HISTORY AS PROMISED

[Patricia]

I will name a couple of the attorney's, who were around early on and attended to and understood Paradise Hui Hanalike (now HPPOA) for what it was/is. As well as what David Watumull's purpose for Hawaiian Paradise Park was, as told by him and related by Rick Edwards, whose historical account is on the HPPOA website.

The Sunday Star Bulletin, March 27, 1960, David Watumull Is A Young Man On Fire
"Watumull classifies the two developments this way, 'Hawaiian Paradise Park is an investment subdivision. King's Landing is a resort, residential subdivision of Hilo.'"


July 15, 1975, Paradise Hui Hanalike Board Meeting, Discussion with Tim C. Leuteneker (Transcript of tape)
**Leuteneker was PHH's first attorney and was the one who got the dirty snowball rolling**
"This subdivision wasn't put together the way most subdivisions are put together nowadays-- it doesn't have a mandatory community association. "

August 1978, article by Rick Edwards on the history of Hawaiian Paradise Park, as relayed to Paradise Hui Hanalike and still posted on the HPPOA website.
"I know there was a plan for this (HPP) to be an undeveloped subdivision and King's Landing was to be a developed subdivision."

Civil No 6595, Stuart Oda
"We make it abundantly clear that by enunciating this rule (that easement holders must equitably pay for its maintenance) we are not establishing Plaintiff as a quasi-municipal agency." 
It should be noted that both the court and Stuart Oda made reference to Paradise Hui Hanalike not being a planned community association, or even a mandatory community association. The court felt this was a problem and that "enforcement of these obligations (road maintenance fees) would result in a multiplicity of lawsuits." However, Stuart Oda was adamant that regardless of Paradise Hui Hanalike (now HPPOA) not being a planned community association, or even a mandatory association, this "structural disorder" would have "no bearing on road maintenance."

Paradise Hui Hanalike (now HPPOA) never was, is not a mandatory community association and HPP was never a Planned Community.

[My 2 cents]

My 2 cents

Instead of believing Patricia's explanation perhaps you would like to read our board's well written explanation.
You can find it here :

https://www.hppoa.net/executive-information/hrs-421j/

Thank you Obie, it’s been a while since I read those requirements.  It’s good to refresh, since I went and got myself into this discussion.

”Our legal counsel stated we are a Planned community because the Association owns the roads that are for the common good of the community, we are required to maintain those common roads and we collect dues for the costs of the road maintenance.  421-J is very clear on the definition.”

It appears to me that they missed the part where it says “all the following characteristics” not just one of them.  Patricia has already pointed to other requirements that aren’t met, but I want to point to the term “common interest community”:

"Planned community" means one of the following:

1.  Real property, other than a condominium or a cooperative housing corporation or a time share plan, that is subject to a planned community association as defined under section 607-14; or

2.  A common interest community, other than a condominium or a cooperative housing corporation or a time share plan, which includes all the following characteristics…..

So even before it has to meet those other criteria, it has to meet the definition of “common interest community”.  Here are a couple of definitions:

https://www.findlaw.com/realestate/ownin...unity.html

“A subdivision developer creates a CID by recording a subdivision plat and a set of legal governing documents…”

https://red.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/rednvgo...Manual.pdf

“The  declaration  is recorded  by  the  declarant/developer…”

For me, this has always been the easiest way to describe a planned community association.  The governing documents, charter, bylaws, etc., are all in place before the sale of the first property or unit.  It’s what makes it a common interest, everyone agrees to the same thing from the beginning.  These subdivisions were developed in 1959, Hui Hanalike was formed in 1972, OLCA in 1979.  There’s no way anyone could have been required to be a member of an association that didn’t exist, or signed an agreement that didn't exist.

That’s just my take on it.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  One thing for sure though, the HPP lawyers will get their cheese.

[TomK]

Membership in the HOA is typically mandated via CC&R. Check the deed.

Yep, imagine folks saying they won't pay because some chick on PW told them they don't need to..

Would it make a difference if someone identifying as a male told them they didn't need to?

