LL Chan Limited Partnership v. SDB Enterprise LLC

── LL Chan Limited Partnership v. SDB Enterprise LLC ── Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Date: April 17, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 17-APR-2026 08:01 AM Dkt. 50 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I LL CHAN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, v. SDB ENTERPRISE LLC, a Hawai#i limited liability company, dba Bourbon Street Restaurant & Bar; and BEVERLY CHAPMAN, Defendants/Counterclaimants-Appellants APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION (CASE NO. 1DRC-XX-XXXXXXX) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Leonard and Hiraoka, JJ.) SDB Enterprise LLC and Beverly Chapman (together, SDB) appeal from the Judgment for LL Chan Limited Partnership entered by the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division. SDB challenge the District Court's Decision and Order, which contained findings of fact, conclusions of law, and mixed findings and conclusions.1 We affirm. Chan leased commercial property on Alakea Street to SDB Enterprise LLC by a Lease dated February 26, 2021. Chapman guaranteed the Lease. On February 14, 2022, Chan sued SDB for summary possession, unpaid rent, and other amounts due under the Lease. SDB counterclaimed for breach of a January 21, 2021 1 The Honorable Thomas A.K. Haia presided.  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Letter of Intent and for abatement of rent under the doctrine of impracticability. SDB filed an amended counterclaim on September 12, 2022, adding allegations of fraud. A judgment for possession was entered on June 15, 2022.2 Trial on Chan's claim for damages and SDB's counterclaim was held on February 15, 16, and 23, 2023. The Decision and Order was entered on December 29, 2023. The Judgment was entered on April 23, 2024. This appeal followed. SDB contend the trial court erred by excluding their Exhibit L from evidence. They also challenge the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, some of which were mixed findings and conclusions. (1) Chan objected to admission of Exhibit L based on hearsay under Rule 802 of the Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE). Admission or exclusion of hearsay evidence is reviewed under the right/wrong standard. State v. Fitzwater, 122 Hawai#i 354, 362, 227 P.3d 520, 528 (2010). The trial transcript shows that SDB offered Exhibit L through Richard Bain, a claim adjuster for Crawford & Company. Crawford adjusted SDB's insurance claim for property damage at the leased building. Crawford recommended retaining a structural engineer "because there were things there that looked like they were preexisting issues." Exhibit L appears to have been the engineer's report, but we can't confirm this because the exhibit does not appear in the record on appeal. Bain testified that Exhibit L came from Crawford's records. SDB moved it into evidence. Chan objected to hearsay. SDB argued the "business records exception" applied. The court sustained the objection. Further questioning revealed that the person who stamped or signed the report (Best) was not the person (Yala) who had inspected and photographed the building with Bain. SDB again 2 SDB do not challenge the judgment for possession. 2  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S