EFTA01246450.pdf

NO. 23838 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS Oi TUB STATE OF HAWAII ROBERT COELLO and SARAN KELLEN, Petitioners-Appellees, v. TOM DONNAN, Respondent-Appellant APPEAL FROM IH8 DISTRICT COURT OF TUE FIRST CIRCjit, HONOIULO DIVISION • (CIVIL NO. 1DSS 0C-1035) MEMORANDOM OPINION (Sy: Watanabe, Acting C.J., Lim and Foley, JJ.) Respondent-Appellant Tom Dorman (Dorman) appeals from an Order Granting petition for injunction Against Harassment (the Injunction.)' granted to Petitioners-•Appellees Robert Coello i/Tb. Injueetion wan granted pursuant to Kawaii Revised Statutas 5 604-10.i rsupp. 20011, which provides, in relevant part: gSDAI-10.5 fovea to enjoin sod tcaporiariiy restrain hasaeseriat. (a) :or :ho purposes of this soctroN: •Courso of conduc•-• rears a pattern ct conduct composed of a stiles of arta oser any period of tine evidencing a continuity of porpnan. "Norusimeot" means: . . 12) An intonticoel er kneeing cootie et condact Cis-acted at an individual that seriously alai"e or nistarba consistently or ccocalual:y bath.rn Fla indlrldudi, nod that serene an legitimate pi-gooney provided LDat such encase et conchnt would etre. A realnnable parson to suffer anatinnal di SDI Ike MinLriel coots &hal: have power to ehjntn or prohibit or tempo-arily restrain harassment. (el Any person who ads beau sab)ocita to Assaf:anent nay peritien the distxlt.L coati ut Ltla d:strict In utica tie pa:tritest resides for a temporary restraining ardex and an injunction trod farther Ea:amens. (a) A petition tor relief from h r rrrrinept shall. be in writing and sh►ll allege that a pas: set ox act, of kasaismenx may have occurred. or that throats of harassment make it probable that (contioned...i Z d « £596559195 XV4 Z£:11 9I-80-LOOZ KELLEN-000003 3501.125-001 CONFIDENTIAL Page I of 14 EFIA_00064879 EFTA01246450  (Coello) and Sara, Kellen (Kellen) by the DlstrleL Court or the First Circuit, Honolulu Divl$:.on) (tbe district court), on . September 2O, 2O00. On appeal, Donnas contends that: (1) because the matter arises from a real estate dispute, the district court lacks jurisdiction; (2) the Injunction unlawfully prohibits constitutionally prt.e.cted activity; (31 the district court erred when it denied Donnan's Objections to Video Document and Objections. Lo Declaration of Petitioners; and (4) the district Vf...corttnUed) acts ut haraenment may be itenloont; sae ;bull be ercreman'ed by en aftidevIt fled( under oath Dr aka-mmtnt mid* uncles penally el perjury stating the specific, fac:s sod etrcunatences from en'.cd relief is sosght. (el open petllion to a district ccurt under this section. the court nay temporarily restrain the person or peteens trance In the petition from harassing the petitioner upoa a determination that there 33 probable cause tc believe that a paac act or acts Ise harasomect have eccurree or that a threat or threat, of haraaenent ray be InnInent. The court say issue IX 0% parrs temporary rear.-alning Groot *Whet in ertting cr orally; p!ovidod :Eat ora: eiders shell he reduced to vritlos by the cause of the next court day follselos oral issuance. (t) A temporary restraining order that 'et granted under this umutton 00'1 ?eerie in *flee; at the discretion at the cacti: oar a period not to exceed ninety days frox tho date the order :a granted. A hcarLag on _he petition to ebjcln Terminer shall be neld within fifteen days after tae temporary rostra thing order it grantee. Tn the event :hat service o; the teeporary rentreining order hue ant beer eflecled btfole the date oC ;he heuring an llmi petition Lt anjait, tan court may set a rev date for the bearing: provided that ;be new daze /shell sot exceed 'ninety days from rho data the tempority rcbtrainIng Order secs granted. The car:nes raned it the potl:ion nay ;Ito or give CCU/ tCLIMAGgis •xpininine, excusing: iunnifyirq, cr denying the oilseed net. as ;Mtn SI harassment. The court ehtI. 4v3ViVil al; evidence Oat is relevant f.