[Patricia]

Another bast from the past. January, 2008.

Q. "Does anyone know if the court approved mandatory membership dues? If not, then HPPOA can't force residents to pay."

A. Membership dues (mandatory or elective) in HPPOA is different from Road Maintenance Assessments. Membership is automatic unless you decline membership...* This does not remove your legal obligation and requirement to pay road maintenance assessments."

The above statement is true and correct. However, I have removed the following which appears after "unless you elect to decline your membership" *"and give up your right to participate in or vote on matters of the association." I have removed this part of the statement, because this is what Paradise Hui Hanalike (now HPPOA) wanted/wants HPP Owners to believe. 

HPP Owners must be allowed to vote that is the condition under which HPPOA is allowed, as per the court, to force the collection of Road Maintenance Fees. Paradise Hui Hanalike (now HPPOA) has tried to get around that condition for decades by forcing Owners to join their club, or lose their voting rights- they even illegally changed their bylaws in 2010 to state this.

Don't want to be a member? Relinquish or decline. I am not a member, and according to the board president, my family and I are on the "non-members list." However, I am STILL allowed to vote and participate in matters of the Association which have to do with the allocation and administration of Road Maintenance Fees- that is my right and HPPOA'S legal obligation and requirement.

[ChunksterK]

This may have no bearing on HPP's pending legal case(s), but Big Island Judge Nakamoto has ruled in a case involving a "planned community" declaration:

https://www.staradvertiser.com/2024/10/2...developer/

Since this is probably behind the SA's paywall, I will summarize the article and quote the point that relates to this thread.

In a long running back and forth in Kau, Judge Nakamoto made a summary judgement in favor of developers seeking to rejuvenate and expand the Discovery Harbour area near Punalu'u.  The developer, SPIG, filed suit against the Discovery Harbor Community Association for allegedly illegally blocking the redevelopment.  The judge ruled in favor of SPIG on all allegations.

The point which stood out to me as an HPP property owner was the rejected status of DHCA as a planned community under the law.  From the article:

The investors further claimed DHCA didn’t meet legal requirements of a homeowners association or a planned community association, and lacked the authority to “regulate, assess fees against or interfere with SPIG’s development of the Commercial Lots.”

Nakamoto ruled in favor of SPIG and against DHCA on all allegations in its suit, and against DHCA in a counterclaim.


I looked at the DHCA website, and it seems they have been sued almost as many times as HPP.  Having said that, I'm still not sure there is a real comparison between the two subdivisions' operating nuts and bolts, so this may mean nothing to HPP.

As a 22 year HPP property owner, I can only say that claiming HPP to be a "planned community" is ridiculous on either an organizational or philosophical basis.  And we will see (hopefully soon) if it is such on a legal basis.

[Patricia]

Aloha, Chunkster. Mahalo for that. I found the info you posted very interesting, and also agree with you that there is no similarity between the Discovery Harbor case and the current lawsuit against HPPOA. I feel HPPOA would have a difficult time producing copies of any CC&RS . Especially as HPPOA does not have any CC&RS.

I do not know if you are interested, but I found a copy of the Summary Disposition Order from 2021. You should be able to find it at the following link.

https://law.justia.com/cases/hawaii/cour...00333.html

And here is another interesting article from 2018. Mahalo again.

https://www.environment-hawaii.org/?p=10303

[My 2 cents]

"Owners association fees are paying the deductible amount and insurance will pick up the rest."

Does anyone know the amounts of the deducible, coverage limit and yearly premium?

[leilanidude]

Does anyone know the amounts of the deducible, coverage limit and yearly premium?
----
Premiums for this type of insurance are history based, just like a businesses unemployment insurance and general business insurance is.

If you have a claim this year, your next year premium will go up, rather dramatically to cover their loss.

[Obie]

The deductible is $50,000.00 for the current lawsuit over the mailboxes and $25,000.00 for the discrimination case.

[Patricia]

The deductible is $50,000.00 for the current lawsuit over the mailboxes and $25,000.00 for the discrimination case.

-------------
I am curious, how do you know that?