Association of Apartment Owners of Hololani v. Miller ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •   NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    Electronically Filed
    Intermediate Court of Appeals
    CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
    22-MAR-2021
    07:48 AM
    Dkt. 283 MO
    NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
    IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
    OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
    ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF HOLOLANI,
    by its Board of Directors, Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    LIZ MILLER; DAN MILLER,
    Defendants-Appellants
    and
    JOHN DOES 1-5; JANE DOES 1-5, Defendants
    DANIEL P. MILLER and ELIZABETH A. MILLER,
    Counterclaimants-Appellants,
    v.
    ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF HOLOLANI, a Hawaii
    nonprofit corporation, Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee,
    and
    JOHN DOES 1-10, JANE DOES 1-10, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10,
    DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10 and DOE ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants
    APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
    (CIVIL NO. 06-1-0249(3))
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Nakasone, JJ.)
    The Hololani is an oceanfront condominium on the
    western shore of Maui, which consists of two, eight-story
    residential buildings and an office building. Attached to each
    residential apartment is a large makai-facing lanai, and attached
    to each end unit is a smaller lanai. By the time Defendants-
    Appellants Elizabeth A. Miller and Daniel P. Miller (collectively
    the Millers) purchased apartment B-604 in 2004, at least two
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    apartment owners had already enclosed their lanai either fully or
    partially.
    The Association of Apartment Owners of Hololani
    (Association) brought this action against the Millers asserting
    they had commenced construction of an enclosure of their large
    lanai and relocated their front door without approval from the
    Association's Board of Directors (Board) and the other owners, as
    required by the Association's governing documents. After
    extensive litigation, including a jury trial, the trial court
    ordered the Millers to remove the enclosure of their lanai and
    return their front door to its original location.
    The Millers appeal from: (1) the "First Amended Final
    Judgment" filed on February 11, 2016, and (2) the "Order Denying
    Defendants/Counterclaimants Daniel P. Miller and Elizabeth A.
    Miller's Motion to Alter or Amend First Amended Final Judgment,"
    filed on May 6, 2016, both entered by the Circuit Court of the
    Second Circuit (Circuit Court).1
    The Millers contend that: (1) the Circuit Court erred
    in denying their renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law
    because the jury’s findings were unsupported and against the
    manifest weight of the evidence; (2) there are legal causes for a
    new trial; and (3) the Circuit Court erred in denying the
    Millers' Motion to Alter and Amend Judgment.
    For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
    I.   The Circuit Court properly denied the Millers' Renewed
    Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, Alternatively,
    for New Trial, because the evidence supports the verdict
    After the jury returned a special verdict in favor of
    the Association, the Millers filed a Renewed Motion for Judgment
    as a Matter of Law or, Alternatively, for New Trial pursuant to
    Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 50(b).2 The Millers
    1
    The Honorable Joseph E. Cardoza presided.
    2
    HRCP Rule 50 provides, in part,
    (a) Judgment as a Matter of Law.
    (continued...)
    2
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    contend that the Circuit Court erred in denying their renewed
    motion for judgment as a matter of law because the jury's
    findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The
    Millers assert the jury's findings as to ten of the eleven
    special verdict questions were either not supported by sufficient
    evidence or were against the manifest weight of the evidence so
    as to warrant either judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.3
    2
    (...continued)
    (1) If during a trial by jury a party has been fully
    heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient
    evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for
    that party on that issue, the court may determine the
    issue against that party and may grant a motion for
    judgment as a matter of law against that party with
    respect to a claim or defense that cannot under the
    controlling law be maintained or defeated without a
    favorable finding on that issue.
    (2) Motions for judgment as a matter of law may be
    made at any time before submission of the case to the
    jury. Such a motion shall specify the judgment sought
    and the law and the facts on which the moving party is
    entitled to the judgment.
    (b) Renewing Motion for Judgment After Trial; Alternative
    Motion for New Trial. If, for any reason, the court does not
    grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the
    close of all the evidence, the court is considered to have
    submitted the action to the jury subject to the court's
    later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. The
    movant may renew its request for judgment as a matter of law
    by filing a motion no later than 10 days after entry of
    judgment--and may alternatively request a new trial or join
    a motion for a new trial under Rule 59. In ruling on a
    renewed motion, the court may:
    (1) if a verdict was returned:
    (A) allow the judgment to stand,
    (B) order a new trial, or
    (C) direct entry of judgment as a matter of law;
    or
    (2) if no verdict was returned:
    (A) order a new trial, or
    (B) direct entry of judgment as a matter of law.
    3
    The only special verdict question the Millers do not object to is
    number 8, in which the jury found that the Board had not proven by a
    preponderance of the evidence that the Millers' moving their entryway door
    affected the structural integrity of the building.
    3
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    A trial court's ruling on a motion for judgment as a matter
    of law is reviewed de novo. 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.
    Calipjo v. Purdy, 144 Hawai#i 266, 276, 
    439 P.3d 218
    , 228 (2019)
    (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
    A.   Special Verdict Question Nos. 1 and 2: there was
    evidence for the jury's finding that the Millers' lanai
    enclosure was a material structure added to a common
    element
    To answer special verdict questions 1 and 2, the jury
    was required to make three separate findings: (1) that the lanai
    was a common element, (2) that the enclosure was a material
    structure, and (3) that the enclosure was added to a common
    element. As to the first finding, there was evidence that the
    lanai floor and ceiling are common elements. The Association
    Declaration defined the Hololani's apartments as follows:
    The respective apartment shall not be deemed to include the
    undecorated or unfinished surfaces of the perimeter walls or
    interior loading walls, the floors and ceilings surrounding
    each apartment, or any pipes, wires, conduits or other
    utility or service lines running through such apartment
    which are utilized for or serve more than one apartment, the
    same being deemed common elements as hereinafter provided.
