268 P.3d 443
Haw. Ct. App.2011Background
- WBGI operates a Hawai'i Island botanical garden; Wagner, pro se, appeals from a January 15, 2008 circuit court judgment favoring WBGI on Wagner’s First Amended Complaint.
- Wagner alleged eight promissory notes for directorship services dated 1996–2003, plus an oral contract/novation for 2003, a series of monthly oral credit-card loan agreements, a quantum meruit claim, and a constructive trust claim.
- WBGI moved to set aside a September 10, 2004 default judgment after discovering it in December 2005; Wagner argued timeliness and service defects.
- The circuit court found service of process defective, set aside the default judgment, and later granted WBGI summary judgment on promissory notes and credit-card loans.
- The court reserved on Wagner’s quantum meruit claim, concluding genuine issues of material fact remained, and remanded for further proceedings on that claim.
- Overall, the court affirmed the judgment in all other respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the default judgment was properly set aside. | Wagner alleges untimely HRCP 60(b) challenge and proper service. | WBGI asserts timely Rule 60(b)(4) relief and lack of proper service. | Default judgment void for lack of service; set aside. |
| Whether service of process on WBGI complied with HRCP/HRS requirements. | Wagner served WBGI through Linda Wagner and Sumbicay, claimed as officers/agents. | Service did not comply with HRCP Rule 4 or HRS 414-64; lacked proper agents. | Service improper; court lacked jurisdiction; entry of default/void. |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on promissory notes and credit card loans. | There were admissible materials supporting the existence of notes and loans. | Affidavits show no supporting evidence of actual promissory notes or WBGI debts; no triable issue. | Summary judgment proper as to promissory notes and credit-card loans. |
| Whether Wagner’s quantum meruit claim should be rejected on the merits. | Wagner performed substantial services valued over $700,000. | Argument hinged on licensing and unclean hands; facts disputed. | Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment; remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bank of Hawaii v. Shinn, 120 Haw. 1 (Haw. 2008) (no time limit on a Rule 60(b)(4) attack on a void judgment)
- Cvitanovich-Dubie v. Dubie, 125 Haw. 128 (Haw. 2011) (Rule 60(b) interpretations; persuasive on HRCP Rule 60(b))
- Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Doe, 98 Hawai'i 499 (Haw. 2002) (jurisdiction and timely Rule 60(b) challenges)