that “the Hawai‘i Supreme Court’s
decision in Rodrigues . . . is most consistent with the
application of the Baldwin rule - which holds that a general
verdict cannot stand when one or more issues are erroneously
submitted to a jury.”11 See Maryland v. Baldwin, 112 U.S. 490(1884); Rodrigues v. State, 52 Haw. 156, 472 P.2d 509 (1970).
The ICA declined to “reach the question of whether Hawai‘i courts
11
In Rodrigues v. State, this court held that:
The award of a lump sum for different claims is not
reversible error. However, failure to state the amount awarded
for each claim makes it impossible for the reviewing court,
absent any other indication in the record, to amend the lump sum
award when it is decided on appeal that error was committed
concerning the consideration of a particular claim by the
factfinder, the excessiveness or adequacy of an award, or the
evidence necessary to sustain an award.
52 Haw. at 175, 472 P.2d at 521.
22
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
would apply a ‘strict’ Baldwin standard, or a less restrictive
approach utilizing a harmless error analysis.” The ICA reasoned
that because a nuisance action protects a different interest
than a defamation action, it could not “conclude, absent some
specific indication in the record, that the damages suffered by
Ching would be the same for both of these injuries . . . .” As
such, the ICA vacated the jury’s damage award.
Ching filed a timely application for writ of
certiorari on October 11, 2019, and we accepted her application.
III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
A. Judicial Admissions and Judicial Estoppel
A circuit court’s determination that a party is
entitled to summary judgment based, in part, on a judicial
admission is reviewed de novo. See, e.g., Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. v. Omiya, 142 Hawai‘i 439, 454, 420 P.3d 370, 385 (2018);
Lee v. Puamana Cmty. Ass’n, 109 Hawai‘i 561, 573-74, 128 P.3d
874, 886-87 (2006).
The circuit court’s decision to apply the doctrine of
judicial estoppel to prevent a party from taking “inconsistent
positions or [from taking] a position in regard to a matter
which is directly contrary to, or inconsistent with, one
previously assumed by him” is reviewed de novo. See Rosa v. CWJ
23
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Contractors, Ltd., 4 Haw. App. 210, 218, 664 P.2d 745, 751
(1983).
B. Expert Testimony
“Generally, the decision whether to admit expert
testimony rests in the discretion of the trial court. To the
extent that the trial court’s decision is dependent upon
interpretation of court rules, such interpretation is a question
of law, which [the appellate] court reviews de novo.” Barcai v.
Betwee, 98 Hawai‘i 470, 479, 50 P.3d 946, 955 (2002) (citations
omitted).
C. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
When reviewing the circuit court’s grant or denial of
a motion for judgment as a matter of law:
It is well settled that a trial court’s rulings on
motions for judgment as a matter of law are reviewed de
novo.
When we review the granting of a [motion for judgment
as a matter of law], we apply the same standard as the
trial court.
A [motion for judgment as a matter of law] may be
granted only when after disregarding conflicting evidence,
giving to the non-moving party’s evidence all the value to
which it is legally entitled, and indulging every
legitimate inference which may be drawn from the evidence
in the non-moving party’s favor, it can be said that there
is no evidence to support a jury verdict in his or her
favor.
Aluminum Shake Roofing, Inc. v. Hirayasu, 110 Hawai‘i 248, 251,
131 P.3d 1230, 1233 (2006) (quoting Miyamoto v. Lum, 104 Hawai‘i
1, 6-7, 84 P.3d 509, 514-15 (2004) (internal citations omitted).
24
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
D. Rule 403 Exclusion of Evidence
In State v. West, 95 Hawai‘i 452, 24 P.3d 648 (2001),
this court stated:
[D]ifferent standards of review must be applied to
trial court decisions regarding the admissibility of
evidence, depending on the requirements of the particular
rule of evidence at issue. When application of a
particular evidentiary rule can yield only one correct
result, the proper standard for appellate review is the
right/wrong standard. However, the traditional abuse of
discretion standard should be applied in the case of those
rules of evidence that require a “judgment call” on the
part of the trial court.
