Angela Kaaihue, Motion in Opposition to NECA's Summary Judgement- Hearing July 23, 2018

Ms. Angela Sue Kaaihue
Ms. Yong Nam Fryer
98-673 Kilinoe St.
Aiea, HI. 96701
(808) 542-9393
Pro-Se Petitioners(s)
IN THE LAND COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
In the Matter of the Application of ) Application NO. 950 (Amended)
)
Edith Austin and Other ) LC Case No. 17-1-2541
) (Other Civil Action)
To register and Confirm Title to land Situate )
City and County ) PETITIONERS ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE
Of Honolulu, State of Hawaii. ) & YONG FRYER MEMORANDUM IN
) OPPOSITION TO NECA’S
) (RESPONDANT) MOTION FOR
) SUMMARY JUDGEMENT FILED JULY
) 23RD
, 2018; MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’
) FEE AND COSTS; REQUEST FOR
) JUDICIAL NOTICE; DECLARATION OF
) YONG FRYER; DECLARATION OF
VS, ) ANGELA KAAIHUE, EXHIBIT 1-2;
) C/S
)
To Register and Confirm Title to land Situate ) Hearing Date: 7/23/2018
At Waimalu, District of Ewa City and County ) Time: 9:00 am.
Of Honolulu, State of Hawaii. ) Judge: Honorable Gary W. B. Chang
)
_____________________________________________)
PETITIONERS ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE AND YONG NAM FRYER MEMORANDUM IN
OPPOSITION TO NECA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT FILED JULY, 23RD
, 2018;
COMES NOW Petitioner(s), ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE and YONG NAM FRYER, by Pro-Se
Petitioners, respectfully moves this Honorable Court for an Order DENYING NECA’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, in favor for “PETITIONERS” on all Counts of the motion and RESPONDANT
NECA filed herein on JULY 23, 2018.
This Memorandum in Opposition is brought pursuant to Rules 6(b), 7, 7(f), 54, 55(b), and 56
of the Hawaii rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 7, 7(f), of the Rules of the Circuit Courts of the State

of Hawai’I, and is supported by the attached Memorandum, Declarations, Exhibits, Orders, the
pleadings filed in this matter, and incorporates by reference Counterclaim Defendant Plaintiff Angela
Sue Kaaihues’ motion for summary Judgment on Newtown Estates Community Association filed on
July 23rd
, 2018, filed herein, as well as the Memorandum in Support of Motion and all supporting
documents thereto. This Memorandum in Opposition is made pursuant to Rule 25 of the Rules of the
Land Court of the State of Hawaii, Hawaii Revised Statutes 501-52 and -53, and 501-196, Rules 56
and 81 of the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure, the Petition, and the Memorandum in Opposition, and
the Request for Judicial Notice, the Declaration of Counsel with Exhibits “1-10”, attached hereto, and
the records and files herein, and such oral argument and other evidence as may be presented at the
hearing on the Motion.
Despite numerous Motions for Summary Judgment filed by NECA, Newtown Estates
Community Association has failed in each and every Motion for Summary Judgment, this is the 5th
Motion for Summary Judgment filed by NECA’s including their sub-association attorneys involving in
multiple cases, Civil Court Cases: 17-1-1940: 13-1-2161, and this case LC Case No. 17-1-2541.
Filed Motion for Summary Judgments are as follows: 7/8/2014, 1/12/2015, 1/2/2018, 4/10/2018 and
now in this Land Court filed Jan. 23, 2018. The same issues continue to prevail, and no resolve to this
issue in either of the cases by NECA’s eluding of resolving the issue by claiming that the courts don’t
have jurisdiction depending on which court we are in- civil or land court at the time. If we are in Land
Court, NECA claims Land Court does not have jurisdiction. If we are in Civil Court, NECA claims Civil
Court does not have jurisdiction. Thus, the reason why the ongoing litigation which is to NECA’s
advantage and favor only. However, in the most recent hearing before Judge. Crabtree, he suggested
that in order to resolve these issues and move forward, that co-jurisdiction of the issues may be
shared.
I. Point 1: The OSC FOR AMENDED PETITION WAS SERVED.
a. On 4/30/2018- Attorney Matt Tsukuzaki was present at the hearing of
acknowledgement. On 4/12/2018, a return of service was filed, therefore

