Now Hiring!

---

Yesterday, all seven board members were present at 9:00 AM in Judge Kubota’s courtroom in Hilo for a hearing regarding our recent election.

Several weeks ago, Al Morrow and Rod Kindel filed for an injunction seeking to force the release of the vote count, despite the Board’s findings of fraudulent ballots. The majority of the Board submitted a formal response outlining the investigation and the basis for our decision not to release compromised results.

During the hearing, the judge stated that the evidence presented by the Board was very compelling. He asked detailed questions regarding how fraudulent votes were identified, how many were affected, how impacted members were contacted, and what steps would be taken to ensure this does not happen again in the upcoming re-run election.

The Board presented its findings along with approximately 30 pages of supporting documentation. After reviewing the evidence, the judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ case and affirmed that proceeding with a re-run election was the appropriate course of action under the circumstances.

The Board’s responsibility is to protect the integrity of the Association and its elections. Releasing results known to be compromised was not, and is not, an acceptable option.

We sincerely thank the community members who contributed significant time and effort to this process, and especially those who came forward after discovering their votes had been used fraudulently.

We understand the delay has been frustrating and appreciate your patience. The level of investigation, documentation, and coordination required—including working with ElectionBuddy—has been substantial but necessary.

We will be posting detailed information in the coming days regarding the re-run election, including timelines and voting instructions.

Mahalo for your continued support.

Agricultural uses of land in Leilani Estates are allowed!

4/29/22

Aloha Neighbors,

Hawaii state law(Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 205) established a Land Use Commission which created a legal framework for agricultural uses of land in the agricultural districts of Hawaii. Leilani Estates is located in an agricultural district and all lots are zoned Agriculture 1 acre, A1(a).

As amended in January 2021 the statute at 205-4.6(a) removes any restrictions on agricultural uses of agriculture lands created by any private agreement contained in any deed, agreement of sale, etc. recorded after 7/8/03 that subjects the agricultural land to any servitude, including but not limited to covenants, easements etc. As a result the portions of Leilani's CC&R's that prohibit agricultural uses of land in Leilani Estates are invalid and voidable.

The statute is lengthy but pertinent portions are:

205-2(d) Districting and Classification of Lands.

Agricultural districts shall include:

2. Farming activities or uses related to animal husbandry....

7. ......including farm dwellings as defined in 205-4.5(a).

205-4.5 Permissible Uses within the Agriculture Districts.

(a) 3. Raising of livestock, including poultry,bees, fish......that are propagated for economic or personal use.

4. Farm dwellings, employee housing, farm buildings.......

205-4.6 Private Restrictions on Agricultural Uses and Activities; not Allowed.

(a) Agricultural uses and activities as defined in sections 205-2(d) and 205-4.5(a) shall not be restricted.....

While I understand that this information will be met with a variety of reactions, It would appear that Hawaii State Law is clear. I would hasten to add that I am not an attorney and the above information should not be construed as legal advice.

Happy Farming,

Phil Denney 2022/2023 LCA Director

This is an official post from the Ica board of directors. It was brought to my attention that there is information circulating on fb suggesting that the board of directors is going to increase HOA fees. To clarify, the board has not voted on that, nor discussed it. There is no plan to raise dues or have any special assessments. What has been discussed by the board in board meetings is the need to have a survey to figure out the best way to deal with the covered lava roads. Figures were put together based on estimates for reconstructing the roads with either asphalt or cinder and related fees, such as surveying and permitting. From that information we discussed what it would cost each lot owner over a number of years to pay for rebuilding if the community chose to do so. As most of you know, derogatory posts are as common as coqui frogs in leilani. If you want accurate up to date info please refer to the official website where you're able to ask anything you like. Sincere thanks. 

-LCA Secretary

After almost a year and a half of litigation, both existing lawsuits have ended. Questions remain about how much the Leilani Community Association (LCA) will pay to the lawyers involved.

First Lawsuit – Jim Penny and 23 concerned citizens (plaintiffs) vs Al Morrow, Rod Kndle and Janet Morrow (defendants).

History: In the 2024 election cycle, Al and Rod declared all other nominated candidates ineligible due to a variety of “violations”. At the 2024 Annual Meeting, Al and Rod declared themselves the Board without election claiming they were the only “valid” candidates. They added Janet when it was pointed out the Board must have at least 3 members. In violation of our bylaws, Janet was never nominated to the Board. During the New Business portion of the meeting, the members present elected a new Board. Al and Rod declared that no new business could be conducted claiming many of the submitted proxies were “invalid”. They stated this meant there were not enough members represented (quorum) to have a valid vote. The elected members asked the defendants first for mediation and then for binding arbitration on the election issues. Both were refused by the defendants. The elected members then brought a lawsuit against the defendants. The lawsuit sought to force the defendants to seat the elected Board. It also alleged violations of state law and our bylaws around elections and financial information. 

The Money: Jim Penny and the other plaintiffs engaged their own attorney and paid their own legal fees. The defendants claimed coverage by the LCA’s insurance. The insurance company appointed a lawyer and the LCA potentially became liable for up to $35,000 in costs (the insurance deductible). Although they controlled the LCA’s checkbook, Al, Rod and Janet paid nothing to their lawyer leaving approximately $35,000 in invoices to be paid by the 2025 Board. This lawsuit was dismissed by the judge at the plaintiffs’ request with both sides responsible for their legal fees. The 2025 Board is working with our insurance carrier to determine if the LCA or the defendants should be responsible for the $35,000 owed. The 2025 Board’s position is that the LCA should owe nothing as our bylaws do not allow our insurance to cover Board members if they knowingly violate state law or our bylaws. 

End Result: The judge ruled that the reasons the defendants had used to eliminate rival candidates were invalid. This resulted in our 2025 election and the 2025 Board. Seating the members elected in 2024 became irrelevant with the election of the 2025 Board.

Second Lawsuit – LCA (plaintiff) vs John Segalla, Rich Willing, Marianne Farrell, Mark Hauanio, and Jim Penny (defendants).

History: The defendants, elected at the 2024 Annual Meeting, met on a monthly basis in the Pavillion to discuss what was going on in the LCA. The defendants met as private individuals and did not present themselves as the Board. Al and Rod hired a lawyer to write cease and desist letters to the defendants. In January, without informing Smiley Burrows (the newly appointed third member of the Board), Al and Rod filed a lawsuit in the LCA’s name against the defendants without a proper vote. This lawsuit alleged that these members were pretending to be the Board by meeting and discussing the community and were therefore interfering with the functioning of the LCA. At the 2025 Annual Meeting, the LCA members held a legally binding vote to dismiss this lawsuit. The majority members and officers of the new Board, Rich Willing, Smiley Burrows, John Segalla and Janice Tucker, recognized the will of the members and notified the LCA’s lawyer that he was fired, the lawsuit was to be dismissed, and we would pay no further bills. 

The Money: The defendants retained their own lawyer and paid their own legal fees. Al and Rod paid a $5,062.83 retainer to their lawyer using LCA funds (our assessments). By the time of the 2025 election, the LCA had received approximately $30,000 in invoices from the plaintiffs’ lawyer. Again, Al and Rod did not pay these invoices, leaving another $30,000 to be paid by the 2025 Board. Despite the legally binding vote of the members to dismiss the lawsuit, Al and Rod refused to settle and continued to rack up legal bills. The LCA has received approximately $45,000 in additional invoices since the LCA lawyer was dismissed in April.

End Result: This lawsuit was finally dismissed in November, 7 months after members voted to end it. Nothing was accomplished other than a lot of money was wasted. 3 of the defendants are Officers on the 2025 Board. The defendants paid their legal bills out of their own pockets. The LCA’s lawyer is owed approximately $75,000, $30,000 of which Al and Rod could have paid when they controlled the Board and $45,000 which they ran up after we voted to dismiss the lawsuit. The current Board’s position is that the previous $30,000 was not authorized by the LCA and we should not pay it. They firmly believe that the additional $45,000 that was spent after we had dismissed the lawsuit is clearly not the LCA’s responsibility.

Implications 

How much the LCA will end up paying largely depends on who is in the majority on the 2026 Board. If Al, Rod and their supporters are in the majority we should expect to pay the entire $110,000 outstanding. If the current majority members are returned to the Board, they will pay all legitimately authorized legal bills but will fight to ensure the LCA does not pay for work that was unauthorized by the LCA or that occurred after we voted to dismiss the lawsuit and notified the lawyer in writing in April.

This official document is supported by a majority of the 2025 board.