Id. at 456-57, 24 P.3d at 652-53 (quoting Kealoha v. Cnty. of
Hawaii, 74 Haw. 308, 319-20, 844 P.2d 670, 676 (1993)).
“A trial court’s determination that evidence is
‘relevant’ within the meaning of HRE [(Hawaiʻi Rules of
Evidence)] Rule 401 (1993) is reviewed under the right/wrong
standard of review.” State v. St. Clair, 101 Hawai‘i 280, 286,
67 P.3d 779, 785 (2003).
E. Jury Damages Award
“Generally, we do not disturb the findings of the
trial court on the issue of damages absent a clearly erroneous
measure of damages.” Castro v. Melchor, 142 Hawai‘i 1, 16, 414
P.3d 53, 68 (2018) (citations omitted).
Regarding punitive damages, the “[a]ward or denial of
punitive damages is within the sound discretion of the trier of
fact” and “[a]bsent a clear abuse of discretion, we will not
reverse a trier of fact’s decision to grant or deny punitive
25
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
damages.” Ditto v. McCurdy, 86 Hawai‘i 84, 91, 947 P.2d 952, 959
(1997) (citations omitted).
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Judicial Admissions/Estoppel
The ICA erred in vacating the circuit court’s
determination that the Dungs judicially admitted to the
existence of the easement and that its scope included vehicular
ingress and egress. The circuit court was also well within its
discretion to apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel to prevent
the Dungs from denying the existence of the easement or that its
scope included vehicular ingress and egress. Any error in
applying the doctrine of judicial admissions and/or judicial
estoppel was harmless because the parties actually litigated the
issue, and the jury decided the question of whether the easement
included vehicular access, pedestrian access, or both.
This court has consistently held that “a party’s
factual allegation in a complaint or other pleading is a
judicial admission which binds the party.” Int’l Bhd. Of Elec.
Workers, Local 1357 v. Hawaiian Tel. Co., 68 Haw. 316, 320 n.2,
713 P.2d 943, 949 n.2 (1986); see also Lee, 109 Hawai‘i at 573-
74, 128 P.3d at 886-87. Notably, Hawai‘i Rules of Civil
Procedure (“HRCP”) Rule 8(b) provides in relevant part that “[a]
party shall state in short and plain terms defenses to each
26
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
claim asserted and shall admit or deny the averments upon which
the adverse party relies.” Likewise, HRCP Rule 8(d) provides in
relevant part that “[a]verments in a pleading to which a
responsive pleading is required, other than those as to the
amount of damage, are admitted when not denied in the responsive
pleading.” Together, HRCP Rules 8(b) and 8(d) demonstrate that
a party may admit a fact at issue in a lawsuit by failing to
deny a specific averment in the Answer to a Complaint, which
removes the admitted fact from the field of controversy. See
Lee, 109 Hawai‘i at 573, 128 P.3d at 886 (holding that a
“judicial admission is ‘a formal statement, either by [a] party
or his or her attorney, in [the] course of [a] judicial
proceeding [that] removes an admitted fact from [the] field of
controversy.’”).
It is incongruous with HRCP Rule 8 to require that a
trial court conduct an inquiry into the factual foundation of
every admission made by parties in their pleadings prior to
allowing that admission to be removed from the field of
controversy. The difficulty of conducting an inquiry into the
factual foundation of every admission is especially apparent
considering that a party may make an admission simply by failing
to deny an averment, in which case the inquiring court would
have no factual foundation to review.
