Preview:

NO. 23614 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I RICHARD KELA, Appellant-Appellant, v. HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSION, Appellee-Appellee APPEAL FROM THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT (CIV. NO. 97-542)

MEMORANDUM OPINION (By: Burns, C.J., Watanabe and Foley, JJ.) Appellant Richard Kela (Kela) appeals from the June 27, 2000, Judgment of the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit1 (the circuit court) following its January 10, 2000, Order Affirming Hawaiian Home Commission's (the Commission) Findings of Facts,

Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order (Decision and Order) finding in favor of the Commission's decision to terminate Kela's lease for failure to pay the construction loan on his leasehold. Kela appears to contend that the circuit court: (1) lacked jurisdiction, (2) conspired to fraudulently deprive him of his "Constitution rights and of his due process," and (3) discriminated against him. We disagree with Kela's contentions

and affirm the circuit court's Judgment affirming the Commission's Decision and Order.

1

The Honorable Greg K. Nakamura presided.

I. BACKGROUND On June 19, 1978, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) awarded Kela Residential Lot Lease No. 4850 (lease) pursuant to section 207(a) (1976) of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended (the Act). On April 19, 1985,

Kela entered into a Contract of Loan No. 13501 (loan) with DHHL in the amount of $45,000.00 for construction of a home upon his leasehold. The loan was repayable within thirty years of the

first monthly payment date, with interest of 8-3/4% per annum, due in monthly installments of $354.02 on or before the 19th day of each month. Following repeated notices to Kela that his loan was in arrears, DHHL sent Kela by certified mail on April 16, 1996, a Notice of Hearing, informing him that he was in direct violation of the terms of the loan and that a Contested Case Hearing (hearing) had been scheduled for June 6, 1996, before a Commission hearings officer to give Kela an opportunity to show cause why his lease should not be canceled. Following the June 6, 1996 hearing, Hearings Officer H. K. Bruss Keppeler (hearing officer) issued his Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order on July 10, 1996 (Recommended Order). Based on evidence presented at the June 6,

1996 hearing, the hearing officer found that Kela had failed to take action to correct the delinquency on the loan; as of May 20,

2

1996, Kela had been delinquent for thirty-three months; and on May 20, 1996, the amount of the delinquency was $11,362.66, including interest due and payable. Kela had also failed to

maintain fire insurance on the improvements (which were security for the loan) and to pay real property taxes. violation of

Download Kela v. Hawaiian Homes Commission.pdf

Hawaii Law