## Facts

- Frank Denis and Vetra Denis, husband and wife, owned adjoining lots in the Kalua Koʻi subdivision on Molokaʻi as joint tenants.
- Frank listed at least one lot for sale through a real-estate broker.
- Cynthia Warner, Mark Sheehan, and Ben Bollag (buyers) made written offers using the Hawaiʻi Association of Realtors standard Deposit, Receipt, Offer, and Acceptance (DROA) form, which included marketable-title and time-is-of-the-essence clauses.
- The transaction that generated the lawsuit centered on an offer to purchase one of the lots for $455,000 with specified deposits, a scheduled closing date, and seller financing terms.
- Frank signed the DROA as seller; Vetra did not sign and refused to proceed with the sale.
- The buyers sued the Denises seeking to enforce the alleged agreement and to recover damages for breach of contract.
- The circuit court dismissed the buyers’ specific-performance claim, entered judgment for the Denises on the buyers’ breach-of-contract damages claim, and awarded the Denises attorney’s fees, costs, and post-judgment interest on the judgment.
- The buyers appealed the adverse ruling on their damages claim and the related attorney’s fee and cost awards.

## Issues

1. Whether Frank, as a joint-tenant co-owner who signed the DROA, could be liable in damages for breach of contract even though Vetra, the other joint tenant, did not sign and refused to convey.
2. Whether the circuit court erred by entering judgment for Frank on the buyers’ breach-of-contract damages claim.
3. Whether the attorney’s fee, cost, and related interest awards in favor of the Denises could stand to the extent they were based on Frank being the prevailing party.

## Decision

- The Intermediate Court of Appeals held that the circuit court’s judgment in favor of Frank on the buyers’ breach-of-contract damages claim was erroneous.
- The court concluded that Frank’s signature could bind him contractually and that his failure to perform could support a damages remedy against him even if Vetra’s nonparticipation prevented conveyance of the entire jointly owned interest.
- The court reversed the attorney’s fee and cost awards insofar as they were awarded to Frank based on his prevailing-party status, and it vacated related portions of the judgment tied to that erroneous merits ruling.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s conclusion that the buyers could pursue damages against Frank.
- The appellate court left undisturbed the result as to Vetra, who did not sign the contract.

## Legal Principles

- A co-owner who signs a land-sale contract may incur personal contractual liability for nonperformance even if another co-owner refuses to sign or convey.
- The unavailability of specific performance against all co-owners does not automatically bar a buyer from seeking monetary damages from the signing seller.
- A seller’s clear refusal to complete a transaction promised in a signed purchase contract can support a claim for breach, including anticipatory repudiation principles where the refusal is unequivocal.
- Attorney’s fee and cost awards that rest on a prevailing-party determination must be revisited when the underlying merits judgment is reversed as to that party.

## Conclusion

Warner v. Denis holds that a joint-tenant seller who signs a DROA may be responsible in damages for breach when the sale does not close, even if the other joint tenant never signed and will not convey; because the trial court wrongly treated Frank as free of liability, the appellate court reversed the defense judgment and the related fee and cost awards as to Frank and remanded for further proceedings.


Warner v. Denis, 933 P.2d 1372 (1997)