27
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Here, the Dungs voluntarily and explicitly admitted
“the fact” that the easement “was for access and the reasonable
loading and unloading of material from [Ching’s] property” in
their Answer to the 2007 Complaint:
All of the answers are to take into consideration the fact
that the Defendants have always fully accepted the idea of an
easement for ingress and egress consistent with the easement
described in the applicable Land Court documents with two
exceptions: (a) at the point where the easement joins Hoonanea
Street, the utility company and the county had erected a pole and
signs that prevented access to the easement without trespassing
onto the property of the Defendants . . . (b) the fact that while
the easement was for access and the reasonable loading and
unloading of material from the Plaintiffs’ property, it did not
allow the parking of vehicles or the placing of stationary
material on the easement so as to interfere with the Defendant’s
use of the easement after the actual loading and unloading were
accomplished.
Later, Dungs’ counsel confirmed that the Dungs were referring to
“vehicles” when they admitted that the easement was for “loading
and unloading” in their Answer.
Additionally, the 2007 and 2013 lawsuits were
consolidated at the Dungs’ request and thus, are a single
proceeding. In their Opening Brief before the ICA, the Dungs
argued that they could not be held to admissions made in the
2007 litigation because it was a separate and distinct
proceeding that involved “different issues” from the 2013
litigation. Whether two lawsuits that are later consolidated
should be treated as a single proceeding for purposes of
judicial admissions and/or judicial estoppel is a novel question
under Hawai‘i Law. However, this court need not address this
28
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
question because the Dungs filed the Motion to Consolidate upon
which the court’s Consolidation Order ruled. In their Motion to
Consolidate, the Dungs argued that the two cases had “nearly
identical” parties, “undeniably involve a common question[]” of
law, and similar questions of fact. The circuit court granted
the Dungs’ request to consolidate the two actions. As such, the
2007 and 2013 litigation is treated as the “same proceeding” for
purposes of judicial admissions and judicial estoppel.
Although related to the doctrine of judicial
admissions, the doctrine of judicial estoppel is a distinct
legal doctrine that “partakes . . . of positive rules of
procedure based on manifest justice and, to a greater or
less[er] degree, on considerations of the orderliness,
regularity, and expedition of litigation.” Roxas v. Marcos, 89
Hawai‘i 91, 124, 969 P.2d 1209, 1242 (1998). The doctrine of
judicial estoppel provides that:
[a] party will not be permitted to maintain inconsistent
positions or to take a position in regard to a matter which
is directly contrary to, or inconsistent with, one
previously assumed by him, at least where he had, or was
chargeable with, full knowledge of the facts, and another
will be prejudiced by his action.
Id. The “doctrine prevents parties from playing ‘fast and
loose’ with the court or ‘blowing hot and cold’ during the
course of litigation.” Id. Under the doctrine of judicial
estoppel, a party must demonstrate that: (1) the other party’s
29
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
later position is “clearly inconsistent” with its earlier
position; (2) the other party succeeded in persuading a court to
accept its earlier position; and (3) the other party would
derive an advantage for itself or impose a detriment on the
opposing party if not estopped. Lee, 109 Hawaiʻi at 576, 128
P.3d at 889 (quoting New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750–
51 (2001)).
The Dungs’ repeated changes of position satisfy all
three parts of the above test and support Ching’s assertion of
judicial estoppel. First, the Dungs’ position in the 2007
litigation, that “the easement was for access and the reasonable
loading and unloading of material from the Plaintiffs’
property[,]” is “clearly inconsistent” with their position in
the 2013 litigation, that the “easement does not exist” or if it
does exist, the easement is only for “pedestrian use.” Second,
the Dungs succeeded in persuading the court, as well as Ching
and her lawyers, to accept their earlier position with respect
to the existence and scope of the easement. In a letter to the
court following Ching’s initiation of the 2007 lawsuit, the
Dungs reiterated their original position—that the easement
existed and included vehicular access—and asserted that “there
is no need to request injunctive relief through the Courts.”
Moreover, a multitude of related judicial rulings including
30
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
rulings at the district court,12 circuit court,13 and the ICA14
relied on the Dungs’ original position that the easement exists
and includes vehicular access. Third, the Dungs have realized
multiple benefits and advantages from their original position.
