Sacor Financial, Inc. v. Naluai ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
23-JUN-2023
07:47 AM
Dkt. 28 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
SACOR FINANCIAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RICHARD B. NALUAI, Defendant-Appellee
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
KO#OLAUPOKO DIVISION
(CIVIL NO. 1RC111012229)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)
Plaintiff-Appellant Sacor Financial, Inc. appeals from
the Order denying its motion for extension of judgment, entered
by the District Court of the First Circuit, Ko#olaupoko Division,
on June 29, 2022.1 For the reasons explained below, we vacate
the Order and remand for further proceedings.
Sacor filed a complaint against Defendant-Appellee
Richard B. Naluai in the district court on December 30, 2011, for
money owed. Naluai was served on January 25, 2012. He admitted
the debt. A judgment against him was entered on March 5, 2012.
An amended judgment was entered on June 7, 2012.
1
Sacor's opening brief identifies the Honorable Karin L. Holma as
the judge who entered the Order, but we are unable to verify this from the
record on appeal.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
On June 16, 2022, Sacor filed a motion for extension of
judgment pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 657-5.
Sacor served its motion upon Naluai by mail. Naluai didn't
respond to the motion. The district court denied the motion as
"Untimely[.]" This appeal followed.
Sacor raises two points of error: (1) "The district
court erred when it denied the Motion for Extension for finding
that it was untimely"; and (2) "The district court erred when it
raised the statute of limitations defense sua sponte on behalf of
Mr. Naluai." Naluai didn't file an answering brief. Sacor's
second point of error is dispositive.
HRS § 657-5 (2016) provides, in relevant part:
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.
(Emphasis added.) "HRS § 657–5 is a statute of limitations for
actions to enforce domestic judgments, and it includes a deadline
for seeking to extend the time period to enforce the judgment."
United Public Workers Local 646 v. Houghton, 139 Hawai#i 138,
142, 384 P.3d 914, 918 (App. 2016) (citing Est. of Roxas v.
Marcos, 121 Hawai#i 59, 66, 214 P.3d 598, 605 (2009)).
The supreme court has held:
The defense of the statute of limitations is a personal
defense and the defendant alone may exercise or waive the
same. As stated in Borba v. Kaina, 22 Haw. 721 (1915), the
defense of the statute of limitations may not be invoked on
behalf of the defendant by the court.
City Collectors, Ltd. v. Moku, 50 Haw. 273, 274, 439 P.2d 217,
218 (1968). In this case, the district court erred by sua sponte
invoking the statute of limitations defense on behalf of Naluai.
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the district
court's June 29, 2022 Order, and remand to the district court for
further proceedings consistent with this summary disposition
order.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 23, 2023.
On the briefs:
/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
Lester K. M. Leu, Chief Judge
Daniel K. Kikawa,
for Plaintiff-Appellant. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Associate Judge
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge
3