NECA was property serviced at both locations, on Bethel Street at the
AOAO, and the attorneys Office. In addition, their response of a Motion of
Summary Judgment would be illogical to their statement, “not being served”.
In order for these cases to be resolved, I would think that NECA would want
these issues adjudicated in one way or the other.
II. Point 2: There is an error in the warranty deed or TCT 958,921.
a. The error on the TCT 958,921 is the ambiguous record in reference of the
Newtown Estates in item #5. This ambiguity is the basis for NECA’s
“irrational and erotic behavior”, however, they pick and choose how they
want to apply their rules. For 35 years, this property was ignored as “NOT
Part of Newtown Estates”, never was our property made to pay
maintenance fees or membership dues, only after we inherited the property,
and only after we began construction began, is when they changed their
position in 2011, and now want to claim our property as part of NECA, and
implement their fines and fees, and call us members so that they can
undermine our development initiatives and cause us extreme emotional
distress.(Exhibit 1: Reference Bays, Lung, Rose & Holma- Memorandum in
Opposition to Plaintiff’s NECA filed Aug. 7, 2013).
b. NECA mentions Article II, Section 3.02, part (f) No animals shall be
maintained on any lot other than a reasonable number of generally
recognized house pets. Again, this is a unreasonable, illogical, and just with
such ignorance application of their by-law onto our forest preservation 82-
Acre forest Preserve. If our property is subjected to the MDCCR’s, then
NECA would have the right to enter into the 82 Acre Forest Reserve, and
remove, by eradication of all wild animals that roam the forest, this is to
include the multitudes of pigs and goats, and whatever other animals, and
this would be contradictory to the laws States Forest Preservation. They
would even have the authority to cut down all the trees too.
III. Point 3: Petitioners Property is NOT part of the Newtown Estates .
(Exhibit 1: Reference Bays, Lung, Rose & Holma- Memorandum in
a. NECA continue to blatantly ignore and misinterpret their own rules. Even in
their own Article V, Section 5.01, their definition of a Membership: “… the
term Owner shall mean an apartment owner as defined in the Horizontal
Property Act. No person other than an Owner may be a member of the
Association.”
b. Therefore, we the Petitioners only own Vacant Land, there is no apartment,
there is no house, and this is clearly a blatant misinterpretation of their own
by-laws, and they clearly know this as intentional, malice, and fraud
representation and manipulation of law. One does NOT have to be a

lawyer, to understand, read, and comprehend what Article V, Section 5.01
means.
c. Thus, it is Land Courts Jurisdiction to make this determination as to how
and what this means, and If our property is subjected to the terms of the
NECA Master Declaration, then, to what extent it is subjected.
IV. Point 4: Petitioners DO Have Developer Rights under the Master Declaration
a. If we don’t have developers rights? Then who does? Is it NECA, whom for
over 35 years claimed that our property was not part of NECA? Now, they
have developer’s rights? And they can sue us, intimidate us, so that they
could force us to sell our property so that their attorneys can get paid on a
frivolous claim. Here we were simply trying to build a home for our family,
for my parents, and NECA sued us to halt us, harass us continuously with
numerous violations, fees, a lawsuit, and more violations, even after the
initial violations were resolved, the overgrown grass and trees of a protected
forest reserve now Is in violation. So out of the lingering frustrations, they
can physically assault us, and lie, as it’s been captured on surveillance
video and produced to the defense attorneys a tampered video tape.
b. In a time when Hawaii is facing a shortage housing crisis, NECA wants to
be the ones to have inherited Developers rights? If that was the case, then
they should have bought the property when it was put on the real estate
market in 2009.
c. Even in their own MDCCR’s, Declarant is defined as “Shall Mean
Oceanview Ventures, a Limited Partnership, its successors and assigns. We
the Petitioners have succeeded the property in dispute when it was
transferred and we signed the deed in acceptance in 2009.
V. Point 5: There are clerical errors in the TCT 340,498 to TCT 230,810
a. If you examine Exhibits 10, 13, & 14, you will find that there are clerical
errors and that the incorrect lot has been referenced. There is a break in
chain.
VI. Point 6: The Land Court Does have Jurisidiction over NECA’s Affirmative
claims filed with the Circuit Court
On 5/23/2018- we had a hearing in front of Judge Crabtree, and in those
minutes it is stated as follows:
TRPTR: NIKKI CHEANG. CTRM 5C. CLK: J CHANG. PRESENT: PHILLIP LI FOR CTRCLM DEFT FOR
NEWTOWN EST ASSN. CAROL ROSENBERG FOR PLANTIFF. ANGELA KAAIHUE/PLAINTIFF PRO SE. CASE
CALLED AND APPEARANCES MADE. 10:30-11:07. COURT REVIEWS LETTER FROM P LI DTD 5/9/18 WITH
PARTIES, HRG IN LANDCOURT WITH JUDGE CHANG ON 4/30/18. JUDGE CHANG TO ADJUDICATE ISSUE
IN MS KAAIHUE PETITION. AND JUDGE CHANG SET THAT PETITION ON 9/20/2018 EVIDENTIARY HRG.

