Oyadomari v. HQHQ, Inc. ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
21-JUN-2023
07:58 AM
Dkt. 153 MO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
SHARMAN M. OYADOMARI, Trustee of the Kikuko Kuwahara
Irrevocable Grantor Trust dated April 26, 2013,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HQHQ, INC., a Hawai‘i corporation; and
WILLIAM S. QUINN, Defendants-Appellants, and
BRIAN M. HYATT; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10,
Defendants-Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(CIVIL NO. 3CC16-1-000411)
Memorandum Opinion
(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)
Defendants-Appellants HQHQ, Inc. (HQHQ) and William S.
Quinn (Quinn) appeal from nine orders and judgments of the
Circuit Court of the Third Circuit involving judicial
foreclosure and confirmation of sale proceedings brought by
Plaintiff-Appellee Sharman M. Oyadomari (Oyadomari). 1
1 HQHQ and Quinn appeal from the following orders and judgments:
(1) October 13, 2017 "Order Denying Defendant William S.
Quinn's Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff
Sharman M. Oyadomari, Trustee to Accept Full Payment of
(continued . . .)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
On appeal, HQHQ and Quinn raise two points of error,
alleging (1) the circuit court erred in failing to grant relief
from the interlocutory decree of foreclosure and (2) all orders
(. . . continued)
the June 20, 2008 Promissory Note, Filed on October 9,
2017 and Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm Sale,
Filed on July 31, 2017";
(2) November 24, 2017 "Order Denying Motion for Leave to
File Defendant William S. Quinn's Counterclaim and
Crossclaim, Filed on October 10, 2017 and Motion for
Reconsideration of October 13, 2017 Ruling Denying
Defendant William S. Quinn's Motion for Order
Compelling Plaintiff Sharman M. Oyadomari, Trustee to
Accept Full Payment of June 20, 2008 Promissory Note
(and Objection to Plaintiff's Notice of Submission
Dated October 24, 2017[)], Filed on November 2, 2017";
(3) November 28, 2017 "Order Denying Defendant William S.
Quinn's Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff
Sharman M. Oyadomari, Trustee to Accept Full Payment of
the June 20, 2008 Promissory Note";
(4) November 28, 2017 "Findings of Fact [(FOF)],
Conclusions of Law and Order Granting Plaintiff's
Motion to Confirm Sale";
(5) November 28, 2017 Writ of Possession;
(6) November 28, 2017 Judgment;
(7) January 24, 2018 "Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to
Alter or Amend Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm Sale Filed
November 28, 2017";
(8) January 24, 2018 "Order Denying Defendant William S.
Quinn's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or
Amend Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order
Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm Sale Filed
November 28, 2017"; and
(9) January 24, 2018 Amended Judgment.
The Honorable Harry P. Freitas presided over the October 13, 2017 order
denying Quinn's motion to compel Oyadomari to accept full payment and
granting Oyadomari's motion to confirm the sale.
The Honorable Henry T. Nakamoto presided over all other orders and
judgments.
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
entered after the October 13, 2017 order require reversal. We
affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
According to Quinn, his family founded Pahoa Feed and
Fertilizer as a sole proprietorship in 2000. Quinn explains
that, in 2002, Brian M. Hyatt's (Hyatt) family and Quinn's
family incorporated Pahoa Feed and Fertilizer under HQHQ, Inc.,
a Hawai‘i corporation, consisting of a 50-50 ownership between
the two families.
On June 20, 2008, HQHQ executed a promissory note
(Note), promising to repay Yoso and Kikuko Kuwahara (Kuwaharas),
in their capacity as trustee of their respective revocable
living trusts, for a $445,000.00 loan with an interest rate of
six percent per year. The Note required HQHQ to pay the
Kuwaharas $3,500.00 every month until June 6, 2015, at which
time HQHQ would be required to pay the balance of the Note.
Quinn and Hyatt each personally guaranteed HQHQ's
obligations under the Note. FOF 4. The loan was secured with a
Mortgage on a Property in Puna on the island of Hawai‘i. FOF 2,
3. The Mortgage was recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances on
June 25, 2008.
Kikuko Kuwahara (in her capacity as Trustee of the
Kikuko Kuwahara Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
September 15, 1986, as amended, and as Successor Trustee of the
Yoso Kuwahara Revocable Living Trust dated March 3, 1977, as
amended) assigned the Note and Mortgage to Oyadomari in 2013,
and recorded the assignment in the Bureau of Conveyances. Per
this assignment, Oyadomari had "all right, title and interest in
and to" the Note and Mortgage, including the "obligation and
power to discharge Mortgage through the execution and delivery
of a release of this Mortgage."