    Each apartment shall be deemed to include the interior
    decorated or finished surfaces of all walls, floors and
    ceilings and partitions within the perimeter walls, all
    window glass, the unenclosed space within the lanai, the air
    space within the lanai and the perimeter walls, together
    with fixtures, appliances and other improvements located
    therein.
    (Emphasis added).   Based on the Declaration, the jury was
    instructed that:
    Common elements means: all portions of a condominium other
    than the units; and any other interests in real estate for
    the benefit of unit owners that are subject to the
    declaration. At the Hololani, common elements are all
    foundations, columns, girders, beams, supports, bearing
    walls, main walls, roofs, floors, ceilings, balconies,
    walkways, elevators, stairways, hallways, corridors and
    ducts of the buildings, and all other parts of the project
    which are not included in the definition of an apartment.
    (Emphasis added). Given the Declaration and instruction to the
    jury, there was evidence that each apartment includes the air
    4
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    space within its respective lanai, but not the lanai's floor or
    ceiling, which are part of the common elements.
    As to the second finding, there was evidence that the
    enclosure was material. The jury was instructed that non-
    material structural addition means
    a structural addition to the common elements that does not
    jeopardize the soundness or safety of the property, reduce
    the value thereof, impair any easement or hereditament,
    detract from the appearance of the project, interfere with
    or deprive any nonconsenting owner of the use or enjoyment
    of any part of property, or directly affect any
    nonconsenting owner.
    (Emphases added).
    Lt. Scott English of the Fire Prevention Bureau
    testified that the Millers' lanai enclosure jeopardized the
    soundness or safety of the building because the enclosure did not
    comply with the fire code, and that he would have denied the
    Millers' building permit had the Millers applied for a permit to
    enclose the lanai instead of what they claimed on their
    application was alteration of interior walls. Thomas W.H. Boomer
    (Boomer), president of Structural Concrete Bonding & Restoration,
    Inc., was hired to repair and waterproof the concrete lanai slabs
    of the Hololani. Boomer testified that during the repairs, a
    parapet weighing around 600-700 pounds fell off which prompted
    further inspection of the lanais. Boomer discovered that the
    lanais were in very poor condition and posed an extremely high
    safety risk requiring the removal of the parapets, repair to the
    concrete vertical faces, and reinstallation of the railings three
    inches further back. Although the majority of the other lanais
    required repairs, the Millers' lanai enclosure prevented Boomer
    from assessing the condition of their lanai, prevented him from
    conducting any necessary repair work, and thus he could not
    provide a warranty or guarantee of safety or soundness for the
    Millers' lanai.
    Monie Thompson (Thompson), the owner of the apartment
    directly below the Millers' unit, testified that she and her
    husband went to the Millers' unit due to the noise of
    construction. Thompson observed the contractors use a nail gun
    5
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    to drive nails into the ceiling and could see concrete falling.
    Thompson expressed her concern to the Board that the Millers'
    construction added substantial weight to the building and the
    nails in the concrete ceiling and floor were splintering the
    concrete, affecting the structural integrity of the building.
    Photos taken by Thompson also show spalling damage to the
    concrete of the Millers' lanai. Thus, there was evidence that
    the addition to the Millers' lanai was a material structure.
    There was also evidence that the addition was material
    for reason of detraction from the appearance of the building.
    Photos depict the enclosure as physically altering the look of
    the Hololani's exterior facade by disrupting the uniformity of
    the exterior facade. Thompson testified about the effect the
    enclosure had on the building at night:
    It's quite a different feeling at night. If you've ever been
    to a movie theater or been to a stage production, you know
    how it gets at night, after the sun goes down. It is just
    really black and you see our beautiful stars. But if you
    turn on the movie or turn on a light in the apartment, it's
    suddenly like a stage. So everything on the interior is lit
    up and everything on the exterior is the blackened dark sky.
    So because [the Millers'] condo no longer has the six or
    seven-foot depth of the balcony, their whole bedroom is
    seven feet closer to the edge of the railing.
    So at night, when the doors are open, the bedroom with the
    lights on is a stage. It's a stage for all to see in the
    entire building.
    Owners also raised their concerns through emails regarding the
    disruption made by the Millers to the outward aesthetics of
    Hololani.
    As to the third finding, there was evidence that the
    enclosure had been added to the common elements by use of a nail
    gun and that concrete had been poured onto the floor to level the
    lanai with the bedroom. Photos also show the attachment of the
    enclosure to the ceiling and floor of the lanai.
    Therefore, there is evidence to support the jury's
    findings in special verdict questions numbers 1 and 2 that the
    lanai enclosure was a material structure added to a common
    element.
    6
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    B.   Special Verdict Question No. 3: there was evidence for
    the jury's finding that the Association reasonably and
    in good faith concluded that the Millers should be
    prohibited from enclosing the lanai
    The Association's Bylaws state that additions or
    alterations to common elements--such as the lanai floor and
    ceiling--require not only written approval by the Board, but also
    approval by a majority of owners, including all owners directly
    affected by the construction. There is no evidence in the record
    that a majority of the owners assented to the construction of the
    enclosure; to the contrary, there is evidence that the Millers'
    construction project upset so many owners that more than 50% of
    the owners voted to remove members of the Board for the handling
    of the Millers' lanai construction.
    Faced with a majority of owners opposing the Millers'
    project, including other owners directly affected by the
    construction, there is evidence to support the jury's finding
    that the Association reasonably and in good faith concluded that
    the Millers should be prohibited from enclosing their lanai.
    C.   Special Verdict Question No. 4: there was evidence for
    the jury's finding that the Millers did not obtain the
    Board's approval prior to construction of their lanai
    enclosure
    The Association's Bylaws require that construction to
    any common elements may only be done with "prior written consent
    of the Board and in accordance with plans and specifications
    including detailed plot plan, prepared by a licensed architect
    and also approved by the Board and by a majority of owners,
    including all owners directly affected by such construction[.]"
    The Bylaws also provide that the Board is composed of
    seven persons, and further provides:
    Section 10. Board of Directors' Quorum. At all meetings of
    the Board of Directors, a majority of the Directors shall
    constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, and the
    acts of the majority of the Directors present at the meeting
    at which a quorum is present shall be the acts of the board
    of Directors.
    (Emphasis added).
    7
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    The Minutes for a board meeting on May 17, 2005,
    indicate the board considered a request seeking permission for a
    tinted glass lanai enclosure to the Millers' unit. These Minutes
    also reflect which of the board members were present and how they
    voted. The Minutes state in relevant part:
    Board Members Present:        Meta Shannon, Ray Sievers,
    Jack Stoughton, John Knox
    Board Member Present
    By Telephone:                 Liz Miller, Dan Stockhammer
    Board Member Absent:          Roger Fitz-Gerald
    . . . .
    I. DECLARATION OF QUORUM
    A quorum was declared with six of seven Directors present.
    . . . .
    Unit B604 had submitted plans requesting permission for a
    tinted glass lanai enclosure. According to standards written
    in November 1998, an after market tinting of windows is
    allowed.
    There was discussion about the design and structural
    integrity of the building, and options for UV window
    protection.
    MOTION:     To approve the request from the Owners of Unit
    B604 to proceed with the lanai enclosure,
    including the tinted window as requested.
    Shannon/Stockhammer
    Directors Miller and Knox abstained. Director
    Fitz-Gerald was excused for medical reasons.
    Director Stoughton opposed. Directors Sievers,
    Shannon and Stockhammer voted in favor. The
    Motion passed by a majority vote.
    The new standard would be tinted glass for any Owner
    installing a glass lanai enclosure.
    (Emphasis added).
    The Millers contend that the Minutes state the Board
    approved their lanai enclosure by a majority vote. The
    Association, on the other hand, argues that the Minutes
    improperly state the motion on the lanai enclosure was passed,
    because given the Association's Bylaws and the votes shown in the
    Minutes, there was not a majority vote by the board members who
    were present in favor of the motion. We agree with the
    Association.
    8
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    The Association argued at trial that the evidence
    showed the Millers did not receive a majority vote at the board
    meeting. The Minutes reflect there were a total of six board
    members present at the meeting, either in person or by phone.4
    One board member was absent. The Minutes further reflect that
    two board members abstained, one board member opposed the motion,
    and three board members voted in favor of the motion. Thus, only
    three of the six board members who were present voted in favor of
    the motion, which did not constitute a majority. Stuart Allen
    (Allen), who served as president of the Board, testified that
    under the Bylaws, abstentions counted as "no" votes, and thus
    with six Board members present at the meeting and three votes in
    favor of approving the Millers' request, the lanai enclosure had
    not been approved by the Board.
    Therefore, there is evidence supporting the jury's
    finding that the Millers did not obtain the requisite Board
    approval prior to constructing their lanai enclosure.
    D.   Special Verdict Question No. 5: there was evidence for
    the jury's finding that the Board did not unreasonably
    withhold its approval of the Millers' after-the-fact
    request to move their entryway door
    The Millers contend that the Board was unreasonable in
    its application of the Bylaws' requirements as they pertain to
    altering common elements. In particular, the Millers contend
    that,
    [i]nasmuch as both the [Association] and the jury found that
    the relocation of the Miller's [sic] door did not have a
    structural affect [sic] on the building, it was patently
    unreasonable for the [Association] to require the Millers
    get an engineer's report to state that fact, require that an
    architect review the report, and require that a ballot to
    all owners seeking 75% approval "to change the documents to
    approve the alteration in the common elements," be sent.
    (Emphases added). However, the Millers mischaracterize the
    Board's position regarding possible structural damage caused by
    relocation of the door. During the relevant board meeting,
    although the Board noted that the relocation of the door did not
    4
    The parties do not contest whether a board member can be "present" by
    phone.
    9
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    appear to have a structural impact on the building, there was no
    associated expert's opinion in support of this contention, and
    the Board unanimously agreed "[t]o ask the owner of B604 to
    submit a change of door application to the Board for approval,
    with a report from an engineer stating that the change did not
    impact the structural integrity of the building." Therefore,
    when viewed in the light most favorable to the Association, the
    Board moved to engage in factfinding in order to verify that the
    change had not impaired the integrity of the structure.
    Second, as discussed, the Bylaws require that an owner
    desiring to make any alterations to common elements submit to the
    Board "plans and specifications including detailed plot plan,
    prepared by a licensed architect," and that both the Board and a
    specified percentage of the owners approve alterations to common
    elements. The Board's action was therefore consistent with the
    requirements of the Bylaws.