The Dungs convinced Ching to stop pursuing her 2007 suit based
on their representation as to the existence and scope of the
easement. The Dungs avoided costly litigation of the multiple
claims that Ching had asserted in the 2007 suit and also
succeeded in convincing Ching to stop pursuing a TRO requesting
injunctive relief against the Dungs. Likewise, Ching has
suffered multiple legal and pecuniary detriments in reliance on
the Dungs’ original position. Following the Dungs’ Answer to
the 2007 Complaint and their accompanying letter in which they
represented that the parties had come to a resolution, Ching
spent money to build a carport on her property and connect it to
her easement over the Dungs’ driveway. Thus, Ching has met the
requirements for asserting judicial estoppel to estop the Dungs
12
At the district court proceedings on Annette’s TRO and Injunction
Against Harassment, Judge Kawashima relied on the Dungs’ position in ruling
that Ching could not stop, park, walk, or otherwise use the easement apart
from non-stop vehicular travel from Hoonanea Street to her property.
13
Judge Castagnetti relied on the Dungs’ position that the easement
existed and included vehicular access when she ordered the Dungs to remove
the obstructions that they had placed on Ching’s easement.
14
In the ICA’s summary disposition order affirming the district
court’s Injunction Against Harassment against Ching, the court stated that:
“On appeal, the Dungs do not deny the existence of the Easement.”
31
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
from denying that the easement exists and includes vehicular
access.
Moreover, the jury decided the issue of whether the
easement includes pedestrian access, vehicular access, or both,
so any error committed by the circuit court with respect to
judicial estoppel and judicial admissions was harmless. The
jury instructions that were read to the jury instructed: “that
Plaintiff has a 12 foot wide access easement over the
Defendants’ property. It is for the jury to decide whether the
permitted access includes pedestrian use, vehicular use, or
both.” Another jury instruction provided that: “[t]he nature
and scope of an easement is to be determined by the intention of
the creator of the easement and the facts and circumstances at
the time of its creation. It cannot be unilaterally increased
or decreased beyond the right originally intended to be
granted.” These instructions demonstrate that the jury was
charged with determining the scope of the easement.
Additionally, the jury’s special verdict form specifically asked
whether the scope of the easement included vehicular access,
pedestrian access, or both. The jury indicated on the special
verdict form that the easement provides both pedestrian and
vehicular use.
32
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
The fact that the jury actually determined the scope
of the easement renders any potential error that the circuit
court made in ruling on judicial estoppel and/or judicial
admissions harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
B. Nuisance and Expert Testimony
The ICA relied on its determination that the circuit
court erred in judicially estopping the Dungs from denying the
existence and scope of the easement when it vacated the jury’s
nuisance verdict and overturned the circuit court’s limitations
on the Dungs’ expert witness testimony. Because the ICA erred
in its ruling on judicial admissions/estoppel, the jury’s
nuisance verdict and the circuit court’s ruling on expert
testimony are reinstated.
C. Civil Conspiracy
The ICA erred in vacating the jury’s civil conspiracy
verdict because the issue was waived, and the circuit court is
deemed to have made the necessary finding under HRCP Rule 49.
Under HRCP Rule 49(a) (2000), the court may require a
jury to return a special verdict in the form that “it deems most
appropriate” and, if the court “omits any issue of fact raised
by the pleadings or by the evidence, each party waives the right
to a trial by jury of the issue so omitted” unless that “party
demands its submission to the jury.” HRCP Rule 49(a). If a
33
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
party fails to make such a demand, the court “may make a
finding; or, if it fails to do so, it shall be deemed to have
made a finding in accord with the judgment on the special
verdict.” Id.Under HRCP Rule 49(a), if the Dungs sought to
challenge the special verdict on civil conspiracy, they were
required to demand that the court require the jury to identify
the underlying tort upon which the civil conspiracy claim was
based. Because they failed to do so, the trial court is deemed
to have made the necessary finding in accord with the judgment
on the special verdict. As such, the trial court should be
deemed to have found the civil conspiracy was based on an
underlying tort.