According to correspondence Quinn attached to his and
HQHQ's memorandum in opposition to the commissioner's motion for
leave to sell without an open house, Quinn and Oyadomari were
negotiating the terms of a purchase money mortgage for the
property in May 2015, a month before the Note became due. 2
On June 6, 2015, the Note became due with a principal
balance of $312,305.73 and interest accruing at a rate of six
percent per year. FOF 6, 9. HQHQ, Quinn, and Hyatt
(collectively Defendants) failed to pay the amount owed. FOF 7.
In letters dated June 24, 2015 and February 19, 2016,
Oyadomari made demands on Defendants to pay the balance due.
FOF 7. Despite the demands for payment, Defendants "failed to
pay the amounts owed under the Note." FOF 8.
2 Quinn represented to the circuit court that, around this time, the
Hyatt and Quinn families realized "future business opportunities were best
pursued separately as we were at an impasse regarding the direction of the
business and did not work well as business partners." Quinn also submitted
to the circuit court a letter from Hyatt indicating a willingness to
relinquish his family's interest in HQHQ if certain demands were met.
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Correspondence Quinn submitted to the circuit court
indicated that the parties continued negotiating a new loan, but
in June 2016, Oyadomari's attorney stated, "We have a
foreclosure complaint that we are prepared to file but my client
is willing to hold off on filing the complaint if a new loan can
be closed by July 1, 2016" and set a June 17, 2016 deadline. On
June 17, 2016, Quinn responded with modifications, to which
Oyadomari was "not agreeable[.]" Oyadomari then proposed new
terms that would expire at 4:30 p.m. on Friday, June 24, 2016.
The correspondence provided by Quinn did not reflect a response.
B. Procedural Background
1. The Complaint
On November 29, 2016, Oyadomari filed her complaint
for foreclosure in the circuit court against Defendants.
Oyadomari contended Defendants were in "material default under
the terms of the Note and the Mortgage[,]" therefore she was
"entitled to foreclose upon the Mortgage and the subject
property and to obtain a deficiency judgment, if appropriate,
against Defendants."
2. Oyadomari's Motion for Summary Judgment and
Interlocutory Decree of Foreclosure
On February 15, 2017, Oyadomari filed a motion for
summary judgment and interlocutory decree of foreclosure. In
her memorandum in support of the motion, Oyadomari stated she
was entitled to summary judgment on her foreclosure claim
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
because she established the four material factual elements
outlined in Bank of Honolulu v. Anderson, 3 Haw. App. 545, 550,
551, 654 P.2d 1370, 1374, 1375 (1982) (explaining that a party
moving for summary judgment on a foreclosure claim must prove
these material facts to prevail: "(1) the existence of the
Agreement, (2) the terms of the Agreement, (3) default by [the
mortgagor or debtor] under the terms of the Agreement, and
(4) the giving of" requisite notice).
On April 19, 2017, the circuit court entered its
"Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Granting
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Decree
of Foreclosure." The circuit court concluded:
3. Plaintiff provided sufficient evidence of the
existence and terms of the Note and Mortgage.
4. Defendants' failure to pay the amounts owed under
the Note in accordance with the terms of the Note
constitutes a material default under the Note and Mortgage.
5. Plaintiff gave the requisite notice to Defendants
of their default and despite such notice, Defendants failed
to pay the amounts owed to Plaintiff.
6. As a result of Defendants' material default under
the Note and Mortgage, Plaintiff is entitled to foreclose
upon the property secured and encumbered by the Mortgage.
The circuit court also appointed a commissioner to conduct the
sale and entered its judgment.
HQHQ and Quinn did not appeal from this April 19, 2017
order and judgment.
6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
3. Oyadomari's Motion to Confirm Sale
The foreclosure sale was held on July 17, 2017, and
Oyadomari entered the final and highest bid of $375,100.00.
Oyadomari then moved to confirm the sale. Oyadomari also
requested: "to satisfy the purchase price by way of an offset
of the amount of her secured debt in the event that [she] is the
confirmed purchaser of the subject property"; direct the
commissioner to convey the property via quitclaim deed to the
confirmed purchaser; award the commissioner fees and expenses as
determined by the circuit court; and discharge the commissioner
once the sale was complete. In addition, Oyadomari sought a
writ of possession or ejectment.