    Third, the Millers mistakenly contend that the jury
    failed to follow jury instruction number 27, which provided, in
    relevant part, "nonmaterial additions to or alterations of the
    common elements or units. . . shall require approval only by the
    board, which shall not unreasonably withhold the approval, and
    such percentage, number, or group of unit owners as may be
    required by the declaration or bylaws." (emphasis added). The
    Bylaws and the Declaration require that any structural
    alterations to or exterior changes to any common elements be
    approved by a majority of the owners or such larger percentage
    required by law.
    Thompson testified that the wall next to the front door
    was a common element, and that, when the Board designated the
    front doors as private property, it reserved the right to have a
    uniform appearance. The record and transcripts contain a
    plethora of evidence that the owners are highly concerned with
    maintaining uniformity of the building's appearance. For
    example, the Bylaws and House Rules prohibit decorating doors,
    walkways, or common areas with non-seasonal items without Board
    10
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    approval and specify which color any window coverings may have
    when viewed from the outside. Mrs. Miller became aware of other
    owners' concern with the Hololani's appearance as early as 2005,
    and multiple letters and emails between the owners evince their
    outrage over the loss of uniformity.
    Therefore, there is evidence to support the jury's
    finding that the Board did not unreasonably withhold its approval
    of the Millers' after-the-fact request to move their entryway
    door.
    E.   Special Verdict Question No. 6: there was evidence for
    the jury's finding that the affirmative defense of
    estoppel did not prevent the Board from denying the
    Millers' request to install the lanai enclosure
    The jury was instructed on the affirmative defense of
    estoppel that:
    Equitable estoppel requires proof that an entity willfully
    caused another person to erroneously believe a certain state
    of things, and that person reasonably relied on this
    erroneous belief to his or her detriment. Equitable
    estoppel prevents an entity from repudiating an action or
    right if it would harm another who reasonably relied on the
    action or right.
    The Millers challenge the jury's finding on question
    no. 6, alleging the evidence showed they obtained Board approval
    to enclose their large lanai for unit B-604 on May 17, 2005 and
    incurred costs for material and labor in reasonable reliance on
    that approval. The Millers acknowledge the Association presented
    evidence that some material costs were incurred prior to
    obtaining approval, but assert they purchased materials for the
    enclosure after approval was received and retained a structural
    engineer and hired a glazing contractor.
    The Millers cite no evidence to support their assertion
    that they purchased materials for their lanai enclosure after May
    17, 2005. With regard to the hiring of the structural engineer,
    the Millers cite the testimony of Ray Sievers (Sievers), but
    Sievers testified the Millers hired a professional engineer in
    response to concerns raised regarding their lanai enclosure, not
    in reliance on the Board's action on May 17, 2005. The Millers
    11
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    cite no evidence for their assertion that they hired a glazing
    contractor based on the May 17, 2005 Board meeting.
    There is evidence that the Millers ordered materials
    and paid funds related in part to the lanai enclosure before
    seeking Board approval. The record contains a proposal from
    Glass Products Hawaii, Inc. for sliding doors and windows for the
    Millers' unit B-604, including for the living room door, dated
    February 15, 2005 and signed by Mr. Miller on March 14, 2005.
    Another exhibit is a check in the amount of $21,407.06 dated
    March 16, 2005, signed by Mr. Miller, with notations "50% down on
    windows/glass sliders $16,407.06" and "Draw #4 5,000 labor &
    material." Mr. Miller testified that when he wrote the check
    dated March 16, 2005, he was not relying on any approval from the
    Board and that he spent that money before he had approached the
    Board. Mrs. Miller testified she understood they needed Board
    approval before they enclosed their lanai, and that they spent
    money before they got Board approval.
    The evidence also shows that the Association Bylaws
    required unit owners to observe all governmental laws, ordinances
    and regulations, and that the Millers obtained an "after-the-
    fact" building permit on December 20, 2005. However, even then,
    the building permit application sought a permit to "reconfigure[]
    interior walls[,]" and the issued permit was for "apartment
    interior alteration" with no specification to enclose the lanai.
    (Emphasis added).
    The evidence also shows that within weeks of the May
    17, 2005 Board meeting, correspondence and emails were sent to
    the Board, which included Mrs. Miller, from other owners raising
    concerns about the lanai enclosure for the Millers' unit B-604.
    Further, in an email to owners (including Mrs. Miller) dated June
    15, 2005, Dan Stockhammer, a member of the Board, addressed
    concerns raised by other owners about the build out in the
    Millers' unit, stated that construction had been halted, and
    stated that he had been the first to ask for halting construction
    about a month prior. Moreover, Sievers sent another email dated
    12
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    June 15, 2005, responding to owners who had raised concerns about
    the build out in the Miller unit, in which Sievers also noted
    that construction had been halted. The evidence also shows that
    the Bylaws required the Millers to obtain approval for the lanai
    enclosure from the other owners directly affected, but that they
    did not do so.
    Subsequently, on November 30, 2005, a special owners'
    meeting of the Association was held to consider removal of Board
    members, and three directors were removed and replaced.5 In a
    December 8, 2005 letter, the Association Manager asked the
    Millers to stop work on their unit until after the Board meeting
    on December 16.