The jury’s civil conspiracy verdict was based on the
underlying tort of nuisance. Notably, the special verdict form
listed all five Dungs (Annette, Dixon, Dean, Denby, and Darah)
as having been “engaged in the civil conspiracy against” Ching.
The only other cause of action for which the jury found all five
Dungs liable was the nuisance claim.
Ching argued that the Dungs were in a conspiracy to
engage in nuisance against her. The jury’s matching verdicts
for nuisance and conspiracy demonstrate that nuisance was the
underlying tort for the civil conspiracy verdict. Therefore,
34
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
the ICA erred when it vacated the jury’s civil conspiracy
verdict based on its “inability to determine” the underlying
tort. The civil conspiracy verdict is reinstated.
D. District Court Injunction Against Harassment
The ICA erred when it ruled that the circuit court
abused its discretion by excluding from the jury’s consideration
the district court’s Injunction Against Harassment. The circuit
court determined that the probative value of the Injunction
Against Harassment was substantially outweighed by the danger of
unfair prejudice under Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence (“HRE”) Rule
403.15 The ICA concluded that the circuit court’s weighing of
the evidence constituted an abuse of discretion.
To abuse its discretion, the circuit court must have
“clearly exceed[ed] the bounds of reason or disregard[ed] rules
or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of
a party litigant.” Samson v. Nahulu, 136 Hawai‘i 415, 425, 363
P.3d 263, 273 (2015) (quoting State v. Ganal, 81 Hawai‘i 358,
15
HRE Rule 403 provides:
Rule 403 Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of
prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Although relevant,
evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the
issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue
delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative
evidence. HRE Rule 403 (2010).
35
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
373, 917 P.2d 370, 385 (1996). Based on our review of the
record, the circuit court did not “exceed the bounds of reason,”
“disregard rules or principles of law,” and the Dungs did not
suffer a substantial detriment.
The record demonstrates that the circuit court neither
“clearly exceed[ed] the bounds of reason” nor “disregard[ed]
rules or principles of law to the substantial detriment of a
party litigant.”
First, the circuit court did not “exceed[] the bounds
of reason.” The circuit court carefully considered the issue
and provided extensive explanations on the record to support its
determination under the HRE Rule 403 balancing test that the
probative value of the Injunction Against Harassment was
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
After arguments from both Ching and the Dungs, the court ruled
that the limited record regarding the Injunction Against
Harassment trial and the possible confusion the Injunction
Against Harassment could create for jurors counseled against
admitting the Injunction Against Harassment. In particular, the
circuit court ruled:
Exhibit A-2 for identification is an adjudication by
Judge Kawashima in a District Court trial regarding a
harassment charge. Harassment is a particular charge that
is statutorily defined. I don’t know what all the evidence
was. I don’t know other than a few cryptic remarks about
what Judge Kawashima said in his transcript wherein he
concluded that a charge of harassment was proven.
36
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
So on the record at this time, it’s the conclusion of
the Court that the danger that the jurors, who are
struggling to try to understand everything, could unfairly
latch on to Exhibit A-2 for identification, which is the
injunction against harassment that was issued by Judge
Kawashima in the District Court, and simply come to the
conclusion, Well, that’s an adjudication by one court, that
judge must be right, it doesn’t say what Donna Ching did or
didn’t do, but she’s found guilty, so she must be guilty of
everything.
And I think that’s the danger Judge Kawashima tried
to steer clear of in his ruling -- is to not prejudice the
outcome of this trial, because he was aware that this trial
was pending. So that would be undue prejudice under 403
that this Court is not permitted to allow.
The ICA opined that a “curative instruction could be crafted to
address concerns regarding prejudice.” In fact, the circuit
court specifically addressed the potential for a curative
instruction and determined that the risk of confusion and unfair
prejudice would nevertheless substantially outweigh the
probative value of the Injunction Against Harassment.