-; Lhc hearing, and any make indepetdent inouiry. (i) Nothing in this sco:ios shall he constrned to prchicit conemitetionally protected activity. Hcnorable Barbara Y. niche:313os presided. 2 £d << £596559195 xVJ ££:ll 9L-90-LOOZ KELLEN-000004 3501.125-001 CONFIDENTIAL Page 2 of 14 EFTA_00064880 EFTA01246451  court denicd Donnen due procesis of lar and egual protectiot of the .lag in vlolatiOn ot the Courteenta amendaert of the :bile(' States Constitution and artiole I, section SI of the Hawaii. Constitution. /. BACKGROOND Coello and Kellen filed an Antended Petition fer Ra Patte TemPotacP Res‘rainLng Order and ter Injtnetion Against Haransw.nt (the. Petition) in the die hiet. court on August 24, 2000. On the Petition, Coello and Kel±.en wrote the followitg decaratlon detailing tue alleged harassment: Sines kek, Lng gennegALw di tue udiae hOrdoritg Ni. Dunrun e s bonav, ge kage bad motstue trott gegegel oil) and county dopar:notat reeponding to reoplainan tron P.r. ;Doggen] 6 . Se, leid] Etno» SuateLy, tulldieg inepecsoce, firt dePortatnt, SePt. sp= band Okilikatken, Soger Deffie., eke., vite note [India; any fant er ~tg action, After toting onnorship, ve Rad to avlot Deanen'', (eiend, nellieon duo co non-paynent et rena fer S aon:te. Artes vanting ake toen Jet* Ot Aaq. ll", bonnen a all hit ariene!» 6 tenesta on bli yard, sterten sniking valget. rattet i threiterne vommete tauende Sarah att sebert, -"len ve zliterde4 om vidt*. They seid **trys ot_y Sitat behUn karage:ao us. Ang ve kave:ile segn govi:kå:tg yot. After seivoyina tue propercy ISnw, ve poeten sa* tnespesslas' alene On Degneg's Rico gt uer P:ODere.Y. Ttig goter tann very nrch alten tray hut: the ILlatiOn part Of on, praperty belg:mnd kg teen. /hes! :ore otf eke signe t the« thea lp oez yard. usuil)y the onn et, matlette the ..u2W:ote it OgobAt's :nedlate 'Tiend & crlyamicn. Percy. We !ror to: the tafety pi Rarah, e younq roeure oho Corran i Si. Staut. Drite. per. ). S 3 (IWY3). p£0.:64,: DUE PROCESS AND EQU&L PROTECTION Seation S. go Fessen ',bold bo deprived or tite, libercy or pr:perty deo protest cf net ot denlad eke egge! pretection ed the kave, nor be ~tien the eapleyzon: of tre persen's civil right', or ba dlacriminoted against in the oxerclse thereof betona et roet, religion, Sex or anceetry. 3 td « £596559195 )(Yd ££:11 91-90-L002 KELLEN-000005 3501.125-001 CONFIDENTIAL Page 3 of 14 EFTA_00064881 EFTA01246452  'Wood* try "any dolled bar •Bitch" and alai* mode numeroue racial %aura :eying a* oat liker. U6, had to oo back across tbo corder. in addition to all thin, ovuzy Liao 44.1 yQUVU bouv0 to go to the beech, snide 4 enaaaa al (sic) comments are mode by connun a tr1Oada toward Powart, Sarah 4 their dogs. On August 24, 2000, a temporary restrainirg order was entered by the district court against Donnan and Donnan was notified that a hearing on the petition would be held on September. 6, 2000, at 8:30 a.m. Or. September 1, 2000, Donnan filed s Motion for Order Declaring Temporary Restraining Order Null and Void, Dissolving Same and to Pismias Petition and for Reasonable Attorney's Fees and Costs (Molion DeelarIng SRO Null and Void).. Donnan's motion Slated Lhal the Petition was frivolous, the district court lacked jurisdiction over a real property dispute, and the :restraining order denied him his protected constitutional rights. Dennan's motion came for hearing ca September 6, 2000, and was denied.' A hearing on the Petition was he:od September 20, 2000, at which the following evidence was adduced. Coello testified that he had purchased a duplex next door to Donnan's property. In order to setLle n property line dispute witn Donnan, Coello paid for an official survey of his property to satisfy Doman. 'Cool)* found our that he had more IlIbe 'Constable AbOndo A. tilsbiadEa resided. 