    Thereafter, three letters were sent to the Millers that
    they should stop work on the lanai. In a December 20, 2005
    letter to the Millers, the Association Manager stated there had
    been a Board meeting on December 16, 2005, the Board had decided
    to hire its own structural engineer to answer concerns about the
    structural integrity of enclosing the B-604 lanai, and the Board
    had asked the Association Manager to write the Millers and ask
    them not to do any work in their unit even with a building permit
    until they obtained final approval from the Board. After
    receiving reports that work had resumed on the lanai, the
    Association's management company sent the Millers two letters on
    February 6, 2006, demanding that they cease all work on the
    lanai.
    Thus, there is evidence from which the jury could find
    that the Millers paid for windows and glass sliders before
    seeking permission from the Board to construct a lanai enclosure,
    that within weeks of the May 17, 2005 Board meeting there were
    strong concerns raised to the Board by other owners and at least
    two emails by Board members reflect that construction on B-604
    had been halted, that due in large part to concerns about the
    5
    The day before the election, Mrs. Miller resigned from the Board and
    was replaced by the then remaining Board members. At the November 30, 2005
    meeting, a majority of owners voted to remove Sievers, but then voted him back
    onto the Board.
    13
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    Millers' lanai enclosure several Board members were removed and
    replaced at a special owners' meeting on November 30, 2005, and
    subsequently the Association Manager and Association's management
    company specifically and repeatedly advised the Millers to stop
    work on the lanai enclosure.
    In sum, there was evidence to support a finding that
    the Millers could not reasonably have relied on the Board action
    on May 17, 2005 to continue with the lanai enclosure. See State
    Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. GTE Hawaiian Tel. Co., Inc., 81
    Hawai#i 235, 244, 
    915 P.2d 1336
    , 1345 (1996) ("[A]bsent manifest
    injustice, the party invoking equitable estoppel must show that
    he or she has detrimentally relied on the representation or
    conduct of the person sought to be estopped, and that such
    reliance was reasonable.") (emphasis in original) (citation and
    internal quotation marks omitted); Strouss v. Simmons, 
    66 Haw. 32
    , 43, 
    657 P.2d 1004
    , 1012 (1982).
    Thus, there is evidence to support the jury's finding
    that estoppel did not prevent the Board from denying the Millers'
    request to install the lanai enclosure.
    F.    Special Verdict Question No. 7: there was evidence for
    the jury's finding that the Millers' lanai enclosure
    affected the structural integrity of the Hololani
    buildings
    The Millers contend the jury could not permissibly find
    that their lanai enclosure affected the structural integrity of
    the Hololani because, under Bernard v. Char, 79 Hawai#i 371, 
    903 P.2d 676
     (App. 1995), such a finding requires expert testimony
    which the Association had not provided. However, Bernard
    involved a dental malpractice claim in which this court noted
    that "unlike the ordinary negligence case, it is the general rule
    that a malpractice case based on negligent treatment cannot be
    established without expert medical testimony to support it." Id.
    at 377, 
    903 P.2d at 682
     (emphasis added). This court explained
    that in malpractice cases, a jury is generally required to
    determine whether, inter alia, a defendant's professional conduct
    conformed to the standard of care for the profession, and thus
    14
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    expert opinion evidence was generally required to aid the jury.
    
    Id.
     The instant case, however, does not involve malpractice
    claims or standards of care for a profession, and Bernard is
    inapposite.
    Here, the jury heard testimony from Thompson about
    widespread spalling or cracking in the concrete at Hololani, and
    that Thompson had seen concrete falling from the lanai ceiling of
    the Millers' unit when contractors were working on the lanai
    enclosure. Furthermore, Boomer testified that his company had
    been hired to repair the lanai slabs at Hololani and that while
    working on a lanai on the eighth floor, they started jack
    hammering, which caused vibration, and one of the parapets fell
    off the building. Boomer further testified that based on
    inspections of lanais at Hololani, they determined the lanais
    were in very poor condition and were an extremely high safety
    risk, that the Millers' enclosed lanai prevented Boomer from
    assessing and repairing damage to their lanai, but other lanais
    showed that damage started on the outer edges and spread toward
    the building, and that 52 other lanais had that exact condition.
    Boomer also testified about photos, which were shown to the jury
    and admitted into evidence, showing common or typical conditions
    that Boomer saw during his work at Hololani, including "rotting
    rebars, causing concrete failure."
    Finally, although there was conflicting evidence from
    experts regarding the degree to which lanai enclosures affected
    structural integrity at the Hololani, there was further evidence
    to support the jury's finding. The court appointed structural
    engineer Brandon Erickson (Erickson), who testified with respect
    to a discussion he had about spalling on the lanais and that he
    believed there were multiple deficiencies which would require
    more study before he could recommend how to correct them.
    Erickson acknowledged that "enclosing the lanais is making a bad
    situation a little bit worse, but that bad situation is already
    so bad that the little bit worse doesn't matter." Erickson
    testified that the difference between enclosing the large makai-
    15
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    facing lanai and the smaller lanai attached to each end unit,
    from a structural engineering perspective, was that the larger
    lanai would require more weight of construction material to
    either level the lanai slab or to enclose it. He also explained
    that the seismic issue is related to the weight of the building
    "[s]o the more weight required to enclose the lanai and convert
    it into interior space, the more the seismic forces go up. So
    enclosing a small lanai has less of an effect than enclosing a
    large lanai." Erickson further explained that, from a structural
    standpoint, the position of the glass in an enclosed lanai
    induces more stress on the concrete slab because it is at the
    edge of the slab rather than the interior of the slab or the
    wall.
    Given the record, there is evidence for the jury's
    finding that the Millers' lanai enclosure affected the structural
    integrity of the Hololani building.