The ICA implied that the circuit court abused its
discretion because it allowed into evidence the circuit court’s
Preliminary Injunction in favor of Ching (that required the
Dungs to remove the obstructions that they had constructed on
the easement) while disallowing the admission of the district
court’s Injunction Against Harassment in favor of the Dungs.
However, the balance between probative and prejudicial value is
not equivalent as applied to the Injunction Against Harassment
and the Preliminary Injunction. The Injunction Against
Harassment was entered pursuant to a limited record, without a
37
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
jury, and without discovery. Moreover, the Injunction Against
Harassment established that a judge determined that Ching had
“harassed” the Dungs, an issue confusingly close to the question
of “easement misuse” that the jury was charged with deciding in
the instant case.16 In contrast, the circuit court’s Preliminary
Injunction, only established that the Dungs were required to
keep open the gate that they had built at the bottom of their
driveway, which is not at issue in the instant case. For these
reasons, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by
allowing in the Preliminary Injunction while excluding the
Injunction Against Harassment.
The circuit court also did not abuse its discretion by
“disregard[ing] rules or principles of law to the substantial
detriment of” the Dungs. The ICA implied that the Dungs were
unable to explain the basis for their frequent 911 calls without
entering the actual Injunction Against Harassment into evidence.
In fact, the Dungs introduced substantial evidence at trial to
explain why they were calling the police, with multiple Dung
witnesses mentioning the “TRO,” “Injunction,” and “restraining
order” against Ching repeatedly throughout trial. Evidence,
16
Question No. 17 on the Special Verdict Form asked: “Did
plaintiff misuse her easement rights?” Similarly, question No. 18 on the
Special Verdict Form asked: “Did plaintiff intentionally inflict emotional
distress upon any defendant?”
38
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
such as 911 calls17 made by Annette, the member of the Dung
family who applied for the TRO, refer to the TRO and explain
that she was calling to enforce the TRO preventing Ching from
stopping on the easement. Annette also testified that once she
obtained the TRO she began calling the police on Ching for
incidences such as not closing the gate. Annette described the
scope of the TRO and used it to justify her 911 call to report
utility trucks using the easement to service Ching’s house.
Annette’s entire TRO application, including all of her
allegations against Ching, was read into the record. The TRO
application was also published to the jury. Darah also
testified extensively as to the TRO, and described helping her
mom, Annette, write out the application. Later, Darah said
“[a]n easement isn’t supposed to be used as a tool for
harassment.” Denby also discussed the TRO and said “[a]s I made
clear earlier, we didn’t call every time she harassed us. But
if we did call, it was because she was harassing us.” Moreover,
Denby testified that “it hasn’t gotten better, even after the
TRO . . . so why do we make 911 calls? We don’t want to call
every day. We don’t want to keep telling them. What else do we
do?” Denby further testified that “[d]efinitely after the TRO
was in place, because she couldn’t come on our property and she
17
During trial, the parties often referred to the Injunction
Against Harassment as the “TRO,” also known as a temporary restraining order.
39
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
couldn’t stop on our property, so then she started driving up
with her cell phone outside of her car because then she wouldn’t
technically stop.” Denby continued, “[o]h, I’m sorry. This is
before the TRO, so she still was able to stop.”
Ching also testified that after Annette’s TRO was
granted against her, police came on “too many occasions.” She
described one occasion where an officer showed up at her door
and “said that he was arresting me for violating a protective
order . . . [because] I harassed the Dungs by stopping on the
driveway and taking pictures.” The Dungs’ counsel, also asked
Ching, “let’s move back to that TRO violation or the protective
order violation; correct? You remember that? You were arrested
for that?” Later, Dungs’ counsel asked Ching, “[t]here were two
TROs that were filed that got consolidated in the District
Court; correct? You filed one against Denby, Dean, and Darah,
correct? And Annette Dung filed one against you; correct?”