HRG DATE FOR THE ASSN MSJ IS FOR 7/23/18. PARTIES AGREE TO SET A TRIAL DATE OF 1/7/2019
TRIAL WEEK. COURT WILL DO AN AMENDED TRIAL SET- TING STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER RE
DEADLLINES. RE DISCOVERY ISSUE, MR LI SHALL FOLLOW UP FROM ASSN & A COMMITTMNT, SEND
LETTER TO MS KAAIHUE AND COURT RE RECENT STATUS ON THE VIDEO, DO THEY HAVE TO TURN IT
OVER TO MS KAAIHUE, WHETHER IS ADMISSABLE OR NOT. MS KAAIHUE SHALL DO A CLEAR WRITTEN
REQUEST TO OPPOSING COUNSEL RE WHAT SHE IS LOOKING FOR. MS KAAIHUE REQUESTS THAT
OPPOSING COUNSEL DONOT SEND DOCS BUT SERVE HER BY EMAIL. AND SHE HAS TO REPLY IT BEING
RECD. THIS CONTINGENT WILL BE PUT INTO MR LI'S ORDER. MS KAAIHUE GIVES MR LI HER EMAIL
ADDRESS. COURT MAY SERVE HER THRU MAIL DELIVERY.
If it is determined in Land Court, that our property is not subjected to the
MDCCR’s and that there are imminent errors, then NECA’s offenses and claims
would “go down the drain”. They would have no standing. In fact, this issue
regarding “whether or not, our property is part of the association” should have
been determined first, before “jumping the gun”, and suing us in civil court. And
if it is subjected to the terms of the MDCCR’s, to what extent are those rules
applicable.
VII. Point 7: There is a Factual or Legal Basis to Declare that Instrument Recorded
Nov. 16, 1992 as Doc. #2040093 Null and Void.
a. “the applicant shall comply with Exhibit A, (refer to Exhibit 23, Petition.)
Failure to comply with this condition will render this Conservation District
Use Permit null and void”. The maintenance of a water irrigation system had
been removed years ago. In addition an electrical system has been
removed, and these are conditions of the permit that would make it deemed
invalid. Our attempts to restore the water meter was confronted with hostility
and animosity by one of the neighbors the easement goes over, and was
once again removed at the request of a hostile neighbor.
VIII. Point 8: Jurisdiction over Petitioners alleged injury from the Representation by
Agents of the NECA belongs in the circuit court.
We agree, that Land Court has limited jurisdiction, and that some issues belong
in civil court, however, the outstanding issue of “whether or not our property is
subjected to the rules of Newtown Estates Community Association, and their
by-laws, and if so, to what extent” lies within the jurisdiction of Land Court. An
ambiguous partially integrated contract on the deed did not come with any
MDCCR’s on the day of succeeding the title of the deeded certificate, never did,
not even prior to the previous land owner and developer.
IX. Conclusion
a. As for Detrimental reliance, any reasonable person who was told by email,
phone, by the General Manager of NECA at that time, that “your property is
NOT part of Newtown Estates”, and also by the President of the Board, now
deceased Don Devaney, “build whatever you want”, would cause any
person to believe that their property is NOT part of the Newtown Estates. In
fact, we even did numerous presentations at the Aiea Board Meeting, and at
Newtown Recreational Center, and up until that entire time, we were told
and led to believe that we were NOT part of the Association.