4 5 d « £596559195 XVJ ££%11 54.-90-200Z KELLEN-000006 3501.125-001 CONFIDENTIAL Page 4 of 14 EFFA_00064882 EFTA01246453  yard than he originally thought he owned. During June and Jay of 2000, Cooke was visited by the police department, a building inspector, the Sunset Beach Fire Department, an inspector from the Department of Land Otiiization, and the health department. The visits were made in response to telephone calls from Donnan's residence. No violations were found by any of these entities. There were approximately 12 people residing on remnants property, On Juno 19, 2000, Coello was given access to cienn out tne possessions of Malou Hallison (Mallison), who had been evicted in April from the adjoining half of Coello's duplex. Coen* had been awarded $803 from Hallison for payment of hack rent after.a summary possess;on hearing VD August 15, 2000. Helli=on was a friend of Donnan. Three hours after the August 16, 2300, hearing, Coello videotaped Donnan and his guests arguing with Kellen across the property line. Men of the speech on L'ne videotape was transcribed as indiscernible. Donnar objected to the admission of the videotape en the basic that the tape was edited and was an invasion of Donnan's privacy. The district court overruled the objection, and allowed one minute of the videotape to he played, stating: The p¢rtions that are offing ahcwo to the Court are wediest, o- nnspliced and clam the taints perccn van one of the pelLtionero, urn the petitioner our toting the video froth the petitioner's own property, end the subject of the video was part Hr. Hannan. 5 9d « £596559L95 XVJ ££VLL 9L -80-L002 KELLEN-000007 3501.1254)01 CONFIDENTIAL Page 5 of 14 EFTA_Ce064883 EFTA01246454  110) court finds Cis: tha avLaanur will be ada4ttsd a. w ag agigagat, ant the Cant aattrulau the ofjossier. After viewing the videotape, Dorman again objected on the ground that there was no harassment shown by Donnan on the videotape. The district court did not find the videotape was that instructive with respect to any acts of harassment and allowed !tithes testimony,. Coello testified that when ho ana Kellen warAed out to the beach, Dunne° and his guests would yell volgaritien sad raoial slurs at and make obscene gestures towards Coeilo and 'Kellen. Coello believed the enimosiT.y stemmed from an official survey that added to Coello's property end the eviction of Donnan's friend from Coello's property. Kellen testified that Donnan had verbally harassed her by yelling racial slurs at her and had threatened future harassment. Donnan called Samson cantos (Santos), an investigator for lne Hawaiian Humane Society, as the only defense witness. Santos testified that two complaints had teen made against Coen:, for violations of the leash Law. Only one of tlw complaints had been made by Donnan.. Santos visited Coello throe times and round no violations, so the case had been closed. 6 OIL d « £596559195 XVJ ££:ll 9L-90-LOOe KELLEN-000008 3501.125-001 CONFIDENTIAL Page 6 of 14 EFTA_00064884 EFTA01246455  At the close ot evidence, Donnan moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis of inaufriciert evidence and lack CI jurisdiction over a real property dispute. The district court denied Donnan's motion and granted the Injunction for a period of three years. The district court stated; VOX COURT: elelybe, clue Court does f%nel by client aid aunrinula,2 OuSte,Ce that the an/pendent, Nr. canal, han Sirenitenally ur knowingly ecoductem klartelt taunter, the patItIonert lo J nannAr whisk SOz1COsly niacin or dierw-ht Thom by conskezett_y ot contInuslly tentie‘Ing the SedivldLute with ennpitiata the building innvOttore, fix« deparzwert, .and utl:liestten, watt sewage owpartaft“u, et cetera. Accoby atIrb lo omving nn iftlitinato porpcse otter than co Onknew the petitioners, and -hiet Is caused lLo OCSitStriere re sutt,,: egOilenel matrek, end reinnzab:y 4O. therefore, tee COOrt is gninq to grant the nciat Of tejunction ve:oliloo N-. Dona« .:er a period ut th:e2 yntra tromp :ortber tarnenment el tie pets".'