    G.   Special Verdict Question No. 9: the Millers did not
    prove by a preponderance of the evidence that their
    apartment's two lanais were part of the apartment
    The Millers contend that jury instruction number 25
    "established unequivocally" that the Millers' apartment consisted
    of and was inclusive of two lanais when it defined the Millers'
    apartment as "consist[ing] of . . . two (2) lanais . . .
    contain[ing] an area of approximately 1,227.94 square feet
    inclusive of the lanais." Therefore, the Millers contend, the
    jury's finding that the Millers did not prove by a preponderance
    of the evidence that the Millers' two lanais were part of the
    apartment was "manifestly against the weight of the evidence."
    As discussed, supra, each Hololani apartment includes
    the air space within its respective lanais, but not the floor or
    ceiling of the lanai. Therefore, the jury instruction was
    consistent with the Bylaws because it defined the apartment as
    including the square footage of the air space contained within
    the lanai, and the jury's finding was not manifestly against the
    weight of the evidence.
    16
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    H.   Special Verdict Questions Nos. 10 and 11: the Millers
    did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
    the Board was prevented by the doctrine of ultra vires
    from disapproving their lanai enclosure
    The Millers contend that the Board was prevented from
    denying the Millers' request to enclose the lanai under the
    doctrine of ultra vires because the Millers' request complied
    with the Board's own enclosure protocols and standards. We
    disagree. As was explained to the jury, under the doctrine of
    ultra vires, a decision-maker may not act beyond his or her
    powers, and the Board "has an obligation to abide by the legal
    limits of its powers and not to exceed those delineated powers."
    Although the Board had implemented certain standards
    for lanai enclosures, the Millers' request was still subject to
    Board and other owners' approval as mandated by the Bylaws.
    Therefore, the Board was not required to grant the Millers'
    construction request merely because the request conformed to the
    standards. As discussed, supra, there is evidence that the
    Millers' request was denied, not based on the whim of the Board,
    but, rather, for the safety of the entire building and to conform
    to the other owners' wishes. The Board followed the Bylaws'
    procedures, and its action in denying the Millers' request
    therefore did not violate the doctrine of ultra vires.
    The Millers further contend that the Board was
    prevented from initiating the lawsuit against them under the
    doctrine of ultra vires because the Board did not follow the
    Bylaws' protocols. The Millers urge us to hold that the jury
    failed to follow the jury instruction by ignoring the following
    fact read to it by the Circuit Court:
    Prior to the initiation of the lawsuit against the Millers
    by Board of Director Owen Gallagher, the retention of the
    Motooka Yamamoto and Revere law firm was not brought to the
    attention of the entire Board nor was the decision to
    initiate suit made by motion or approved by vote of the
    Board of Directors at any properly-convened meeting and/or
    executive session of the Board of Directors.
    However, the Millers ignore the instructions the Circuit Court
    gave to the jury immediately prior to reading the fact,
    17
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    [i]n this case, there are certain facts that I'm going to
    read to you that are facts that you may consider in reaching
    your verdict.
    . . .
    [I]t does not mean that you are to give any greater or
    lesser weight to these facts simply because I am reading
    these facts to you and that it is occurring at this point of
    the trial. . . . These statements are evidence like any
    other evidence presented during a trial that you may
    consider.
    The weight that you give these facts, like any other fact,
    should be determined in a manner consistent with the Court's
    instructions of law. The weight you give this evidence is
    for you to decide.
    (Emphasis added). Therefore, the jury was not required to take
    the fact as conclusive evidence, and was free to give greater
    weight to other evidence regarding the Board's actions.
    There is evidence that the Board did not violate the
    doctrine of ultra vires because Article VII § 2 of the Bylaws and
    Section E of the House Rules empower the Board to initiate legal
    action against the Millers to enforce provisions of the
    Declaration, Bylaws, and the House Rules. Furthermore, evidence
    in the record reflects that the Millers' attorney threatened the
    Association with legal action unless the Board approved the
    enclosure, the Board attempted to avoid litigation through
    mediation, and, when efforts to avoid litigation were
    unsuccessful, the Board unanimously voted to pursue litigation
    against the Millers. Thus, we cannot hold that the Board failed
    to follow its own procedures, acted outside its powers, or that
    the jury failed to follow instructions.
    II. The Circuit Court's judgment was not illegal for omitting
    language pertaining to the county's building permit
    requirement
    The Millers apparently urge us to conclude that the
    Circuit Court's order reversing the Millers' construction efforts
    is illegal because the Circuit Court failed to specify that the
    construction reversal would require a building permit. We
    disagree. The Circuit Court properly required the Millers to
    remove the lanai enclosure and restore the door, as they had
    violated the Association's governing documents.
    18
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    III. The Millers' arguments concerning other legal causes
    entitling them to a new trial
    The Millers contend the following circumstances
    affected their ability to have a fair trial and they are entitled
    to a new trial under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 635-56
    (2016):6 (1) the trial was too long and they had to present their
    case piecemeal; (2) the Circuit Court failed to use Findings of
    Fact not in dispute; (3) the Circuit Court delayed in disclosing
    the decisions of the Discovery Master to the jury; (4) the
    Circuit Court excluded expert witness James Stewart; (5) the
    Circuit Court excluded witness John A. Morris; (6) the Millers
    were prevented from impeaching Stuart Allen, then president of
    the Board; and (7) the asserted misconduct by Association's
    counsel, Terrence M. Revere.
