353 P.3d 1024
Haw.2015Background
- Bailey sued Duvauchelle over Parcel 27 on Moloka'i, alleging Bailey's ownership and interference with his rights, including the flagpole portion.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment on Count II (declaratory relief) and later issued an October 25, 2010 final judgment declaring Bailey the fee simple owner of Parcel 27, including the flag pole portion.
- Duvauchelle appealed; ICA affirmed on August 14, 2012; Bailey sought dismissals of remaining claims, and the circuit court granted a June 26, 2013 order of voluntary dismissal with prejudice on Counts I and III–VIII.
- A July 16, 2013 purported final judgment following the dismissal addressed only Counts I and III–VIII and did not expressly resolve all remaining claims or provide Rule 54(b) certification, leading the ICA to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
- In April 2014, Duvauchelle moved under HRCP Rule 60(b) arguing newly discovered evidence and other grounds to vacate the 2010 judgment; circuit court denied May 14, 2014; ICA dismissed the Rule 60(b) appeal as interlocutory because no underlying appealable final judgment existed.
- The Hawaii Supreme Court held that relief under Rule 60(b) requires an underlying appealable final judgment; absent such a judgment, Rule 60(b) rulings are interlocutory and not directly appealable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a post-judgment Rule 60(b) order appealable when the underlying ruling wasn’t appealable? | Bailey claims the Rule 60(b) motion should be reviewable. | Duvauchelle argues the Rule 60(b) ruling is appealable since related final judgment exists or would be appealable. | No; Rule 60(b) relief requires an underlying appealable final judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai'i 115 (Haw. 1994) (bright-line appealability rules for final judgments; policy against piecemeal appeals)
- Ditto v. McCurdy, 103 Hawai'i 153 (Haw. 2003) (post-judgment orders and Rule 60(b) finality considerations; separation of judgments implied)
- Cho v. State, 115 Hawai'i 373 (Haw. 2007) (finality and Rule 60(b) availability tied to final judgments)
- Ueoka v. Szymanski, 107 Hawai'i 386 (Haw. 2005) (final judgment concept and appeal rights linked to final orders)
- Crown Properties, Inc. v. Fin. Sec. Life Ins. Co., 6 Haw. 105 (App. 1985) (early articulation of finality and Rule 60(b) scope in Hawaii)
- United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2000) (Rule 60(b) applies to final, appealable orders; finality standards similar to 54)