HISTORY AS PROMISED

[My 2 cents]

Patricia -  Thank you for your contributions here.  I’ve done more than my fair share of research into Orchidland’s history and learned quite a bit about HPP’s history along the way, as those histories are  substantially intertwined.  I cannot verify everything you have shared, but I don’t doubt any of it because everywhere that our information overlaps, we are in alignment.  I hope you will continue to share, and I hope you can just ignore those who try to antagonize you.  Some people find this history very interesting.

[Patricia]

My 2 Cents, aloha and mahalo nui. I have read some about the other substandard subdivisions too. I do not know a lot about them, as my focus is HPP and HPPOA. But what I have found and read leads me to believe that Paradise Hui Hanalike's lawsuits and the subsequent court rulings and subdivision "fixes" did not do anyone (except the County and State) any favors.
I would be very interested in any history you are willing to share. Mahalo again.

[My 2 cents]

Do I really want to do this?  Ah, what the heck…

The HPP Hui Hanalike case set the precedent for the other subdivisions to follow, and most of them used the same attorney.  The m.o. that you describe of not notifying property owners that they were defendants in a class action suit, and denying them proper and adequate representation as required by law is strikingly similar to OLCA’s cases.

OLCA filed their first class-action against the property owners in 1987, Case #87-326, Third District Court, Orchidland Community Association vs. Hilo Development, et al.  Most of the testimony provided by the defendants centered around the lack  of notification and the requirement that the “plaintiffs must insure that the defendant class is properly and adequately represented”, and statements by the defendant class representatives (who were chosen by the plaintiffs) that they were unable to properly and adequately defend.  This went on for several months until there was an entrance by an attorney for the defendant class.  The very next filing was a motion to dismiss by the plaintiffs.  The defendants countered that they wanted the case dismissed with prejudice (so that it could not be reopened), otherwise they were prepared to continue now that they had proper legal representation.  The judge dismissed the case without prejudice.

Three years later OLCA filed the case again, Case #91-269.  It was word for word the exact same case with the exception of the named defendants.  None of the previously named defendants or any of the parties that provided testimony in the first case were included, they were replaced by all new defendant class representatives. 

To clarify, in these class-actions the plaintiffs are required to insure that the defendant class is properly and adequately represented.  The method used by OLCA and their attorney was to pick a few people from the defendant class and appoint them to be the representatives.  In the first case none of the chosen reps were able to defend, but at least they lived here and took it seriously and were wise enough to understand the requirement and they were able to secure an attorney.  So the case was terminated.  Temporarily. 

In the second case they chose people who wouldn’t show up at all, even choosing people who lived off island.  At one point 2 people who had testified in the first case found out about the new case and submitted requests to be added as reps and to be notified of any future motions or hearings.  They were never sent any notifications and the case concluded without their participation.

At another point the plaintiffs needed another defendant rep so they added a person who had been the secretary for OLCA and testified for the plaintiffs in the first case.  And of course, he did not provide any defense.

So with no actions or motions filed in opposition for the defendant class, there was a hearing scheduled for plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.  Three people found out about it and showed up to oppose the motion but they were not allowed into the courtroom until after the judgment had been granted.  Seriously, every bit of this is in the court documents.  It’s incredibly blatant.

The main point I see with all of this is that it was necessary to do it this way.
The plaintiffs could not have won if a proper defense had been allowed to be presented, and they knew that.  They want to fix the illegal activities of the past with more illegal activities.  And these judgments still conflict with existing laws, and the arguing and legal battles will go on forever.

It must be past my bedtime, I’m getting cranky.

[Patricia]