These numerous examples demonstrate that the Dungs did
not suffer a substantial detriment due to the exclusion of the
Injunction Against Harassment because they were repeatedly
allowed to refer to it and used it to explain why they thought
they were entitled to report alleged violations of the
Injunction Against Harassment to the police. Accordingly, the
40
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
ICA erred in determining that the circuit court abused its
discretion in excluding the Injunction Against Harassment.
E. Invasion of Privacy
Ching’s invasion of privacy claim was based on three
legal theories: (1) intrusion upon seclusion; (2) false light;
and (3) unreasonable publicity. The ICA erred when it ruled
that the circuit court improperly submitted Ching’s invasion of
privacy claim to the jury on the theory of intrusion upon
seclusion. However, the ICA ultimately reached the correct
decision when it declined to vacate the jury’s verdict on
Ching’s invasion of privacy claim because it found that there
was sufficient evidence to support the claim under false light
and unreasonable publicity. Because, ultimately, the ICA
correctly decided the invasion of privacy claim, its error in
concluding that there was insufficient evidence to submit the
invasion of privacy claim under Ching’s theory of intrusion upon
seclusion will not be addressed in this Opinion.18
18
The ICA’s determination that the circuit court erred by denying
the Dungs’ JMOL with respect to Ching’s invasion of privacy claim based on
the theory of intrusion upon seclusion appears to have been based upon an
erroneous review of the record. The ICA held that the Dungs’ invasions of
Ching’s privacy by videotaping her could not support the jury’s verdict
because the recordings of Ching took place on the easement and in her
driveway and these were “public, not []private” places and therefore “the
recordings were not of anything outside of the public gaze.” The ICA failed
to note evidence, adduced at trial, showing that the Dungs’ video cameras did
intrude into a private place—Ching’s bedroom and backyard. Ching testified
at trial that one of the three cameras that the Dungs installed on their wall
facing her property captures images that cover most of her property including
(continued . . .)
41
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
F. Malicious Prosecution
The ICA erred when it held there was insufficient
evidence adduced at trial to support the jury’s finding that the
Dungs engaged in malicious prosecution. There are two instances
that were the bases of Ching’s malicious prosecution claim: (1)
Ching was arrested for harassment and the prosecutor
“immediately downgraded” the charge to a parking citation to
which Ching pleaded guilty and (2) when Ching was allegedly
sprayed with water by Darah and Denby, and Ching sprayed them
back (“water spraying incident”). For the water spraying
incident, Ching was arrested but was acquitted at trial.
In order to prove a civil claim of malicious
prosecution in a civil trial, the plaintiff must demonstrate
that the prior proceedings: (1) were terminated in the
plaintiffs’ favor; (2) were initiated without probable cause;
and (3) were initiated with malice. Young v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
119 Hawaiʻi 403, 417, 198 P.3d 666, 680 (2008).
The ICA incorrectly held that Ching’s claim of
malicious prosecution for the water spraying incident should not
have been submitted to the jury. Ching demonstrated that the
prosecution for the water spraying incident was terminated in
(continued . . .)
her tenant’s entire home as well as Ching’s home including her bedroom window
and her backyard.
42
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
her favor, and that the prosecution for the water spraying
incident was initiated without probable cause and with malice.
See id.First, Ching was acquitted at trial for the water
spraying incident. Second, the Dungs initiated the prosecution
without probable cause and with malice because the evidence
indicates that the Dungs presented false testimony or withheld
evidence.
Though closing argument is not evidence, it identifies
evidence introduced during trial that supports the jury’s
verdict. Cf. State v. Basham, 132 Hawaiʻi 97, 113, 319 P.3d
1105, 1121 (2014), as corrected (Feb. 11, 2014) (closing
arguments should only refer to evidence in the record). Here,
in closing argument regarding the water spraying incident,
Ching’s counsel argued in part that the Dungs engaged in civil
malicious prosecution because the Dungs had cameras where the
alleged “harassment” took place but did not introduce video of
the incident to support their story and because Denby’s and
Darah’s testimonies conflicted. In particular, Ching’s “exhibit
88”19 provides minutes that support Ching’s counsel’s contention
that Ching was acquitted, in part, because of Denby’s and
19
The record from the harassment trial, where Ching was acquitted,
is limited.
