Kim v. Mondina ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
15-DEC-2020
08:02 AM
Dkt. 81 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
ROBERT Y.H. KIM, Plaintiff, Deceased-Appellant,
and
SHERRI-MAE MONDINA IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE
ROBERT Y.H. KIM TRUST AND PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE ESTATE OF ROBERT Y.H. KIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
MATTHEW S.K. PYUN, JR., A LAW CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee,
and
JOHN DOES 1-10, JANE DOES 1-10, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10,
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, DOE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10,
and DOE OTHER ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CIVIL NO. 07-1-0495)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Nakasone, JJ.)
Plaintiff-Appellant Sherri-Mae Mondina (Mondina), in
her capacity as Trustee of the Robert Y.H. Kim Trust and as
personal representative of the estate of Plaintiff Robert Y.H.
Kim (Kim), appeals from the post-judgment (1) Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Relief
from Judgment (Order Denying Relief from Judgment), and (2)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Findings of Fact, Conclusions Of Law, Order Granting Defendant-
Appellee Matthew S.K. Pyun, Jr., a Law Corporation's [(Pyun's)]
Motion for a Supplemental Order to Aid in Execution of Real
Property and for Issuance of a Writ of Execution (Order re
Execution), both entered on December 13, 2017, by the Circuit
Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court).1
Mondina raises six points of error on appeal. With
respect to the Order Denying Relief from Judgment, Mondina
contends that the Circuit Court erred in: (1) finding and
concluding that there was an agreement to arbitrate Pyun's claims
against Kim for breach of a settlement agreement; (2) concluding
that it had jurisdiction over Pyun's claims against Kim for
breach of a settlement agreement; (3) rejecting Kim's argument
that it was inequitable to enforce the September 30, 2009
Judgment for $220,268.05, entered in favor of Pyun and against
Kim (2009 Judgment);2 and (4) concluding that there were no
extraordinary circumstances justifying Kim's request for relief
from the 2009 Judgment. With respect to the Order re Execution,
Mondina contends that the Circuit Court erred in: (1) concluding
that Pyun was entitled to execution of the 2009 Judgment against
Kim's residence held in trust; and (2) concluding that Hawaii
Revised Statutes (HRS) § 560:3-812 (2018) did not bar the
1
The Honorable Dean E. Ochiai presided.
2
The 2009 Judgment resulted from the confirmation of an arbitration
award regarding the aforementioned settlement agreement.
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
execution of the 2009 Judgment against Kim's residence after
Kim's death.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we
resolve Mondina's points of error as follows:
All of the issues raised in this appeal concern the
enforceability of the 2009 Judgment. However, HRS § 657-5 (2016)
operates as a statute of limitations on the enforcement of
Hawai#i judgments. See Estate of Roxas v. Marcos, 121 Hawai#i 59,
66, 69, 214 P.3d 598, 605, 608 (2009). HRS § 657-5 provides, in
relevant part:
§ 657-5 Domestic judgments and decrees. Unless an
extension is granted, every judgment and decree of any court
of the State shall be presumed to be paid and discharged at
the expiration of ten years after the judgment or decree was
rendered. . . . No extension of a judgment or decree shall
be granted unless the extension is sought within ten years
of the date the original judgment or decree was rendered.
More than ten years have passed since the entry of the
2009 Judgment. No amended judgment was entered thereafter. No
extension of the 2009 Judgment was sought within ten years of the
date of the 2009 Judgment. No stay of execution pending appeal
was granted.3 Therefore, pursuant to HRS § 657-5, the 2009
Judgment is presumed to be paid and is discharged. See generally
United Pub. Workers v. Houghton, 139 Hawai#i 138, 144–45, 384
3
"[B]ecause the mere filing of a notice of appeal does not affect
the validity of a judgment, the circuit court retains jurisdiction to enforce
the judgment." TSA Int'l, Ltd. v. Shimizu Corp., 92 Hawai #i 243, 265, 990
P.2d 713, 735 (1999).
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
P.3d 914, 920–21 (App. 2016). Moreover, "[i]f the judgment
creditor fails to secure the extension within the ten years, the
judgment and all the rights and remedies appurtenant to that
judgment terminate." Int'l Sav. & Loan Ass'n, Ltd. v. Wiig, 82
Hawai#i 197, 199, 921 P.2d 117, 119 (1996). Accordingly, the
2009 Judgment is no longer viable and enforceable, and thus, this
appeal is moot.
For these reasons, this appeal from the Circuit Court's
December 13, 2017 Order Denying Relief from Judgment and Order re
Execution is dismissed as moot.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 15, 2020.
On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
F. Steven Pang, Presiding Judge
John Winnicki,
for Plaintiff, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Deceased-Appellant, and Associate Judge
Plaintiff-Appellant.
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Francis T. O'Brien, Associate Judge
for Defendant-Appellee.
4