4. Quinn's Motion to Compel Oyadomari to Accept Full
Payment
On October 9, 2017, over five months after the circuit
court granted Oyadomari's motion for summary judgment and
interlocutory decree of foreclosure, Quinn moved to compel
Oyadomari to accept full payment, relying on Hawai‘i Rules of
Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rules 60(b)(2), (b)(5), and (b)(6), and
the court's powers of equity. Quinn requested "an order
compelling [Oyadomari] to accept full payment for the June 20,
2008 Promissory Note, and all other orders necessary to allow
[Quinn] to close the $250,000 loan approved by First Hawaiian
Bank."
7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
In the memorandum supporting his motion to compel
Oyadomari to accept full payment, Quinn contended he had a
"right to redeem" and that his "legal obligation to pay
[Oyadomari] includes the reciprocal legal right to receive the
benefit of the bargain." Relying on HRCP Rules 60(b)(2),
(b)(5), and (b)(6), Quinn maintained that when he would be able
to pay Oyadomari "the full amount due under the June 20, 2008
Promissory Note it" would "no longer [be] equitable to proceed
with the foreclosure sale of the property." Quinn stated he
believed Oyadomari was trying to foreclose on the property
because it would provide access to the main road from her
parcel, thus making development of the land "much more
valuable[.]" Quinn also believed this was the same reason "why
[Oyadomari] opposed being paid in full."
5. October 13, 2017 Order
At the October 11, 2017 hearing, the circuit court
considered Quinn's motion to compel Oyadomari to accept full
payment. Quinn argued the court had the authority to compel
Oyadomari to accept the payment because "the law is clear as far
as the Court's broad discretion sitting in equity to grant the
relief" and per HRCP Rule 60(b)(5), where "it is no longer
equitable . . . that [a] judgment" should apply prospectively,
the court has authority to grant relief as requested.
8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Oyadomari opposed the motion because she did not
believe the court had the authority to compel her to accept
Quinn's "settlement offer[.]" She also argued that she was
exercising her statutorily and contractually based remedies, and
maintained that Quinn's arguments at this hearing, instead,
should have been made in opposition to her motion for summary
judgment. Oyadomari stated there was no authority at the time
of this hearing, "to say that pursuant to contract law the
defendants have the right to redeem or force" acceptance of the
"settlement offer."
Regarding Oyadomari's motion to confirm the sale,
Quinn and HQHQ requested the commissioner take additional bids,
and then requested the court modify the bidding procedure by
allowing a subsequent bid to be three percent over the prior bid
instead of the normal procedure of five percent over the prior
bid. 3 The circuit court allowed both parties to re-bid on the
property at the hearing. Oyadomari entered the prevailing bid
of $413,547.75.
On October 13, 2017, the circuit court entered an
order denying Quinn's motion to compel Oyadomari to accept full
payment and granting Oyadomari's motion to confirm the sale.
Under Hawai‘i Probate Rules Rule 70(b), in a sale of real property,
3
"[i]f an initial bid has been offered and accepted, a further overbid from
any person shall be permitted at least five percent greater than the initial
acceptable bid."
9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
6. Quinn's Motion for Reconsideration
Quinn moved for reconsideration of the October 13,
2017 order, again relying on HRCP Rules 60(b)(2), 60(b)(5) and
60(b)(6). In his motion for reconsideration, Quinn claimed
denying his motion to compel Oyadomari to accept full payment
and granting Oyadomari's motion to confirm the sale "without
explanation is erroneous as a matter of law."
On November 24, 2017, the circuit court denied Quinn's
motion for reconsideration. 4 The circuit court found that the
motion for reconsideration failed "to present any new evidence
or arguments that could not have been presented prior" and noted
a motion for reconsideration "should be more than a forum to
express dissatisfaction with the Court's Order."
7. The November 28, 2017 Orders and Judgment
On November 28, 2017, the circuit court again granted
Oyadomari's motion to confirm the sale. In its findings of
fact, the circuit court found that the tax assessed value of the
property was $237,800.00 and Oyadomari's bid of $413,547.75
"significantly exceeds" the property's value. In its
conclusions of law, the circuit court concluded Oyadomari's bid
for the property was "fair and equitable"; the commissioner's
fees and expenses were fair, reasonable, and necessarily
4 Also in this order, the circuit court denied a motion for leave to
file a counterclaim and crossclaim filed by Quinn on October 10, 2017.
10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
incurred; and Oyadomari's requested attorney's fees and costs
were fair, reasonable, and necessarily incurred. The circuit
court entered a judgment "pursuant to [HRCP Rule 54(b)] as there
is no just reason for delay."
That same day, the circuit court issued a writ of
possession. The writ stated that Oyadomari was "entitled to
possession of the subject property and a writ of ejectment
against Defendants" and commanded the sheriff to remove
Defendants, "and all persons holding by, through or under said
defendants."
The circuit court also entered a second order denying
Quinn's motion to compel Oyadomari to accept full payment.
8. Oyadomari's Motion to Alter or Amend the Confirmation
of Sale
Oyadomari moved to alter or amend the November 28,
2017 order granting her motion to confirm the sale. Oyadomari
asked the court to award her additional attorney's fees and
costs, allow her to offset all the awarded fees and costs
against the property's confirmed purchase price, and withhold
"distribution of any excess sale proceeds pending" her
"execution and enforcement of the Writ of Possession[.]"
Quinn filed both a memorandum in opposition and a
motion to strike Oyadomari's motion to alter or amend the
November 28, 2017 order granting her motion to confirm the sale.
11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
The circuit court granted Oyadomari's motion and denied Quinn's
motion.
HQHQ and Quinn filed a notice of appeal on
December 28, 2017.
II. DISCUSSION
HQHQ and Quinn raise two points of error, alleging
(1) the circuit court erred in failing to grant relief from the
interlocutory decree of foreclosure and (2) all orders entered
after the October 13, 2017 order require reversal. We affirm.
A. The Circuit Court Did Not Abuse its Discretion in Denying
Quinn's Motions for Relief
In their first point of error, HQHQ and Quinn argue
that the circuit court "committed grave error by failing to
grant relief from the interlocutory decree of foreclosure where
it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have
prospective application," asserting:
Where (1) [Oyadomari] would be paid in full, (2) Mr. Quinn
had a commercial loan commitment from First Hawaiian Bank
for $250,000.00 to be applied to paying [Oyadomari] in
full, (3) the court would hold a hearing to determine the
full amount to be paid to [Oyadomari], and (4) a court
ordered escrow account would ensure [Oyadomari] was paid in
full, the trial court committed grave error by failing to
grant relief from the interlocutory decree of foreclosure
where it is no longer equitable that the judgment should
have prospective application.
(Formatting altered.)
12
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
We again note that HQHQ and Quinn did not appeal from
the April 19, 2017 order granting Oyadomari's motion for summary
judgment and interlocutory decree of foreclosure or the related
judgment and, thus, waived any appeal from that order or
judgment. Quinn instead attacked the order and judgment through
his October 9, 2017 motion to compel Oyadomari to accept full
payment and his November 2, 2017 motion for reconsideration,
relying on HRCP Rules 60(b)(2), (b)(5), and (b)(6).
On appeal, again relying on HRCP Rules 60(b)(2),
(b)(5), and (b)(6), HQHQ and Quinn argue that "[a]ll of the
equities establish that the interlocutory decree of foreclosure
no longer has prospective application." HQHQ and Quinn further
argue that when Oyadomari "will receive full payment the result
[will be] the same as . . . when a judgment is paid" thereby
relieving her of the "obligation to pay Defendant[s] the amount
in excess of the debt she is owed under the promissory note."
HRCP Rule 60(b) provides in relevant part:
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may
relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a
final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
reasons:
. . . .
(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could
not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial
under Rule 59(b);
. . . .
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has
been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer
13
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
equitable that the judgment should have prospective
application; or
(6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation
of the judgment.
(Formatting altered.)
The circuit court's rulings on a motion based on HRCP
Rules 60(b)(2), (b)(5), and/or (b)(6) are reviewed for abuse of
discretion. See Beneficial Hawaii, Inc. v. Casey, 98 Hawai‘i
159, 164, 45 P.3d 359, 364 (2002); Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki
Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Haw. 85, 114, 839 P.2d 10, 26 (1992)
(explaining abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court has
"clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or disregarded rules or
principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a
party litigant").
"Furthermore, the burden of establishing abuse of
discretion is on appellant, and a strong showing is required to
establish it." Ek v. Boggs, 102 Hawai‘i 289, 294-95, 75 P.3d
1180, 1185-86 (2003) (citation, internal quotation marks, and
brackets omitted).