. . . . . And yin) scaptc: to yens mutioa if It is as [Cell's., Counsel), tc a:taxi:2 CD tSe hanta that this is real property dispctt. the Court finds them the motion is going he denied. thie le & matte: 0! taeaserseat which the district cunt bee the pawia CO enloic aid wnich the Court is gclug to enjo'.1 at title tine. With respect tc any property disputant tbst does belong In eircul: court aid the Cne:t Ls nos by this ardor preventive the respondent Iran :Slime a legitinote action with sh,p<QC CO a <linnet.* ut a roperty line SP O.,a vOn:Ce easy. The Order Granting Petition for Injunction Against Harassment vas filed September 20, 2000. Donnan riled his `trice ut Appeal on October :e, 2000. II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW A. Interpretation of a Statute The Jnnerpretation re a n' -utåte ie a quot.lon of Ito, reviewable et ono. Who« enstruirg c statute, cur foremost obligation in to ascertain and give effect to the • 7 SL/9 d « £596559195 Mid ££:ll 91,-80-A002 KELLEN-000009 3501.125-001 CONFIDENTIAL Page 7 of 14 EFTA_00064885 EFTA01246456  .eteoripn of the :ogislatusv. white is to es obtained prinatily icon the langnage contained in thc s.aruts learnt. Aod we rest read a.atutory 'ananane In she oontont CI Lbo entlre srarnto and C00AtIAU lk 10 * manner honalasant with its purpose. Ea Pa'aka' 0 Retina Use Commin 94 Mawari 31, 41, 7 P.3d 1068, 1078 (2000) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (quoting .0mantifigskOun, 90 Hawari 152, 160, 977 9.2a 160, 168 (1999)). B. Admissibility of Evidence (0)1froxont arandaids of review nest be applies Ca trit; conrt ~islets regarding Lk* addissib!"ty of evidence, dnpandIng on the C0141100011:$ of the particular rule of evidonc• at ***n* . ahrts appllewaon w! e parrAcular evIdentlgry rule car y'fald only one norrant result, ran prOpos acandsrd fnr appell a te t eylets is ine -spntivreng stundvnis• . Where the evicarn.lw.fy rang at 'EAU, concerns ndMiAndb1;ity based apon Tclevanre, under 3nwell'i Rotas of Evidence (OK.) Milos 431 and 4C4, the propet standard of app0110.0 review is the rightfecong et•ndard. . EvIcentlary Coniston, adaed on BES WIL. 403, which regatta a ";-mfr.'s* call" on the part of the trial nears. are reviewed For ad abuse S:.annetlem. The trial tears abuses Its discretion when It clearly exceeds the bonds at reaaon or disregards tales o: nrtacip's4 of law os prostiCC to the suhazoollal Potsizonc 00 a party lidgeel. s.C1ar eani cE i asna , 85 &maid 336, 350-51, 944 P.2d 1279, 1293-94 11997) (quoting State v. arced, 84 Hawaii 1, :), 928 P.2d 943, 853 (1996)) '(citations and brackeLs omitted). C. Denial of Equal Protection and Dué Process "Micro) no condamental rights or suspect classifications arc involved, the rationa1 basis standard is 8 5L/6 d « £596559L95 XV3 h£41 91-20-2.002 KELLEN-000010 3501.125-001 CONFIDENTIAL Page 8 of 14 EFEk_00064886 EFTA01246457  used. Only if there ^a no ralional basis to sustain Lhe cnallenged sratutes will there bo a violation of due process under D.S. Coast. amend. XIV and Raw. Coast. art. 1, S 5." gashinaton v. Fireman's Fund Tns. Companies, 68 Raw. 192, 202, 708 F.2d 129, 136 (1985) (citation omitted). sa recogedre that, unless fuod4rielit,il rights o, seat:vet elawaltleulluns an 'zit:Yea-ad, us will apply lh2 raci.onal Mein ....A. re af rimier in osamlolno t dar-al et total proLattlec claim. Untie- -1“.A sandard. Lu proeai:. a party OttlleiWnei ten nosnritntioeull.y OL a statutory elersitigation up ...Vial preiecttor grantee tea the await cs1 fl awing, wit, ‘ettylnelm clarity etat the e:anaisicutlot YL not rwtloadlay trial:col to tie stem:P.02y purpose, 02 that cha eicalbtagad ataniticaslon OCAS net rest WOO furet ground ar dIfXdranct baying a fair ere aultatantlal colatiot to rha ob.;oct c the tas4 ala,tan, and 1* Låttedicra no: arbit-ary and earlanua. ;anav Bench Defense Fund v. City Council 70 Haw. 361, 380, 173 R.2d 250, 262 11989) (citation omitted). III. DISCUSSION A. Jurisdiction Donnan contends that Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) S 801-5(d) precludes the dIstrict court from truing jurisdiction over issues of real propc,•ty ownership. Section 604-5(d) (Sup?. 2101) states that "(t)he distTicl. warts shall not have cognizance of real actions, nor actions in which the title to teal estate comes in quastion[.j" The statute gran.ing jurisdiction Ln the instant case is SRC S 604-10.5(b) (Sapp. 2001), which vests the dialtict 9 WM. d « £59655905 Xtli h£:Il 91-80-/OR KELLEN-000011 3501.125-001 CONFIDENTIAL Page 9 of 14 EFTA_00064887 EFTA01246458  comrtá with the "power to enjoin or prohibit or temporarily restrain harassment." Furthermore, at the September E, 2000, hearing en the Notion Declaring TRO Null and void, the district ccort stated the following: THE CCORP: the Corr: is tot, :be Court ir out :poking at boundary dkeynten. The Boort deer not have jurisdictien. I ith you, (Details, ComMo0j. Sr term* af detwcoln45g ;wine tLkle «Galena Ur Ir lbeic'e ownerehlo in dirpusc, act in 100k:ag at oho TKO potItlec, theater rate! Pazticular statederte we'ne here been side 4y eke Petittfnemrs, i.e.. that DOnned, it'd Waged tar. WOOdh a0d all his f- Ienna and «nanee in b's yerd *totted malty vulgat, racial and threatonán; commmm tot toward peatlonors which was !etc; recorded on video. They pale they've only just begun Lae ue ads es, haven't aeon any:hire yet. Tho.'s enough to Rave .ratted the Mt.) The district court had jurisdiction over the Petition. B. Constitutionally Protected activity Donnan's second point states: MRS 5 604-12.5t1) en5elts the District Cektt from selecting out a virile of erlme and preventing his, under tno [heist of contempt, from telling the Renelule Pollee Department, er the Humane Satiety ar °thee anthoritiee, when he is a victim of criminal conduct of no Onscreen violaticna at law. Section 604-10.5a) provides that "(11:nihing in Cris teetion shall be cone:rued to prohibit constitutionally protected activity." The Injunction does not prevent Donnan from eallLng on public safety autnoritico "villein he is a victim or criminal conduct or he observes I/it:nations of law." Thel Injunction, on its face, prevents Donnan from: 10 SI/Li d « £596559L9S Mid h£:LL 9L -80-G002 - 3501.125-001 CONFIDENTIAL Page 10 of 14 EFTA_00064888 EFTA01246459  A. Contacting. :?restesiog or shy:Litany here/Mine Pext..inner(a). “Con/...teLing° is (Wined to Inclagic id net lidiged co the teltyncoo, Mail. fecsiailer pager. io.oraCt. etc. B. Contacting, threstealag Cr harassing any forvan(S) shi:s residing at Petitiongr(1)' resioence. C. sneering add/or visiting the ?retinas of the Patlmioner(s), residence andJer the place of eke rotitinnerials employnenc. Dorman was not enjoined from constitutionally protected activity. C. Admission of the Videotape into Evidence Donnan contends the district court erred when it refused to suppress the videotape. Doncan arguas,"[t]hc Video end the petition were acts of hate crimes and acts of revenge son retaliation against Dorman and cis tenant and friend because they had followed the law and reported criminal violations thereof." Hawaii Revised Statutes S 604-1.1.5(f) states that "[t]he court shall receive all evidence that is relevant at the hearing, and may make independent inquiry." The district court adelted the videotape, stating "[tyre Cnurt finds thit the evidence will be admithee es being relevant, end the Court everrnles the objection." The videotape showed Kellen interacting with Dorman and Dorman's guests and was, therefore, relevant. However, the district court did not find the videotape was "that instructive with regard to any acts or harassmentl. l" The district court found clear and convincing evidence of harassment based on the 11. 51/Z1 d « £596559195 XV4 t£41, 91-90-200? KELLEN-000013 3501.125-001 CONFIDENTIAL Page 11 of 14 EFTA_00064889 EFTA01246460  testimony of the witnesses and other eviderce received, and not solely on the videotape. fllhe district court was-correct in admitting one minute of videotape as relevant to the allegations of harassment. D. Equal Protection and Due Process of Law Dorman contenda ho was denied the right to defend himself because he was "prohibited from filitg any defensive response, including any counterclaim that would establish his right to a restraining order, damages, proof of ownership by way of adverac possession, a trial by jury and the right to have this case determined in a Court of competent jurisdiction, namely, the First Circuit Court." Dorman cites Ramil v. Keller, 65 Haw. 608, 126 P.2d 254 (1986), and Hovey v. Elliptt, 167 U.S. 409, 17 S. Ct. 841 (1837), in support of his argument. :n Ramia, the Supreme Court cf Hawail upheld litigation-en ins sanctions after the defendants refused to comply with discovery orders. 68 Haw. au 621, 726 1.7d at 263. In Hovey, the United States Supreme C•G.,rt found denial of due process oC law, stating "(a) sentence of a court pronounced against a party without hearing him, or giving him an opportunity to he heard, is not s judicial determination of his rights, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal." :67 U.B. at 414, 17 S. Ct. at 845 (interval quotation marks omitted). 12 Sll£l d <.c £596599195 XVA h£Vll 9I-90-2.00Z KELLEN-000014 3501.1254)01 CONFIDENTIAL Page 12 of 14 EFTA_00064890 EFTA01246461  in contrast, ‘Jonnem was given the opportunity to be heard. Donnan was not allowed a counterclaim, but was not denied the opportunity to file an adverse possession claim in circuit court. Donnan contends he was denied the right to a jury trial. The right to a jury trial in civil essna guaranteed by the United States Constitution applies to federal, not state, courts. D.S. Const. amend VII. Trial. by jury in civil cases La guaranteed by the state constitution only whore the value in controversy exceeds rive thousand dollars. Haw. Coma. arm. I, $ 13. Docile and Kellen sought no monetary deranges .n this case; therefnre, the value in controversy did not exceed five thousand dollars. Furthermore, HAS 9 634-10.6 does not provide for trial by jury. Donnan contends he was denied the right to subpoena records by way of deposition and written interrogatories; however, the district court granted a two-weeX continuance to allow Doman to produce the city and county agency records by subpoena daces tecum. Furthermore, as the district, court advised Donnan, a hearing on a petition to enjoin harassment my not be held later than ninety days after the date the temporary restraining order is granted. 1183 % 604-10.5(fl. 13 51/N. d « £596501195 XVI h£VII 9L-80-LOO2 KELLEN-000015 3501.125-001 CONFIDENTIAL Page 13 of 14 EFTA_00064891 EFTA01246462  Dorman contends he was denied the sight to testify, yet the record shows Donnan chose not to raze the witness stand based on the advice of his counsel. Donnan's contentions are without merit. rv. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Order Granting Petition Tor Injunction Against Harassment entered on September 20, 2000, by the District Court *t the First Circuit, Honolulu Div4 mien, is affirmed. DATED: Honolulu, Sawari, April 9, 2002. On the briefs: Joseph A. Ryan for Respondent-Appellant Acting Chief Judge Robert Coello and Sarah Kellen, Pro se Petitioners-Appellees Associate Judge Associate Judge . 14 51/S1 d <<.£5965991,95 >n h£4l 91.-00-LOOZ KELLEN-000016 3501.125-001 CONFIDENTIAL Page 14 of 14 EFIA_00064892 EFTA01246463