What's up with these lawsuits?

Staff Writer

Sep 30

5 min read

Updated: Oct 4

Opinion | Friends of Princeville | October 1, 2026

Ema Schulz speaks on Nextdoor as a defender of Princeville. This post compares that public voice with what she and her co-plaintiff ask for in two recent lawsuits. My conclusion is that her campaign deserves closer scrutiny.

She asks residents to unite behind a community cause
while pursuing financial claims tied to her own property interests, and,
in the first case below, against the Association.

Owners should consider both sides before accepting that her priorities represent theirs.

What the two lawsuits seek

The case against PHCA and others

Case 5CCV-26-0000114 — filed September 24, 2026

The Schulz trustees sued Starwood-related entities, Princeville at Hanalei Community Association (PHCA), and a number of individuals. They ask to represent a class of Princeville owners whose properties are protected by the specified covenants and golf-course dedication. That could mean every member of the Association, or more likely those whose property directly adjoins a golf course... hmmm. The complaint seeks court restrictions on development and ground disturbance, financial damages, including triple and punitive damages, and fees and costs. I bet the triple damages would go to the Schulzes (60%) and their attorneys (40%...) The Schulzes claim to represent all owners (although the filing does not establish that the court has yet authorized them to do so. [L2, paragraphs 77–84; requested relief, p. 19]

The Chicago Title case

Case 5CCV-26-0000090 — filed August 8, 2026

Shen and Emma Schulz (the spelling used in the filings) are suing the Chicago Title Insurance Company as trustees of their family trust. They allege failures to disclose relevant records, harm to their property rights and ability to sell, and wrongful denial of their title-insurance claim. They seek payment for alleged losses, damages at three times the amount allowed under the law they invoke, additional damages to punish the insurer, and legal fees and costs for alleged harm to their own insured property interest. [L1, paragraphs 7–20 and 30; requested relief, p. 8]. No dollar amount is specified but this is clearly all about money, folks, not about Ema's beloved Ai'na...

Readers can search the case numbers on eCourt Kōkua, the Hawaiʻi Judiciary's official records website serving Kauaʻi's Fifth Circuit. Public filings marked with a PDF icon are available there; document fees may apply. [C1]

A shared cause, a personal financial stake

On Nextdoor, Schulz writes: “Community action and knowledge is my goal.” [N1, final paragraph] In the Chicago Title complaint, the plaintiffs allege “financial hardship, and economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial.” [L1, paragraph 30, p. 7]

Which is it? These statements cannot both be true.

This is the same issue I pointed out with respect to the original Mull and White v. SOF-XI Kauai PV Golf, L.P. (the Starwood entity), Case No. 5CCV-21-0000063: The claims are specifically about the plaintiffs property or properties, and never about the AI'na, or "open spaces". What benefits, if any, would accrue to the wider membership, including condos and timeshares? These benefits have never been articulated or explained beside the "open space" slogan which is a myth. (See my post on Open Space.)

Speaking for owners while suing their Association

The first lawsuit (against PHCA et al.) states: “Plaintiffs have no conflicts of interest with other Class members”. [L2, paragraph 82, pp. 12–13] Hmmm...yet it also seeks damages from PHCA, the Association its members are financing. Who will end up paying for PHCA's time, attention, resources, and attorneys fees which will be significant? ALL OF US!

Ema Schultz has not been shy complaining on Nextdoor about excessive PHCA legal expenses. I found at least 19 distinct recent posts and comments criticizing PHCA legal costs or payments: 24 July 2026, 17 August 2026, 20 August 2026, 21 August 2026, 22 August 2026, 25 August 2026, 27 August 2026, 30 August 2026, 14 September 2026, 23 September 2026, 29 September 2026...

I am justifiably concerned about the fact that owners are "invited" to support a cause without knowing how possible gains and costs would be shared (Although I have a guess...)

Unity must allow disagreement

One Nextdoor post, Ema announces: “THIS IS A CALL TO UNITY”. [N2, section heading]

In another thread, Schulz says of local opponents: “These people need to be eradicated from our governance and any position of influence.” [N3, reply to a commenter] That calls for their exclusion from governance, leaving no room for disagreement. And this is the danger of this SoS Hui campaign, designed to gain an absolute majority on the Board, and raid our Association reserves in order to pay their legal fees that would only benefit them. Yes, residents can oppose development and still question a lawsuit. They can support conservation and reject Association funding for litigation. In my view, speaking for the community requires accepting that its members may reach different conclusions.

What does “open space” promise?

Schulz urges readers to “Demand zero development on Open Space.” [N2, unity section]

The original June 2021 Mull–White complaint instead seeks to enforce restrictions for “golf course and ancillary recreational uses”. As I pointed out in this post, the phrase “open space” does not appear in that complaint. [L3, paragraphs 10 and 40–41] Restricting development does not, by itself, give everyone public access or establish an equal financial benefit throughout Princeville. The Schulz case carries forward much of the earlier dispute while extending claims to PHCA. The question is what this expansion offers members, and what it might cost them. My view: Nothing and plenty...

Judge leadership by results

Schulz writes: “We want real leadership like Dale and Patty have provided”. [N4, post body]

My September 29 assessment asks a different question: what did members receive? It identifies unfinished financial reporting and the missed June deadline for replacing KH-7 drainage infrastructure. [P1, “Communicate” and “Plan”] Agreement over the Woods Course does not demonstrate effective management. My concern is that the litigation has become a test of political loyalty while basic Association needs remain unresolved.

Who benefits, who could bear the cost, and whose priorities are being served? Those questions belong at the center of the discussion.

Disclosure: I am a defendant in the first case, but this post is not about me.

Sources

Complaint page references use printed page numbers. Nextdoor passages come from archived copies of the linked posts; some dates were recorded approximately. Quotations are excerpts.