State v. Joshua.
SCWC-16-0000800
| Haw. | Oct 16, 2017Background
- OCP sued Deborah Joshua and others in 2008 for foreclosure-rescue/equity-stripping; default entered against Joshua and a permanent injunction/default judgment followed. Final judgment entered in 2009.
- In 2015 the circuit court entered a Findings/Order modifying the injunction and holding Joshua in contempt; Joshua filed a notice of appeal but the ICA dismissed it for lack of an appealable final judgment under Jenkins.
- OCP moved for an amended final judgment; Joshua filed a second notice of appeal (June 16, 2015). The circuit court later entered an amended final judgment (Sept. 25, 2015), but the ICA dismissed that second appeal for failure to meet Jenkins’ separate-judgment requirements.
- After the ICA’s dismissal the circuit court entered a second amended final judgment (Oct. 6, 2016). Joshua filed a third notice of appeal (Nov. 9, 2016); OCP moved to dismiss as untimely and the ICA granted the motion, construing the notice as an appeal from the Oct. 6 judgment.
- Joshua sought certiorari to this court. The Supreme Court held it lacked jurisdiction over Joshua’s third appeal (untimely) and affirmed the ICA’s dismissal, but issued a prospective supervisory rule concerning remand in cases where a purported final judgment is defective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was Joshua’s third notice of appeal timely? | OCP: It was filed after the 30-day HRAP deadline; untimely. | Joshua: (argued implicitly that appeal should proceed; she filed notice) | Held: Untimely — ICA correctly dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. |
| 2. Was the ICA’s earlier dismissal of Joshua’s second appeal reviewable here? | OCP: ICA dismissal of second appeal stands; no certiorari sought, so no review. | Joshua: Sought review of ICA’s later dismissal of third appeal; did not seek certiorari of second dismissal. | Held: Court lacks jurisdiction to review ICA’s dismissal of the second appeal because Joshua did not seek certiorari of that dismissal. |
| 3. Does Jenkins require dismissal when a purported final judgment fails separate-judgment formalities? | OCP: Jenkins applies; appeal dismissed when judgment does not meet Jenkins/HRCP 58/54(b). | Joshua: Argued procedural defects should not bar appeal to protect access to justice. | Held: Jenkins remains binding: appeals from circuit civil final judgments must meet separate-judgment requirements; dismissal appropriate when untimely or jurisdictionally defective. |
| 4. Should appellate courts remand for entry of an appealable judgment instead of dismissing? | OCP: (no affirmative position preventing remand); historically ICA dismissed. | Joshua / Advocates for access: Remand can avoid unnecessary delay and expense when appellants timely seek review of a purported final judgment. | Held: Prospectively, when a party timely appeals a purported final judgment that fails Jenkins, the ICA must temporarily remand under HRS §602-57(3) to permit the circuit court to enter an appealable final judgment and supplement the record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Haw. 115, 869 P.2d 1334 (1994) (establishes HRCP Rule 58 separate-judgment requirements for appealability)
- Bailey v. Duvauchelle, 135 Haw. 482, 353 P.3d 1024 (2015) (advises circuit courts to enter appealable final judgments and to correct deficiencies after appellate dismissal)
- Waikiki v. Ho‘omaka Vill. Ass’n of Apartment Owners, 140 Haw. 197, 398 P.3d 786 (2017) (held ICA should use HRS §602-57(3) authority to remand for entry of an appealable judgment rather than dismiss)
- Lester v. Rapp, 85 Haw. 238, 942 P.2d 502 (1997) (jurisdictional questions reviewed de novo)
- City & County of Honolulu v. Midkiff, 57 Haw. 273, 554 P.2d 233 (1976) (pre-Jenkins rule treating series of orders as final when collectively resolving the case)