of the same font as the other provisions and was not bolded, underlined or italicized. As a result, it was not “distinctly manifest to the senses[,]” Webster’s Third at 1815, and did not comply with MCC § 10.37.010C. The fourth amendment to the Declaration stated that “the Association hereby ratifies the Third Amendment in all respects and confirms that Paragraph J of the Declaration was and is hereby amended[ ]” and set forth the time sharing language contained in the third amendment. It is not clear from the record whether a vote was held. In quoting the third amendment, the fourth amendment explicitly referred to time sharing. Again, however, the language was not readily noticeable and, thus, not prominent. Cf. Reefshare, Ltd., v. Nagata, 70 Haw. 93, 101, 762 P.2d 169, 174 (1988) (<HOLDING>). As noted previously, the AOAO had voted to
recognizing that unit owners own the common elements in fee as tenants in common holding the statute of limitations began to operate when the plaintiff was notified by an unequivocal act that plaintiffs right to the stock was disputed holding that the grant of exclusive use to one unit owner of a common area is sufficient to change the relative interest of the unit owners in that common area holding that the requirement of explicitly and prominently was intended by the legislature to ensure that the declaration give unequivocal notice to the project unit owners of the authorization for such use holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner