NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
24-AUG-2026
07:58 AM
Dkt. 45 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
FAYE STARR P. MELEMAI, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE
JEANETTE MAE KALEILEHUA KUKAHIWA AIONA TRUST DATED
FEBRUARY 13, 1996, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MS. DEBRA ANN SEPERENA IMPORT, Defendant-Appellant,
and
GUY GASPER and ASB HAWAII, INC., dba AMERICAN SAVINGS BANK,
F.S.B., A FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, Defendants-Appellees,
and
JOHN DOES 1-5; JANE DOES 1-5;
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-5; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-5;
DOE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES 1-5, Defendants
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)
Self-represented Defendant-Appellant Debra Ann
Seperena Import (Import) appeals from the "Judgment for
Possession" and "Writ of Possession," both entered on August 6,
2024 by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court). 1
1 The Honorable Dean E. Ochiai presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
This appeal arises out of the allegedly fraudulent
transfer of a property located on Elelupe Road, in Honolulu,
Hawaiʻi (the Property) to Import. The Property was the sole
asset of the "First Amendment and Restatement to the Jeanette
Mae Kaleilehua Kukahiwa Aiona Revocable Trust dated August 5,
1999" (the Trust). The beneficiaries of the Trust were the
children of Jeanette Mae Kaleilehua Kukahiwa Aiona: i.e.,
Defendant-Appellee Guy Gasper, Plaintiff-Appellee Faye Starr P.
Melemai, as successor trustee of the Trust (Melemai), Import,
and three other individuals who are not parties to this matter.
On appeal, Import raises two points of error, 2
contending that the circuit court erred in granting: (1)
"[Melemai's] Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories"
(Motion to Compel); and (2) "[Melemai's] Motion to Enforce
Settlement" (Motion to Enforce).
Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and
relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration
2 Appellants' points of error do not comply with Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28. Moreover, Appellant has failed to provide the relevant transcripts. See HRAP Rule 10(b)(1)(A) ("When an appellant desires to raise any point on appeal that requires consideration of the oral proceedings before the court appealed from, the appellant shall file . . . a request or requests to prepare a reporter's transcript of such parts of the proceedings as the appellant deems necessary that are not already on file in the appeal."). Nevertheless, in order to promote access to justice, we do not automatically foreclose self-represented litigants from appellate review for their failure to comply with court rules. Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawaiʻi 368, 380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020).
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties,
we resolve Import's points of error as follows:
(1) Import contends that the circuit court erred by
granting the Motion to Compel "without any assurances that her
testimony would not be used against her in any criminal
proceeding." (Capitalization altered.) We review the circuit
court's ruling on a motion to compel discovery for abuse of
discretion. Bank of New York Mellon v. Lemay, 137 Hawaiʻi 30,
33, 364 P.3d 928, 931 (App. 2015).
The record reflects that in December 2022, Melemai
served Import with "[Melemai's] First Request for Answers to
Interrogatories to [Import]." Import did not respond. In March
2023, Import filed "[Import's] Motion to Dismiss [Melemai's]
Complaint," asserting a "Fifth Amendment Right to NOT have to
answer for or to continue to be subjected to having to
participate in this Frivolous action."
Melemai filed the Motion to Compel, which was
unopposed by Import and heard by the circuit court on May 10,
2023. The circuit court entered its "Order Regarding
[Melemai's] Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories,"
directing Import to "respond directly and fully to the Set of
Interrogatories given to her . . . and to sign her responses
before a notary and deliver the responses to [Melemai's] counsel
within ten calendar days of the filing of the order herein."
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
The circuit court did not, however, order Import to provide
self-incriminating information. The circuit court expressly
instructed that "[i]f [Import] claims the Fifth Amendment Right
to Remain Silent or any other grounds for refusing to respond to
the interrogatory questions, [Import] must make the objection to
each individual question and sign the objection as required by
the [Hawaiʻi] Rules of Civil Procedure [(HRCP)]."
Import subsequently provided her handwritten and
notarized responses to each interrogatory question. Import did
not object to any interrogatory question, nor did she further
assert the privilege against self-incrimination. The circuit
court did not make any further rulings on this issue.
On this record, we conclude that the circuit court did
not abuse its discretion by compelling Import's responses -- and
specific objections, if applicable -- to each question in
Melemai's First Request for Answers to Interrogatories.
(2) Import contends that the circuit court erred by
granting the Motion to Enforce. "A motion to enforce a disputed
settlement agreement is treated as a motion for summary
judgment." Gilmartin v. Abastillas, 10 Haw. App. 283, 296, 869
P.2d 1346, 1352 (App. 1994) (citation omitted). "A motion for
summary judgment should not be granted where there is a factual
question as to the existence, validity, and terms of the alleged
settlement agreement, and where such a dispute exists, a trial
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
or an evidentiary hearing to resolve the dispute is required."
Id. (citation omitted).
On March 28, 2024, Melemai and Import entered into a
settlement agreement, in which they agreed to the following,
10. STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE. Upon Import
executing the [quitclaim deed and promissory note] and
moving out of the subject premises, [Melemai] will
cause to have prepared and filed in court a Stipulation
to Dismiss All Claims Against Import.
(Emphasis added.)
In May 2024, Import filed "[Import's] Motion to
Dismiss [Melemai's] Complaint With Prejudice" (Motion to
Dismiss), asking the circuit court to dismiss Melemai's claims
against Import or to invalidate the settlement agreement as
fraudulent. The circuit court denied Import's Motion to
Dismiss, finding "that the motion lacks merit because on its
face there are issues of fact regarding full performance by
[Import] of all material covenants in the [s]ettlement
[a]greement."
In June 2024, Melemai moved to enforce the settlement
agreement. The Motion to Enforce alleged that Import had failed
to satisfy her obligations to move out of the Property, and "to
make . . . monthly payments" pursuant to the promissory note.
Melemai sought a writ of ejectment, a monetary judgment for
$300,000.00 against Import, dismissal of the action against
Import pursuant to HRCP Rule 41(a), and $1,575.00 in attorney's
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
fees. Import did not oppose the Motion to Enforce, nor did she
appear at the hearing on the Motion to Enforce. The circuit
court granted Melemai's Motion to Enforce.
Import represents on appeal that, although she "didn't
hesitate to sign" the settlement agreement, the settlement
agreement was nevertheless "a sham . . . procured under false
pretenses." Import further represents that she got "NOTHING of
value" from the settlement agreement, and that the circuit court
was complicit in allowing a "manifest injustice" to occur.
The record reflects that Import did not present any
evidence or arguments contradicting "the existence, validity,
and terms of the alleged settlement agreement," or refuting that
Import had failed to move out or make payments on the promissory
note. Nor did she present any evidence that the agreement was
"procured under false pretenses." See Gilmartin, 10 Haw. App.
at 296, 869 P.2d at 1352 (citation omitted). "[B]are
allegations or factually unsupported conclusions are
insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact, and
therefore, insufficient to reverse a grant of summary judgment."
Arquette v. State, 128 Hawaiʻi 423, 437, 290 P.3d 493, 507 (2012)
(cleaned up).
On this record, we conclude that the circuit court did
not err in granting the Motion to Enforce.
6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Judgment for
Possession and Writ of Possession.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, August 24, 2026.
On the briefs: /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Presiding Judge
Debra Ann Seperena Import,
Self-represented /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Defendant-Appellant. Associate Judge
Ward D. Jones, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry for Plaintiff-Appellee. Associate Judge
7