    The parts of the Opening Brief addressing the Millers'
    argument they are entitled to a new trial for the above reasons
    do not comply with Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP)
    Rule 28 in many respects. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(4)(D) ("Points not
    presented in accordance with this section will be disregarded,
    except that the appellate court, at its option, may notice a
    plain error not presented.").
    The Millers fail to include these issues in their
    Points of Error section pursuant to HRAP Rule 28(b)(4), and for
    most of these issues the Millers fail to provide in their briefs
    "where in the record the alleged error occurred," Rule
    28(b)(4)(ii), or "where in the record the alleged error was
    objected to or the manner in which the alleged error was brought
    to the attention of the court" as required by Rule 28(b)(4)(iii).
    6
    HRS § 635-56 provides:
    § 635-56 Grounds for new trial. In any civil case or
    in any criminal case wherein a verdict of guilty has been
    rendered, the court may set aside the verdict when it
    appears to be so manifestly against the weight of the
    evidence as to indicate bias, prejudice, passion, or
    misunderstanding of the charge of the court on the part of
    the jury; or the court may in any civil or criminal case
    grant a new trial for any legal cause.
    19
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    Further, regarding their claims about admission or rejection of
    evidence, the Millers fail to provide "quotation of the grounds
    urged for the objection and the full substance of the evidence
    admitted or rejected" required by Rule 28(b)(4)(A), and as to
    instructing the jury, the Millers fail to provide "quotation of
    the [jury] instruction [] given, refused, or modified, together
    with the objection urged at trial" under Rule 28(b)(4)(B).
    Furthermore, for these seven alleged errors, the Opening Brief
    argument provides only five citations to the record and one case
    citation, with one additional case cited in the Reply Brief, in
    violation of HRAP Rule 28(b)(7) and (8), which require "citations
    to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on."
    With a record on appeal spanning eleven docket numbers and
    transcripts spanning some 85 docket numbers, we decline to "sift
    through the voluminous record to verify an appellant's
    inadequately documented contentions." Kamaka v. Goodsill
    Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 117 Hawai#i 92, 114 n.23, 
    176 P.3d 91
    ,
    113 n.23 (2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
    We address the Millers' arguments that cite legal
    authority or provide a discernable reference to the record.
    A.   Decisions of the Discovery Master
    The Millers cite Ray v. Kapiolani Med. Specialists, 125
    Hawai#i 253, 269, 
    259 P.3d 569
    , 585 (2011) for their contention
    that the Decisions of the Discovery Master should have been
    provided to the jury at an earlier time, rather than when the
    jury received its instructions. However, Ray is inapposite
    because it dealt with improperly admitted testimony that was
    referred to numerous times by multiple witnesses, and the trial
    court did not provide a curative instruction until almost a month
    after the testimony was admitted. 
    Id.
     Here, the issue is not
    improperly admitted testimony and a late curative instruction.
    Moreover, after the Circuit Court initially denied the Millers'
    request to have the Decisions of the Discovery Master provided to
    the jury after opening statements and to have the parties work on
    the issue further, the Millers cite no other point in the record
    20
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    where they requested submission to the jury, nor do they
    establish how they were prejudiced.
    On May 16, 2014, during a hearing on motions in limine,
    the Circuit Court requested that the Millers provide with
    specificity what they would present to the jury from the
    Discovery Master so that the court could determine whether it
    would be admissible at a later Hawai#i Rules of Evidence (HRE)
    Rule 104 hearing.7 Also on May 16, 2014, the Millers filed their
    "Decisions of the Discovery Master to be Presented to the Jury
    and Additional Decisions Relevant to Evidence" and sought to
    present them to the jury after opening statements on May 19,
    2014. The Association objected on the grounds that the Millers
    failed to provide context or citations for the Discovery Master
    decisions in their filing. The Circuit Court denied the Millers'
    request, among other issues, as follows:
    THE COURT: Here is what I'm going to do. I don't want to
    waste the jurors' time. We'll begin the presentation of
    evidence by the [Association]. And if [the Millers are]
    handicapped by that in terms of your cross-examination, I'll
    give you time with extra work on that over the evening. I
    don't think we're going to get through a lot here. But I
    don't want to waste the time that we do have.
    Apart from this initial determination by the Circuit Court to
    proceed with the Association's first witness without the
    introduction of the Discovery Master decisions, the Millers fail
    to explain whether a HRE Rule 104 hearing took place, where in
    the record the Circuit Court determined the admissibility of the
    decisions, and where the Millers thereafter attempted to
    introduce the Discovery Master decisions to the jury.
    B.   Testimony of Stuart Allen
    With regard to the testimony of Stuart Allen, the
    Millers contend they should have been allowed to impeach Allen's
    7
    HRE Rule 104(a) (1993) provides, in relevant part:
    Preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a
    person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege, or the
    admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court,
    subject to the provisions of subsection (b). In making its
    determination the court is not bound by the rules of
    evidence except those with respect to privileges.
    21
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    credibility based on alleged bad acts he committed shortly after
    a settlement conference in May 2014. The Millers filed a Motion
    to Continue Trial Date (Motion to Continue) on May 13, 2014,
    asserting, inter alia, that Allen had emailed a letter to the
    Board and other Hololani owners containing "false and
    confidential information" with the aim to "create hostility
    towards the Millers that would eliminate any tendency of the
    Board to increase its last offer." The Millers requested more
    time to investigate Allen's alleged bad acts and whether the
    Association's counsel, Terrence M. Revere, had contributed to the
    drafting of the email for possible sanctions.