Aloha My 2 Cents. Thank you for taking the time to share all of that. I know how much effort it takes.
I read one part of that case- found it on the internet- but it was a very small portion lacking the details you describe.
Is Orchidland planning on trying to push themselves through as a planned community and adopt 421J? I see on their website that they have removed the disclosure that says they are a Road Maintenance Organization, governed by 414D. I believe, again following HPPOA's lead, some of these voluntary community associations that are allowed to collect mandatory road funds, are going to try to reestablish and legitimize themselves as mandatory community associations. They will do this, because they want more money for more projects that are not roads- and the County and state will turn another blind eye (or help them to reestablish) because they do not want to sink any money into the substandard subdivisions themselves.
Actually, when I think about it, I believe Hawaiian Ranchos, in Ocean View, already pulled this stunt (adopting 421J) prior to HPPOA.
Stuart Oda made a lot of money dragging confused and uninformed owners through court. I had a huge binder, which I have since passed on, that contained letters from mainland and off-island owners who were dismayed, angry, and all in all clueless as to what was happening or why. Every one of those letters (unless it was one of the very few that was sent by an Owner's attorney) was answered with a mimeographed form letter- nice.
HPPOA is currently in the middle of another lawsuit, which they brought on themselves (adopting 421J, developing deed restricted land, siphoning off restricted road funds for non road projects). One of the attorneys representing HPPOA is named Oda, Barron Oda (have to wonder if there is a familial connection). Barron Oda, at one time, worked for the Bishop Museum- another interesting story there- but it is past time for coffee

[My 2 cents]

OLCA changes their website pretty much at whim, but the governing documents are a bit tougher.  At the very bottom of the home page is a link to the bylaws.  Here is what they say:

ARTICLE I — NAME, DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSESection 1. NAME.The name of the corporation shall be ORCHIDLAND COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. (hereafter known as OLCA).

Section 2. DESCRIPTION.Orchidland Community Association is a 501 © 4 non-profit corporation, organized under Hawaii Revised Statutes 414D, and is not a planned community association and does not fall under the jurisdiction of Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 421J, or any other statute pertaining to “planned” community associations or common interest developments.

This doesn’t mean that an overzealous Board of Directors won’t try to pull some shenanigans, it could even be happening right now behind our backs for all I know, but for now the bylaws are pretty clear on this.  But OLCA tends to follow HPP’s lead when it suits them so I’m interested in learning more about this lawsuit.  Do I understand you correctly that HPPOA adopted 421J (???) and is now being challenged in court about it?  Can you point me to the easiest way to follow this?

[Patricia]

OLCA changes their website pretty much at whim, but the governing documents are a bit tougher.  At the very bottom of the home page is a link to the bylaws.  Here is what they say:

ARTICLE I — NAME, DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSESection 1. NAME.The name of the corporation shall be ORCHIDLAND COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. (hereafter known as OLCA).

Section 2. DESCRIPTION.Orchidland Community Association is a 501 © 4 non-profit corporation, organized under Hawaii Revised Statutes 414D, and is not a planned community association and does not fall under the jurisdiction of Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 421J, or any other statute pertaining to “planned” community associations or common interest developments.

This doesn’t mean that an overzealous Board of Directors won’t try to pull some shenanigans, it could even be happening right now behind our backs for all I know, but for now the bylaws are pretty clear on this.  But OLCA tends to follow HPP’s lead when it suits them so I’m interested in learning more about this lawsuit.  Do I understand you correctly that HPPOA adopted 421J (???) and is now being challenged in court about it?  Can you point me to the easiest way to follow this?

--------
Yep. Our board president got herself a very zealous Oahu attorney, Anna Elento-Sneed. And now they want to continue the farce that HPP is a "planned community" and that HPPOA must follow 421J law, because HPPOA can mandate assessments on HPP owners. Guess it doesn't matter that those mandates have to do with court order pertaining to easement use, not shared "common areas" (pools club house, etc.). 

Here is a link to the docket. If it does not work for you, please let me know.

eCourt Kōkua - Case / Docket Search

http://jimspss1.courts.state.hi.us:8080/...arch.iface

[My 2 cents]

The link just takes me to the home page and it won't accept HPPOA or Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association as an entry. Do you have a case number or actual title, plaintiff's name, etc.? Sorry for the bother. I'm in no hurry.

[Patricia]

The link just takes me to the home page and it won't accept HPPOA or Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association as an entry.  Do you have a case number or actual title, plaintiff's name, etc.?  Sorry for the bother.  I'm in no hurry.

----------
Thought it might not work apologies. 
I have always thought it odd that the suit does not come up under Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association.
Here is the case number 3CCV-23-0000302
Plaintiff's name is Nicole Craig.

[Obie]

It's because she is suing the President and Vice President of HPPOA.
Volunteer board members !

[Patricia]

It's because she is suing the President and Vice President of HPPOA.
Volunteer board members !

-------- 
What?
A lot of people volunteer- not just board members- and they aren't being sued.
Not following you.