1. HRCP Rule 60(b)(2)
First, HRCP Rule 60(b)(2) may provide relief if the
evidence was (1) "previously undiscovered even though due
diligence was exercised;" (2) "admissible and credible;" and
(3) "of such material and controlling nature as will probably
change the outcome and not merely cumulative or [t]ending only
14
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
to impeach or contradict a witness." Omerod v. Heirs of
Kaheananui, 116 Hawai‘i 239, 277, 172 P.3d 983, 1021 (2007)
(citation and emphasis omitted).
HQHQ and Quinn rely on "a commercial loan commitment
from First Hawaiian Bank for $250,000.00 to be applied to paying
[Oyadomari] in full," which was dated October 5, 2017.
Unchallenged findings show that (1) "[p]ursuant to the
terms of the Note, all amounts owed under the Note were due and
payable on June 6, 2015"; (2) as of June 6, 2015, HQHQ and Quinn
owed $312,305.73; (3) HQHQ and Quinn failed to pay the amount
owed by June 6, 2015; and (4) Oyadomari filed a complaint to
foreclose on November 29, 2016. The record shows that the
circuit court granted Oyadomari's motion for summary judgment
and interlocutory decree of foreclosure, and entered its
judgment, on April 19, 2017.
Dated October 5, 2017, the First Hawaiian Bank loan
commitment was created over two years after the Note was due
and, thus, was not previously undiscovered evidence. Further,
the loan commitment was for $250,000.00 while the amount due on
June 6, 2015 was $312,305.73. 5 Thus, nothing in the First
Hawaiian Bank loan commitment changes the default on the Note or
is "of such material and controlling nature as will probably
5 Quinn asserted that "[w]ith the $250,000 First Hawaiian Bank loan and
his additional liquid assets [he] can pay" the full amount owed under the
Note. Quinn, however, did not elaborate on his additional liquid assets.
15
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
change the outcome." See generally, Omerod, 116 Hawai‘i at 277,
172 P.3d at 1021.
2. HRCP Rule 60(b)(5)
Next, "HRCP Rule 60(b)(5) is based on the historic
power of a court of equity to modify its decree in the light of
changed circumstances." In re Hawaiian Elec. Co., 149 Hawai‘i
343, 362, 489 P.3d 1255, 1274 (2021) (citation omitted). HRCP
Rule 60(b)(5) "is not a substitute for an appeal" but "refers to
'some change in conditions that makes continued enforcement
inequitable.'" Id. "The burden is on the movant to
'demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying relief.'"
Id.The only circumstance that changed after the default
of the Note was the First Hawaiian Bank loan commitment for
$250,000.00. But that loan commitment was offered over two
years after the Note was due, over ten months after the
complaint to foreclose was filed, over five months after the
court granted Oyadomari's motion for summary judgment and
interlocutory decree of foreclosure, and did not cover the
amount owed on the Note. Untimely and insufficient alternative
financing was not an extraordinary circumstance justifying
relief from the interlocutory decree of foreclosure and the
related judgment.
16
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
3. HRCP Rule 60(b)(6)
Finally, under HRCP Rule 60(b)(6), "the movant must
show that (1) the motion is based on some reason other than
those specifically stated in clauses 60(b)(1) through (5);
(2) the reason urged is such as to justify the relief; and
(3) the motion is made within a reasonable time." Cvitanovich-
Dubie v. Dubie, 125 Hawai‘i 128, 144, 254 P.3d 439, 455 (2011)
(citation and emphasis omitted). "A party seeking relief under
HRCP Rule 60(b)(6) after the time of appeal has run must
establish the existence of 'extraordinary circumstances' that
prevented or rendered him unable to prosecute an appeal."
Hawai‘i Hous. Auth. v. Uyehara, 77 Hawai‘i 144, 148-49, 883 P.2d
65, 69-70 (1994) (citation omitted).
Again, the unchallenged findings show HQHQ and Quinn
failed to pay the $312,305.73 owed by June 6, 2015, and they did
not appeal the April 19, 2017 order granting the motion for
summary judgment and interlocutory decree of foreclosure, and
judgment. As they do in their HRCP Rules 60(b)(2) and (b)(5)
arguments, HQHQ and Quinn rely on the First Hawaiian Bank loan
commitment to say Quinn can now afford to pay off the loan.