b. In addition, no payments ever was made in the 35 years or so of
Maintenance History, was NOT ever recorded. No payment as a Member
was ever received, thus any reasonable person would believe that relied on
the General Manager and the president of the Board, Don Devaney, that
“your property is not part of the association, because you have to have a
house to be a member”. That is detrimental reliance, and NECA now after
those statements, want to change their position, and claim that our property
is now part of their association, to begin collecting fines, dues, and attorney
fees, in addition, attempting to cause us EXTREME EMOTIONAL
DISTRESS, to steal our development, to steal our property, to steal our
dignity and pride, and to label us “trouble-makers, “bad-community
members” by going on a witch-hunt is outright outrageous, and these people
intentionally and deliberately committed fraud, and malice, with the purpose
to deprive us of our rights as a property owner.
c. NECA continues to reference an order that was made for an Injunctive
Relief that arise after a Motion for Summary Judgment. However, this is far
from the truth, It should have been set up as a stipulated agreement, as it is
depicted in the transcript of that day in front of Judge Castegnetti. We had
simply agreed to remove the items in dispute, if NECA dismissed their case
against us, a fair, reasonable, and simple agreement, if they had complied
to their fair share of the bargain, then this case would have ended years
ago, thus saving hundreds of thousands of dollars in the ongoing litigation
fees and costs. Judge Castegnetti repeatedly said, that “she has a serious
problem with this case”, referring to jurisdiction issues, that have NOT been
resolved by neither court: Land Court, and Civil Court.
d. It must be brought to the Land Court’s attention, that despite the Order
(stipulated agreement) that was granted in their behalf, numerous
repeatedly Motions for Summary Judgment’s were filed by NECA’s
attorneys in front of different attorneys, in hopes to get a different response,
and each time they failed. Approximately 4 Orders of Denied were granted
in favor for the Defendants in Civil Case #13-1-2161-08
e. Please refer to the Civil Case #13-1-2161-08 to get more information
regarding the scope of this case. It has become a “ping-pong” game by the
NECA attorneys, as they make the same claims repeatedly in different
courts, “Land Court does Not have jurisdiction, then Civil Court does not
Have Jurisdiction, then back to Land Court does not have Jurisdiction”, in
doing so this has prolonged the outcome of the case, and has caused
tremendous costs in attorney fees, and loss.
A. CONCLUSION .(Exhibit 1: Reference Bays, Lung, Rose & Holma- Memorandum in
• GENUINE MATERIALS OF FACT: Please See Exhibit 2: J. Crabtree’s interim
order Denying Counterclaim Defendant NECA’s Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgement filed Feb. 5th
, 2018

“There are questions of fact in the record which preclude judgment, as a matter
of law, solely on the issues of the reference in the deed.” (Page 11, Transcript
Proceeding May 20th
, 2015, Attorney Mark Kawata)
“The only issue before the court . . . “ is whether or not the property is
subjected to the governing documents(p. 6) . . . when you’re asserting a claim for
declaratory relief, you’re asking the court to define her rights, which is what she’s
questioning. The Court would be defining her rights under that. And that would resolve
that issue(p.18) . .I would think that going back in time to try to assess things that may
have been due . . or before, may be a difficult proposition for the Association . . the
Association started assessing Ms. Kaaihue and Ms. Fryer when they determined that
they were members . . . he doesn’t have a date right off . . .(p.20) it was after the
confusion . . . primarily based on whether or not they are members and whether or no
they’re subject to the master declaration(p. 21). . . It simply is, am I a member, and am
I subject to? And that’s what we’re asking the Court to decide(p.22-23) . . . Transcript
Proceeding May 20th
, 2015, Attorney Matt Tsukuzaki).
“Regardless of whether or not the property is part of Newtown Estates and
whether our client is subject to those governing documents, the method and manner in
which they’ve been enforced against our client lends itself to the counterclaims, which
I think are supported by the documents that are in the record and precludes summary
judgment in favor of the Association(p.8) . . . I don’t feel comfortable at this time
admitting that the property is subject to these governing documents .. .our
counterclaim was based on whether or not the property was subject to the governing
documents, the court dismissed those claims for lack of jurisdiction . . .what conduct
was in good faith or bad faith, we’re coming back to these questions that are
inappropriate for summary judgment(p. 16) . . . Mr. Guzman is telling our client, once
again, I’ve checked with Hawaiian’s records, this is their general manager, whos done
his own investigation, which is all happening against the backdrop of 40 years in which
Newtown Estates has not treated this property as part of Newtown Estates. And he’s
saying, your parcel of land is not part of Newtown Estates Community Association . . .
(p.17) Transcript Proceeding May 20th
, 2015, Attorney JD. Ferry).
“The emails basically said, you have to be annexed to become a party” . .
.regarding the annexation process, if it is desired by the board of directors to annex
any adjacent properties and they decide to move forward, it will require a three-
quarters approval of the Association . . . this is a long process . . . as late as July
2010, the Association took the position, you’re not in . . . there’s at least a question of
fact as to at what point in time does the owners—Ms. Kaaihue, and Ms. Fryer, the
owners, suddenly become a member? . . .There’s nothing in the records to indicate
that the Association actually changed its position until the time this lawsuit was
filed . . .Ms. Fryer has never been admitted to the Association(P. 16) . . . at what point
does the Association now say that whatever you rule is collateral estoppel on their
claims for fees, costs, monthly payments, etc., etc. (p.22) . . .we haven’t made a
determination as to at what point in time that the Association started billing and
whether it was appropriate at that time(p. 22) . . . Transcript Proceeding May 20th
,
2015, Attorney Mark Kawata
“. . . I think there was some initial communications informing the two individuals that
they were not… Now, I understand the Association’s position. That was a mistake. It was an
honest mistake. But, nevertheless, and I’m not making any comment on summary judgment
motions, but it’s led to some misunderstanding and I think some hostility between the

parties(p.25) . . .everybody’s ordered to mediation (p.27 . . . Transcript Proceeding May 20th
,
2015, Hon. Judge Castegnetti, Court)
• SEPT. 25, 2015- HEARING-Judge Castegnetti (Exhibit 6 & 12- Order denying
Plaintiff’s “NECA” & Counter-Claim Defendants “NECA” motion for Summary
Judgment)
Court was continued until Sept. 25, 2015, in which Judge Castegnetti DENIED all 3 motions in
favor for Defendant/CounterClaim Plaintiff for summary judgment on the basis that there are general
issues of material fact that exist (Taken from Hoohiki Minutes, dated Sept. 25, 2015):
1- Motion To Withdraw as counsel for Defendant Yong Nam Fryer (M. Kawata). GRANTED
2- Plaintiff Counterclaim Defendant Newtown Estates Community Association’s Motion for
Summary Judgement as to Count II of Complaint filed 8/7/2013 and motion for attorneys
fees and costs (C. Rosenberg). DENIED
3- Counterclaim Deft. Newtown Estates Community Associations Motion for Summary
Judgment on Counterclaim by Def. Yong Nam Fryer filed 8/13/2014. DENIED
4- Counterclaim Deft. Newtown Estates Community Associations Motion for Summary
Judgment on Counterclaim by Deft Angela Sue Kaaihue. Filed 10/23/2013 (M. Tsukuzaki)
(All Motions RSC FM 8/5/2015 by stipulation) DENIED
SEPT. 25, 2015- MINUTES TAKEN FROM HOOKIKI
“THE COURT WILL MAKE NO DETERMINATION AS TO ANY PARTIES ACTING IN
BAD FAITH. AS TO THE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE COURT DENIED
ALL MOTIONS AS THERE ARE GENERAL ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT THAT EXIST.
MR FERRY DIRECTED TO PREPARE ORDERS AS TO MOTION 2 AND 4. MR KAWATA
DIRECTED TO PREPARE ORDERS AS TO MOTIONS 1 AND 3. THE COURT
ENCOURAGED COUNSEL TO CONTINUE WITH MEDIATION EFFORTS AND IF ALL
COUNSEL ARE IN AGREEMENT TO HAVE THE COURT AND THE MEDIATOR TO
DISCUSS THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, PLACE IT IN WRITING AND SUBMIT IT TO
THE MEDIATOR AND PROVIDE A COPY TO THE COURT. CONCLUDED. “
Furthermore, genuine materials of fact, and the same disputed facts remain the same
now, as it remained then. Honorable Judge Castegnetti did not rule on any of NECA’s
summary judgment, and the order that raised from Oct. 22, 2014, was a “settlement
conference”, or a “stipulated agreement”as Mark Kawata stated, in the transcripts
proceedings, to have an Order to remove items that were already removed, was defective,
illogical and incoherent, and has no standing. The question of whether or not this court has
jurisdiction, still remains as an outstanding issue, and if the MDCCR’s Section 7.10-
Reservation to Exclude from the Master Declaration is incomprehensible and/or does not
serve it’s purpose. Judge Castegnetti, and all the parties involved, including Attorney Phillip
Li, acknowledges this is the issue, and these are “general issues of material fact.” (Judge
Castegnetti, Sept. 25, 2015)
“Finally, the Court must deny NECA’s Motion because, under the circumstances of this
case, NECA and it’s Board went on a “witch hunt” against someone who they simply do not
like, the amounts of the fines and attorneys’ fees and costs it seeks, are simply shocking.
NECA claims that pursuant to HRS Section 421J-10(a) and MDCCR Section 7.02 (a) it is
entitled to an award to its attorneys’ fees and costs, apparently in excess of $125,000. NECA

