Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Ryan.
479 P.3d 133
Haw.2021Background
- The Ryans executed a mortgage (2009), defaulted, and Wilmington obtained summary judgment and foreclosure judgment entered September 20, 2017; the Ryans moved for reconsideration.
- The circuit court filed an order denying reconsideration on December 8, 2017, but Wilmington did not serve a file-stamped copy on the Ryans until February 26, 2018.
- The initial 30-day appeal window ran from Dec. 8, 2017 to Jan. 8, 2018. The Ryans did not file a notice of appeal by Jan. 8.
- Ryans filed an ex parte HRAP Rule 4(a)(4)(B) extension motion Jan. 26, 2018 (after the initial 30 days), then on Feb. 2 filed a properly noticed extension motion and a motion to advance the hearing; circuit court denied the request to advance (Feb. 6) and later denied the extension.
- Ryans filed a notice of appeal Feb. 6, 2018; ICA held some appeals untimely and affirmed denials of the extension-related motions. The Hawai‘i Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ryans) | Defendant's Argument (Wilmington) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HRAP Rule 4(a)(4)(B) motions may be filed ex parte after the initial 30‑day window | Ryans argued their Jan. 26 filing attempted relief under HRAP 4(a)(4)(B) due to reliance on court staff and should be considered | Wilmington argued Rule 4(a)(4)(B) requires notice to other parties when filed after the initial period, so ex parte filing was improper | Court: HRAP 4(a)(4)(B) motions filed after the initial 30 days are not properly filed ex parte; notice must follow the rules of the court appealed from. |
| Whether RCCH Rule 7.2(g)(5)(A) (no review of motions to advance/shorten) bars appellate review of denials to advance hearings on HRAP 4(a)(4)(B) motions | Ryans argued the no-review provision cannot apply where denial to advance effectively foreclosed timely appellate relief under HRAP Rule 4(a)(4)(B) | Wilmington/ICA treated RCCH 7.2(g)(5)(A) as barring appellate review of the denial to advance | Court: RCCH 7.2(g)(5)(A) is inapplicable to HRAP 4(a)(4)(B) motions; applying it would produce unjust/absurd results, so appellate review is permitted. |
| Whether the circuit court abused discretion by denying the motion to advance the HRAP 4(a)(4)(B) hearing | Ryans said they checked docket weekly, called court on Jan. 2 and were told no order had been entered; that reliance justified expedited hearing before Feb. 7 deadline | Wilmington argued Ryans should have taken further steps (messenger, additional calls, contact opposing counsel) and that single phone call did not justify advancement | Court: Circuit court abused its discretion by denying the motion to advance; record declarations (uncontradicted) showed the court could have heard and decided the motion before the deadline. |
| Whether Ryans established "excusable neglect" and thus were entitled to an extension under HRAP 4(a)(4)(B) | Ryans argued their failure to discover the Dec. 8 filing until Jan. 25, 2018 resulted from reliance on court staff and Wilmington’s failure to serve; under equitable Pioneer factors, neglect was excusable | Wilmington relied on Enos/Shaw analogies that attorney error or failure to monitor the docket is not excusable; also asserted prejudice and procedural shortcomings | Court: Under the equitable, fact-sensitive standard (Pioneer/Eckard Brandes), the totality of circumstances made the neglect excusable here; the circuit court abused its discretion in denying the extension, so the Feb. 6, 2018 notice of appeal was effective as to matters appealable from the Dec. 8 order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eckard Brandes, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations, [citation="146 Hawai'i 354, 463 P.3d 1011"] (Haw. 2020) (clarifies excusable neglect inquiry and defers fact-sensitive determination to trial court discretion)
- Enos v. Pacific Transfer & Warehouse, Inc., [citation="80 Hawai'i 345, 910 P.2d 116"] (Haw. 1996) (failure to read and follow procedural rules not excusable neglect)
- Hall v. Hall, [citation="95 Hawai'i 318, 22 P.3d 965"] (Haw. 2001) (standard of review for denial/grant of motion to extend time is abuse of discretion)
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1993) (factors for determining excusable neglect under equitable inquiry)
- Ditto v. McCurdy, [citation="103 Hawai'i 153, 80 P.3d 974"] (Haw. 2003) (appealability of certain interlocutory orders)
- Kawamata Farms, Inc. v. United Agri Products, [citation="86 Hawai'i 214, 948 P.2d 1055"] (Haw. 1997) (court rules interpreted using principles of statutory construction)