RL v. DL ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •   NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    Electronically Filed
    Intermediate Court of Appeals
    CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
    28-AUG-2020
    07:50 AM
    NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
    IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
    OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
    RL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
    DL, Defendant-Appellant
    APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
    (CASE NO. FC-D 11-1-0477)
    ORDER
    DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION
    AND
    DISMISSING AS MOOT ALL PENDING MOTIONS IN CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
    (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Chan and Hiraoka, JJ.)
    Upon review of the record of this appeal arising out of
    a post-judgment proceeding in a divorce case, it appears that we
    lack appellate jurisdiction over this appeal by Defendant-
    Appellant D.L. (D.L.) in appellate court case number CAAP-20-
    0000491 from the July 17, 2020 amended findings of fact,
    conclusions of law and order (July 17, 2020 amended
    FOF/COL/Order) and July 24, 2020 order awarding attorneys' fees
    and costs to Plaintiff-Appellee R.L., now known as R.V. (R.V.) in
    Family Court case number FC-D No. 11-1-0477.     These two post-
    judgment orders have not finally determined and ended the last
    remaining issue in the post-judgment remand proceedings for the
    re-adjudication of some (but not all) issues in D.L.'s February
    9, 2018 post-judgment motion for post-decree relief and
    Plaintiff-Appellee R.V.'s July 6, 2018 post-judgment motion to
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    enforce the July 27, 2012 divorce decree, as Hawaii Revised
    Statutes (HRS) § 571-54 (2018) requires for an appealable final
    post-judgment order.
    In Family Court cases "[a]n interested party, aggrieved
    by any order or decree of the court, may appeal to the
    intermediate appellate court for review of questions of law and
    fact upon the same terms and conditions as in other cases in the
    circuit court[.]"    HRS § 571-54.       On July 27, 2012, the Family
    Court entered a divorce decree that satisfied the requirements
    for appealability under HRS § 571-54 and the holding in Eaton v.
    Eaton, 
    7 Haw. App. 111
    , 118-19, 
    748 P.2d 801
    , 805 (1987).
    Once the Family Court entered the July 27, 2012 divorce
    decree, all subsequent orders were post-judgment orders, and a
    Family Court "post-judgment order is an appealable final
    order . . . if the order finally determines the post-judgment
    proceeding."   Hall v. Hall, 96 Hawai#i 105, 111 n.4, 
    26 P.3d 594
    ,
    600 n.4 (App. 2001)    (citation omitted), affirmed in part, and
    vacated in part on other grounds, Hall v. Hall, 95 Hawai#i 318,
    
    22 P.3d 965
     (2001), overruled in part on other grounds, Eckard
    Brandes, Inc., v. Dept. of Labor and Industrial Relations,
    146 Hawai#i 354, 
    463 P.3d 1011
     (2020).        Under analogous
    circumstances in civil Circuit Court cases, a "post-judgment
    order is an appealable final order under HRS § 641-1(a) if the
    order ends the proceedings, leaving nothing further to be
    accomplished."    Ditto v. McCurdy, 103 Hawai#i 153, 157, 
    80 P.3d 974
    , 978 (2003) (citation omitted).         "[T]he separate judgment
    requirement articulated in Jenkins [v. Cades Schutte Fleming &
    Wright, 76 Hawai#i 115, 119, 
    869 P.2d 1334
    , 1338 (1994)] is
    inapposite in the post-judgment context."         Ditto, 103 Hawai#i at
    158, 
    80 P.3d at 979
    .    "Accordingly, the time for appealing the
    matters conclusively decided by the . . . [post-judgment] order
    commenced upon entry thereof, not upon entry of the superfluous .
    . . judgment on the [post-judgment] order."         Id. at 159-60, 
    80 P.3d at 980-81
    .    However, the Family Court's post-judgment order
    must resolve all of the issues in the post-judgment remand
    2
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    proceeding in order to qualify as an appealable final post-
    judgment order under HRS § 571-54.
    In a prior appeal in CAAP-18-000727 from the same
    underlying case in FC-D No. 11-1-0477, this court entered a
    January 21, 2020 memorandum opinion affirming in part and
    vacating in part the Family Court's prior adjudication of the
    D.L.'s February 9, 2018 post-judgment motion for post-decree
    relief and R.V.'s July 6, 2018 post-judgment motion to enforce
    the July 27, 2012 divorce decree.       We remanded this case to the
    Family Court with instructions on how to re-adjudicate a subset
    of the issues.   On remand, the Family Court is apparently
    utilizing a series of multiple post-judgment orders to adjudicate
    that subset of the issues.     Under analogous circumstances in an
    appeal from a Circuit Court case in which the separate judgment
    document rule under HRCP Rule 58 did not apply, the Supreme Court
    of Hawai#i explained that,
    where the disposition of the case is embodied in several
    orders, no one of which embraces the entire controversy but
    collectively does so, it is a necessary inference from 54(b)
    that the orders collectively constitute a final judgment and
    entry of the last of the series of orders gives finality and
    appealability to all.
    S. Utsunomiya Enterprises, Inc. v. Moomuku Country Club, 
    75 Haw. 480
    , 494-95, 
    866 P.2d 951
    , 960 (1994) (citations, internal
    quotation marks, and ellipsis points omitted).         In the present
    case, the Family Court has adjudicated most of the issues by way
    of the June 17, 2020 amended FOF/COL/Order and the July 24, 2020
    order awarding attorneys' fees and costs.        However, the Family
    Court expressly reserved its adjudication of the last remaining
    issue in this post-judgment proceeding, namely statutory
    interest, and, instead, the Family Court expressly scheduled a
    future December 17, 2020 hearing for its final adjudication of
    statutory interest.    Consequently, this post-judgment proceeding
    has not yet concluded.
    After the entry of a post-judgment order that finally
    determines this last remaining issue, any aggrieved party will
    have an opportunity to timely appeal.       Because the Family Court
    3
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    has not yet concluded this post-judgment proceeding, D.L.'s
    appeal is premature, and we lack appellate jurisdiction under HRS
    § 571-54.
    Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that this case is
    dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
    IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that all pending motions
    in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX are dismissed as moot.
    DATED:   Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 28, 2020.
    /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
    Presiding Judge
    /s/ Derrick H.M. Chan
    Associate Judge
    /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
    Associate Judge
    4