Motions for Summary Judgment. On April 17, 2014, Xxxxxxxx filed a motion for summary judgment. Xxxxxxxx and Xxxx repeat their various legal arguments in the circuit court, on appeal to the ICA, and on certiorari to this court. Therefore, their arguments are discussed and analyzed in the Discussion section, Section IV below. To summarize, in her motion, Xxxxxxxx argued she was improperly assessed for costs relating to elevators, stairways, walkways, lanais, lanai railings, drains, cable television, pest control, and elevator maintenance because they related to residential building limited common elements. She attached Casa’s maintenance fee calculations from 2006 to 2013 (“maintenance fee calculations”) and Casa’s “Reserve Expenses Per Financial Statements 10/01/03 - 09/30/2012” to her motion. In its June 12, 2014, memorandum in opposition, in summary, Xxxx argued the disputed expenses related to common elements, not limited common elements. In addition, Xxxx argued that Xxxxxxxx’x claims were barred by estoppel by acquiescence and consent since she had been an owner of the commercial apartments for 30 years and had served on the Board from at least 2001 to 2011, but had not objected to the disputed items until recently. Casa then argued that Flint x. XxxXxxxxx, 53 Haw. 672, 673, 501 P.2d 357, 357-58 (1972) (per curiam), authorized the circuit court to enter summary judgment in its favor as a non-moving party, based on a lack of genuine issues of material fact entitling it to summary judgment as a matter of law.6 Casa attached to its memorandum a declaration from Xxxxx Xxxx (“Gand”), a director of Pacifica Realty Management, Inc., which was the property manager for Casa from 2003. Xxxx’s declaration stated in relevant part that (1) Xxxxxxxx served on the Board from at least 2001 until 2011, and during that time, she “approved the association’s operating budgets, maintenance fee calculation schedules, operating expenses, and reserves budgets, including all assessments and expenses for common elements and limited common elements”; (2) in 2005, Xxxxxxxx did not object to a common reserve expense for elevator repairs and paid her proportionate share; (3) Xxxxxxxx did not object to and voted to approve common reserve expenses regarding drains in 2005 and fiscal year 2007-2008; (4) at a Board meeting on August 6 It does not appear Xxxxxxxx raised arguments opposing this procedure. 3, 2010, Xxxxxxxx did not object to and voted to approve elevator modernization as a common reserve expense of $8...
Motions for Summary Judgment. S. The Parties have engaged in extensive and broad fact and expert discovery, including the exchange of multiple rounds of written discovery requests and responses, the production of voluminous documents relating to lending policies and underwriting, including substantial ESI materials, the production of data relating to denied applications, the exchange of information as to Xxxxx Fargo’s systems and denial codes, and the completion of more than 15 depositions of fact witnesses. The Parties also have engaged in extensive briefing as set forth above, brought more than fifteen discovery disputes to the Court, briefed issues as to the confidentiality of discovery materials many times, exchanged expert reports, and completed six expert depositions.