43
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Darah’s false and conflicting testimonies. The August 26, 2014
minutes provide:
ORALLY CHARGED/NOT GUILTY PLEA ENTERED. TRIAL
COMMENCED, CD: 7A/#35: 1:42/2:31:26-. STATE’S WITNESS: 1)
DENBY DUNG (2:41:58-2:50/2:58-3:05). TESTIMONY PAUSED AND
WITNESS ASKED TO WAIT OUTSIDE OF COURTROOM WHILE DISCUSSION
BETWEEN COUNSELS AND COURT.
ORAL MOTION TO DISMISS ENTERED BY DEFENSE. CASE CONTINUED
FOR BRIEFS AND DECISION
WITH FURTHER TRIAL 8/29/14PM-7A BEFORE JUDGE PACARRO.
The above minutes show that Denby’s testimony was “paused” and
she “was asked to wait outside[,]” after which Ching made an
“oral motion to dismiss[.]” The minutes also demonstrate that
Ching did not testify in her own defense or put on any other
witnesses.
Additionally, in the record, the Dungs acknowledged
that they had cameras showing the area where the alleged
“harassment” took place but did not introduce video of the
incident to support their story that Ching harassed Denby and
Darah by spraying them with water.
The ICA is correct that a prosecutor’s decision to
bring charges in a criminal proceeding insulates the complainant
from tort liability for malicious prosecution. Bullen v.
Derego, 68 Haw. 587, 593, 724 P.2d 106, 110 (1986). However,
the complainant is only insulated when there is no allegation
that the defendant presented false evidence, withheld evidence,
or exerted influence on the prosecutor. Here, Ching did allege
44
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
(and produce evidence) that the Dungs presented false evidence
and also withheld evidence, thus negating the “insulation”
provided by the prosecutor’s “independent determination of
probable cause.” As such, Ching provided sufficient evidence to
meet the second and third elements of malicious prosecution in
addition to the first element, which she met when she was
acquitted of the charged offense. Therefore, the ICA erred when
it held that Ching’s malicious prosecution claim was not
supported by sufficient evidence to uphold the jury’s verdict
and when it concluded that the circuit court erred in denying
the Dungs’ motion for JMOL on the malicious prosecution claim.
G. General Verdict Rule
Following the ICA’s decision to vacate the judgment
with respect to Ching’s nuisance, invasion of privacy, malicious
prosecution, and conspiracy claims, the ICA vacated the jury’s
entire damage award because it was unable to determine whether
the jury relied on an “improper ground” when awarding the
damages. Because the ICA incorrectly vacated the jury’s
judgment with respect to Ching’s nuisance, invasion of privacy,
malicious prosecution, and conspiracy claims, this court need
not answer the question of whether the jury relied on an
“improper ground,” as the jury’s damages award is affirmed.
45
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the ICA’s
September 16, 2019 Judgment on Appeal vacating the circuit
court’s September 15, 2016 Judgment, November 14, 2016 Order
Denying Additur, April 12, 2016 Order re JMOL, January 4, 2017
Order Denying Further JMOL, and January 4, 2017 Order Denying
New Trial, and reinstate the jury’s damage award.
Terrance M. Revere /s/ Paula A. Nakayama
Malia R. Nickison-Beazley
Jonathan L. Ortiz /s/ Michael D. Wilson
Wade J. Katano
Christine S. Prepose-Kamihara /s/ Todd W. Eddins
for Petitioner
/s/ John M. Tonaki
Ronald Shigekane
David J. Minkin
Jesse J.T. Smith
for Respondents
CONCURRENCE BY CIRCUIT JUDGE CRABTREE
I respectfully concur with the result.
/s/ Jeffrey P. Crabtree
46