is wrong. HRS Section 421J-10(a) limits a prevailing association’s recovery to “reasonable”
attorneys’ fees. See HRS 421J-10(a). NECA makes no effort to portray its “substantial”
attorneys’ fees as “reasonable.” See memo. Supp. Mot., pp.12-13. The same attorneys who
seek to recover their fees in this case (and who have advised NECA or the developer in some
capacity for nearly 40 years (see Ex. C), have: (1) advised NECA while it represented to Ms.
Kaaihue that the Property was not part of Newtown Estates; (2) advised NECA while it
reversed course and claimed that the Property was part of Newtown Estates: (3) advised
NECA while it engineered and pursued its enforcement strategy against Ms. Kaaihue; (4)
advised NECA while it declined two requests to mediate from Ms. Kaaihue, and (6) advised
NECA to continues its enforcement and litigitation strategy, which included, among other
things, having Ms. Kaaihue and her mother held in criminal contempt, NECA should not be
allowed to profit from its gross violations and actions.”, (EXHIBIT 1: Page 20, Bay Lung,
Rose, and Holma law firm “Exhibit 1- DEFENDANT ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE’S MIO,
FILED SEPT. 17, 2015); and (7) NECA’s failure to abide by Judge Castegnetti’s
Order- Oct. 22, 2014-minutes to “resolve all remaining issues within 45 days”, (8)
NECA’s deliberate misconstruing Judge Castegnetti’s Order by writing a defective
order dated, Dec. 29th
, 2014; (9) NECA’s continued pattern and behavior of
harassment letters; (10) NECA’s employee Physical Assault attack on April 5th, 2017
upon Defendant Angela Kaaihue; (11) deliberate and intentional false reporting to
HPD on April 5th
, 2017.
• CONCLUSION: Exhibit 2: Hon. J. Crabtree’s interim Order: “This Court acknowledges
Judge Castagnetti’s order dated 2/13/2018 (Exhibit D to MSG re Counterclaim),
finding that (a) this court lacks jurisdiction to the extent the counterclaim seeks to
exclude Def’s real property from the Association, and (b) that exclusive jurisdiction on
such issue is in the Land court.”
• For the reasons stated above, Ms. Kaaihue and Yong Nam Fryer respectfully
requests that the Court deny NECA Motions in it’s entirety.
DATED Honolulu Hawaii: __________________
______________________________
Angela Sue Kaaihue
(Petitioner)
______________________________
Yong Nam Fryer
(Petitioner)