However, obtaining financing over two years after the default,
over ten months after the complaint to foreclose was filed, and
over five months after the order granting summary judgment and
interlocutory decree of foreclosure, did not establish
17
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
extraordinary circumstances that rendered HQHQ and Quinn unable
to prosecute an appeal and did not justify relief from the
interlocutory decree of foreclosure and related judgment.
Based on the record before us, HQHQ and Quinn did not
meet their burden of showing there was newly discovered
evidence, the judgment was no longer equitable, or any other
reason justifying relief. See generally, HRCP Rule 60(b); Ek v.
Boggs, 102 Hawai‘i at 294-95, 75 P.3d at 1185-86. Thus, we
cannot say that the circuit court abused its discretion in its
October 13, 2017 order by, as HQHQ and Quinn phrase the issue,
"failing to grant relief from the interlocutory decree of
foreclosure" based on HRCP Rule 60(b). (Formatting altered.)
B. Challenge to Orders Subsequent to the October 13, 2017
Order is Waived
In their second point of error, HQHQ and Quinn contend
"[w]here the trial court committed grave error by entering the
October 13, 2017 [Order], the reversal of the October 13, 2017
Order requires reversal of all subsequent Orders, Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law and decisions[.]" (Formatting altered.)
HQHQ and Quinn's entire argument consists of the following two
sentences:
"This point is procedural and straight forward.
All of the court's actions after the October 13,
2017 Order must be set aside as they are based on
an order that no longer exists."
18
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP)
Rule 28(b)(7) requires an argument to "contain[] the contentions
of the appellant on the points presented and the reasons
therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts
of the record relied on. . . . Points not argued may be deemed
waived." In addition, "[a]n appellate court need not address
matters as to which the appellant has failed to present a
discernible argument." Int'l Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Carbonel, 93
Hawai‘i 464, 473, 5 P.3d 454, 463 (2000).
HQHQ and Quinn provide no analysis, and cite no legal
authority to support this point of error. In short, HQHQ and
Quinn did not comply with HRAP Rule 28(b)(7) and did not present
a discernible argument. We consider this argument waived.
In any event, as explained above, the circuit court
did not err in entering its October 13, 2017 order. Therefore,
HQHQ and Quinn's second point of error also lacks merit.
III. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Circuit Court of
the Third Circuit's:
1. October 13, 2017 "Order Denying [Quinn's] Motion
for Order Compelling [Oyadomari] to Accept Full
Payment of the June 20, 2008 Promissory Note,
Filed on October 9, 2017 and Granting
19
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
[Oyadomari's] Motion to Confirm Sale, Filed on
July 31, 2017";
2. November 24, 2017 "Order Denying Motion for Leave
to File [Quinn's] Counterclaim and Crossclaim,
Filed on October 10, 2017 and Motion for
Reconsideration of October 13, 2017 Ruling
Denying [Quinn's] Motion for Order Compelling
[Oyadomari] to Accept Full Payment of June 20,
2008 Promissory Note (And Objection to
Plaintiff's Notice of Submission Dated
October 24, 2017[ )], Filed on November 2, 2017";
3. November 28, 2017 "Order Denying [Quinn's] Motion
for Order Compelling [Oyadomari] to Accept Full
Payment of the June 20, 2008 Promissory Note";
4. November 28, 2017 "Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law and Order Granting [Oyadomari's] Motion to
Confirm Sale";
5. November 28, 2017 Writ of Possession;
6. November 28, 2017 Judgment;
7. January 24, 2018 "Order Granting [Oyadomari's]
Motion to Alter or Amend Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order Granting
[Oyadomari's] Motion to Confirm Sale Filed
November 28, 2017";
20
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
8. January 24, 2018 "Order Denying [Quinn's] Motion
to Strike [Oyadomari's] Motion to Alter or Amend
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order
Granting [Oyadomari's] Motion to Confirm Sale
Filed November 28, 2017"; and
9. January 24, 2018 Amended Judgment.
(Some formatting altered.)
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, June 21, 2023.
On the briefs: /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
Chief Judge
Andrew S. Iwashita,
for Defendant-Appellant /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
William S. Quinn. Associate Judge
Edmund W.K. Haitsuka, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Danielle N. Degele-Mathews, Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellee
Sharman M. Oyadomari, Trustee
of the Kikuko Kuwahara
Irrevocable Grantor Trust
dated April 26, 2013.
21