    The Association filed an opposition to the Motion to
    Continue on May 14, 2014, arguing, inter alia, that the Millers
    had mischaracterized the email and that it had been sent only to
    Board members and not to owners. The Association further
    asserted the information contained in the letter was not
    confidential under any Hawaii rule, case, statute, or order, and
    the letter was accurate.
    The Circuit Court held a hearing for the Motion to
    Continue on May 14, 2014, and denied the motion. The Circuit
    Court allowed Allen to testify and held that the events related
    to the settlement conference were not an appropriate area for
    examination. The scope of cross-examination at trial is within
    the discretion of the trial court and "[t]he trial court's
    exercise of its discretion to limit the scope of cross-
    examination will not be ruled as reversible error when it limits
    irrelevant . . . questions by counsel and the limitation does not
    result in any manifest prejudice[.]" State v. Peseti, 101
    Hawai#i 172, 178, 
    65 P.3d 119
    , 125 (2003) (citations and brackets
    omitted). We conclude the Circuit Court did not abuse its
    discretion and the Millers fail to demonstrate any manifest
    prejudice.
    C.    Asserted Misconduct by the Association's Counsel
    With regard to the Millers' argument that the
    Association's counsel improperly editorialized or commented on
    22
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    the evidence, they provide references to a few instances in court
    transcripts, but these references show the Circuit Court
    sustained objections by the Millers' counsel. For other general
    arguments regarding the conduct of opposing counsel, the Millers'
    failure to demonstrate they objected or raised it to the Circuit
    Court precludes our consideration of their general arguments "in
    accordance with the fundamental rule that misconduct occurring
    upon a trial must be brought to the attention of the court when
    it occurs or is discovered, and unless objected to cannot be
    relied upon as error upon a motion for new trial or upon appeal."
    Young v. Price, 
    48 Haw. 22
    , 29, 
    395 P.2d 365
    , 370 (1964)
    (citations omitted).
    In sum, we do not find merit in, or alternatively
    decline to address, the Millers' seven asserted circumstances
    they claim entitle them to a new trial.
    IV. The Millers' Motion to Alter and Amend Judgment
    Finally, the Millers contend that the First Amended
    Final Judgment entered in favor of the Association by the Circuit
    Court is improper because (1) it orders them to do construction
    work that requires a building permit; (2) the Circuit Court
    failed to determine the equitable claims because certain jury
    determinations are merely advisory; (3) there was no evidence
    their lanai affected the structural integrity of the Hololani;
    and (4) the Association unreasonably withheld approval of the
    Millers' after-the-fact request to move their entryway door.
    On February 22, 2016, the Millers filed their Motion to
    Alter or Amend First Amended Final Judgment filed on February 11,
    2016. The Circuit Court's Order Denying the Millers' Motion to
    Alter or Amend First Amended Final Judgment was based on the
    motions submitted by the parties and a hearing on April 20, 2016.
    However, the Millers fail to provide the transcripts for the
    April 20, 2016 hearing in the record on appeal. "[I]t is well
    established that, when an appellant desires to raise any point on
    appeal that requires the consideration of the oral proceedings
    before the court appealed from, the appellant bears the burden of
    23
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    showing error by reference to matters in the record, and he or
    she has the responsibility of providing the relevant transcript."
    Ditto v. McCurdy, 103 Hawai#i 153, 162, 
    80 P.3d 974
    , 983 (2003).
    Moreover, based on what is contained in the record, we
    conclude the Millers' arguments are without merit. First, the
    Millers apparently urge us to conclude that the Circuit Court's
    order requiring the Millers to remove their lanai enclosure and
    restore the entryway door is illegal because the Circuit Court
    failed to specify that they obtain a permit. The Millers
    asserted the same argument during a March 11, 2015 hearing on the
    Millers' prior Motion to Alter or Amend Final Judgment filed on
    February 9, 2015. During that hearing, the Circuit Court noted
    the practical considerations of obtaining a permit and that it
    would recognize reasonable efforts to comply with the earlier
    judgment. With respect to the First Amended Final Judgment, the
    Millers make no showing that they made any effort to comply,
    sought to obtain a building permit, or had any difficulty
    obtaining a permit.
    Second, with regard to the Millers' argument that the
    Circuit Court needed to determine all equitable claims, we agree
    with the Association that the Circuit Court did decide the
    equitable issues by entering its First Amended Final Judgment.
    Finally, the Millers again raise arguments challenging
    (a) the finding that the Millers' lanai enclosure affected the
    structural integrity of the Hololani building, and (b) whether
    the Millers proved that the Association unreasonably withheld
    approval of their after-the-fact request to move their entryway
    door. As discussed previously, there was ample evidence in the
    record on both of these issues to support the jury's findings.
    The Circuit Court did not err in entering judgment accordingly.
    V.   Conclusion
    Based on the foregoing, we affirm the "First Amended
    Final Judgment" filed on February 11, 2016, and the "Order
    Denying [the Millers'] Motion to Alter or Amend First Amended
    24
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    Final Judgment" filed on May 6, 2016, by the Circuit Court of the
    Second Circuit.
    DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 22, 2021.
    On the briefs:                        /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
    Chief Judge
    Brian R. Jenkins,
    J. Kevin Jenkins,                     /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
    for Defendants-Appellants/            Associate Judge
    Counterclaimants-Appellants.
    /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
    Terrance M. Revere,                   Associate Judge
    Lauren C.M. Sheppard,
    for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    25