Unciano v. Chang ( 2013 )

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-13-0000489
20-MAY-2013
03:22 PM
SCPW-13-0000489
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
JOCELYN WANDA UNCIANO, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE GARY W.B. CHANG, JUDGE OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, HAWAI#I LAND COURT, and
GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, Respondents.
APPEAL FROM THE LAND COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
(CAAP-11-0001080; 1L.D. CASE NO. 11-1-2518; APPLICATION NO. 1069)
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITION
FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND/OR PROHIBITION
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner Joycelyn Wanda
Unciano’s petition for a writ of mandamus, filed on April 29,
2013, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support
thereof, and the record, it appears that Hawai#i’s land court
rules do not provide a specific time frame for the court to enter
a final judgment or decree and, therefore, the land court should
generally act upon matters timely under the circumstances.
Although the land court must enter a final judgment or decree in
the present case, the delay in entering such document is not
unreasonable considering the specialized nature of land court
matters and the volume of land court cases pending before the
respondent judge. Mandamus relief, therefore, is not warranted
at this time. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204-05, 982
P.2d 334, 338-39 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary
remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a
clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative
means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the
requested action; where a court has discretion to act, mandamus
will not lie to interfere with or control the exercise of that
discretion, even when the judge has acted erroneously, unless the
judge has exceeded his or her jurisdiction, has committed a
flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or has refused to act
on a subject properly before the court under circumstances in
which he or she has a legal duty to act); State ex rel. Marsland
v. Ames, 71 Haw. 304, 307, 788 P.2d 1281, 1283 (1990) (“[T]he
mere fact that other remedies are not available has never in
itself been sufficient justification for mandamus.”).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied without prejudice.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 20, 2013.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack