CLASS ACTION SUITS
This page is to be updated as we review the 1987 initial & 1992 Class Action lawsuit which gave Orchidland Association the legal right to collect road maintenance fees from all property owners in Orchidland. There has been allot of rumor about these cases, and we would like to put those to rest, and move forward. These files are 100% complete with the exception of 79 pages from the 1987 case, File 1 at page 103, these pages contain the names and addresses of all property owners at that time, and so for privacy concerns, those pages have been left out. If you feel like you really need to see those pages, feel free to visit the Hilo County Courthouse where you can view all these cases on microfiche.
On rumor we have repeatedly heard over the years is that the Plaintiff’s in the first 1987 case were the Defendant’s in the 1992 case, that appears to be wholly untrue. We don’t see individuals names from one case to the other.
Orchidland Community Association, Inc.
Hilo Development Inc.
Orchid Paradise Devel. Co.
Added at some point, Les Brown, Dale and Carol French, who all provided significant testimony and documents in this case.
Orchidland Community Association, Inc
Hilo Develpment Inc. (our roads in common)
Joseph Cortez Jr
“as representatives of all persons similarly dituated”
Judge added the following to Defendants:
Robert & Kathleen Collard
In 1992 case, of note page 44, order granting Class Action Motion for Summary Judgement page 56 (successful)
Appears it was mostly based on precedence of other similar cases in our area, HPP and others who were in a similar situation with their roads, and the battle was already fought and decided, and so it appears it was decided based on those similar cases as often happens.
What appears to be interesting is that the Plaintiff made the motion to dismiss the 1987 case. It was not closed due to the Defendants actions, although they also requested dismissal (as they also did in the beginning). We do see notes that the board of directors was drastically changed at the end of the 1987 case, perhaps at the end of the case, the BOD reversed it’s intentions with the more than 50% change of directors. (investigation needed here just to see why, maybe in OLCA BOD minutes from that time)
If nothing else, this absolutely means that the 1987 case was dismissed not due to the Defendant’s actions or position. So those who say that the 1992 case should be dismissed because the 1987 case was dismissed are incorrect. The 1987 case never came to a actual decision, was dismissed “with prejudice” meaning either party may sue on the same topic at a later date, as did happen in 1992.