)
City and County ) Declaration of Yong Fryer
Of Honolulu, State of Hawaii. )
)
VS, )
)
To Register and Confirm Title to land Situate )
At Waimalu, District of Ewa City and County )
_____________________________________________)
DECLARATION OF YONG FRYER
1. I am Yong Fryer, Defendant in this case.
2. I am the co-owner, along with my only child, and daughter, Angela Sue Kaaihue formerly
known as Angela Sue Stenger, whom was born in Austin Texas
3. I married her father in South Korea while her father was serving in the United States Mililtary,
near my hometown village of Pyeontaek, of South Korea.
4. I moved to Austin, Texas, while I was pregnant, and gave birth to my only child Angela Sue
Stenger.
5. After giving birth to my daughter in 1974, we were then shortly relocated to Hawaii so that
her father James Lee Stenger, could be stationed at Schofield as an United States Army
Soldier.
6. IN 2009, my daughter and I became the owners of an 82-acre Vacant Land Parcel, which is
zoned Forest Conservation, and Residential Apartment.
7. I had helped to purchase this property for my daughter with the intent to build our family
homes and to help begin my daughter’s career as a real-estate developer.
8. In 2011, We were sued by people who lacked a legal easement and right of way to enter
across our property. The Newtown Estates Community Association (NECA) did NOT defend
our property, in fact, they refused to participate.

9. In 2011, Newtown Chateau I parent association, Newtown Estates Community Association
(NECA) claimed that our property was NOW part of their Community Association and that we
are to abide by their rules, after 40+ years of ignoring this property.
10. Shortly thereafter, NECA violated and fined us for many numerous violations including having
a BBQ grill and picnic table on our property, meanwhile many of our neighbors have them
visible from the street.
11. In 2013, NECA sued us for numerously failing to abide by their community rules, and failing to
pay their fines.
12. In 2013, we halted our construction projects to address Newtown Estates Community
Associations Lawsuits
13. In addition, in 2013, our investors pulled out of our development.
14. Newtown Estates Community Association filed lawsuit is Civil Case #13-100-2161, and has
lasted 5 years, and is still on-going, with a trial scheduled for Jan. of 2019 to be heard in front
of Honorable Judge Crabtree.
15. In that case, NECA filed numerous Motions for Summary Judgement against us, and
repeatedly in front of the 2 different judges. Each time being Denied.
16. The easement case is Land Court Case #1LD111000271, which lasted 8 years, NECA refused to
participate and defend our property.
17. My daughter Angela Kaaihue initiated Land Court Case #1LD17-100-2541, to help determine
and clarify to NECA what our rights are as developers and land owners. An evidentiary hearing
is scheduled in September 2018.
18. In 2017, we now been sued by the Newtown Estates Community Association sub-association,
named Newtown Chateau I, in this tree-trunk root case Civil Case #17-1-1940-11
19. This is the 3rd
lawsuit, I have received since I became co-owners of this land since 2009.
20. The 1st
lawsuit was about easement rights and issues affecting our lands which the adverse
parties did not have a legal easement.
21. The 2nd
lawsuit is from the parent Community Association of Newtown Chateau I, Newtown
Estates Community Association.
22. The 3rd
lawsuit is from the sub-association Newtown Chateau I.
23. There is also a criminal case against my daughter Angela Kaaihue, for Criminal Assault, in
which the NECA employees harassed, attacked and assaulted my daughter, and then they

conspired, lied and said my daughter harassed and physically assaulted and attacked them.
Fortunately there is a video tape that the Public Defenders were able to subpoena showing
that NECA’s employees, who the real assailants are, despite the video has been obviously
tampered and edited by NECA’s employees in a cover-up conspiracy.
24. I believe all 3 lawsuits are frivolous. The 1st
lawsuit sued because they didn’t have a legal
easement, the 2nd
lawsuit they are trying to enforce their covenants and codes against us,
after 40 years disregarding our vacant land parcel as NOT being a part of their community,
and the 3rd
Lawsuit they frivolously sued trying to intimidate us in forcing us to cut down their
trees and blaming us for their damage.
25. I believe these multiple lawsuits are to bring us Intentional Emotional Distress and attempts
to cause us financial burden, and to ultimately steal our lands.
26. I have experienced Emotional Distress and undue stress since the 1st
lawsuit in 2011.
27. This 3rd
lawsuit by Newtown Chateau I, has caused us more stress and emotional distress,
adding to the 1st
2 lawsuits.
28. We purchased this property in 2009, with the intent to build and develop homes on this
property for my daughter and I in hopes to reunify with my grandchildren, however that came
to a hault with the onset of the lawsuits.
29. Since 2011, we were hit with lawsuits after lawsuits by the same Community People and the
people they are affiliated with, under different multiple names.
30. I believe these multiple lawsuits are to fraud us, conspire against us, and label my daughter a
“trouble-maker”, and they are using the legal system to intimidate us, cause us financial
burden and stress, and to intentionally inflict emotional distress upon us.
31. I was born in South Korea, and in July of 1950, at the time we inherited the property, I was 58
years ago, and I had helped to purchase this property that was considered “unbuildable and
undevelopable” because of the steep terrain, however, my daughter’s grandfather A.D.
Stenger II, a developer helped to make this property developable.
32. Over the past 10 years, these litigations has caused me Extreme Emotional Distress to know
that so many lawyers are making up stories against my daughter and frivolously filing lawsuits
to cause us emotional distress and financial burden.
33. Until this day, almost 10 years later since we purchased and owned the property, we still have
not built our family our home, as a result of these numerous lawsuits.
34. This is my declaration of Yong Nam Fryer, formerly known as Yong Nam An

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai’I, _______________________________________________
___________________________________
Mrs. Yong Nam Fryer
ProSe, for Petitioner

)
City and County ) Declaration of Angela Kaaihue
)
VS, )
)
_____________________________________________)
DECLARATION OF ANGELA KAAIHUE
1. I attest to the truth that Exhibit 1 is a true, and factual copy of Bay Lung, Rose, and
Holma law firm “Exhibit 1- DEFENDANT ANGELA SUE KAAIHUE’S MIO, FILED
SEPT. 17, 2015.
2. I attest to the truth that Exhibt 2 is a true, and factual copy of Exhibit 2: Hon. J.
Crabtree’s interim Order Denying Counterclaim Defendant NECA’s renewed Motion
for Summary Judgement on Counterclaim by Defendant Kaaihue Filed on 10/23/2013.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai’I, _______________________________________________
___________________________________
Ms. Angela Kaaihue
ProSe, for Petitioner

)
City and County ) EXHIBITS
)
VS, )
)
_____________________________________________)
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Bays, Lung, Rose & Holma- Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s NECA
filed Aug. 7, 2013).
Exhibit 2: Hon. J. Crabtree’s Interim Order Denying Counterclaim Defendant NECA’s
Renewed Motion for summary Judgment on counterclaim by Defendant Kaaihue filed on
10/23/13. Case # 13-1-2161.

)
City and County ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
)
VS, )
)
_____________________________________________)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing MEMORANDUM IN
OPPOSITION was served via U.S. mail, postage prepaid, or by hand-delivery at their last
known address as follows:
Phillip A. Li, Esq.
733 Bishop Street, Ste. 1770
Honolulu, HI. 96813
Attorney for Counterclaim Defendant
Newtown Estates Community Association
Motooka & Rosenberg
1000 Bishop Street, Suite 801
Honolulu, HI., 96813
Attorney for Plaintiff
______________________________
Angela Sue Kaaihue
(Petitioner)
______________________________
Yong Nam Fryer
(Petitioner)

)
City and County ) RETURN OF SERVICE
)
VS, )
)
_____________________________________________)
RETURN OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing MEMORANDUM IN
OPPOSITION was served via U.S. mail, postage prepaid, or by hand-delivery at their last
known address as follows:
Phillip A. Li, Esq.
733 Bishop Street, Ste. 1770
Honolulu, HI. 96813
Attorney for Counterclaim Defendant
Motooka & Rosenberg
1000 Bishop Street, Suite 801
Honolulu, HI., 96813
Attorney for Plaintiff
______________________________
Howard Kim

Angela Kaaihue, Motion in Opposition to NECA's Summary Judgement- Hearing July 23, 2018

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Angela Kaaihue, Motion in Opposition to NECA's Summary Judgement- Hearing July 23, 2018

Similaire à Angela Kaaihue, Motion in Opposition to NECA's Summary Judgement- Hearing July 23, 2018 (20)

Plus de Angela Kaaihue

Plus de Angela Kaaihue (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Angela Kaaihue, Motion in Opposition to NECA's Summary Judgement- Hearing July 23, 2018