Case Notes

• Jurisdiction: Hawaii,United States
• Citation: Vol. 22 No. 12
• Publication year: 2018

Case Notes

[Page 26]

Supreme Court

Arbitration

Bennett v. Chung, No. SCWC-16-0000784, October 9, 2018, (Nakayama, J.). After an arbitrator issues an arbitration award, parties to the arbitration proceeding may file motions to confirm or to vacate the award in court. Generally, a party must file a motion to vacate an arbitration award within ninety days after it receives notice of the award. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 658A-23 (Supp. 2001). On the other hand, a party may file a motion to confirm the award at any time after receiving notice of the award. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 658A-22 (Supp. 2001). This case presented two related questions involving these provisions: first, whether the time to file a motion to vacate an arbitration award is limited by the opposing party's filing of a motion to confirm; and second, how an order denying a motion to vacate an arbitration award can be properly appealed. In this case, Respondents/Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants Brian E. Bennett and Debra S. Bennett (collectively, "the Bennetts"), after receiving notice of an arbitrator's award in their favor, filed a motion to confirm the award in the circuit court. Before the ninety-day period in which Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees Samuel Jong Hoon Chung and Linda Hyunkong Chung (collectively, "the Chungs") could file a motion to vacate the award had expired, the circuit court granted the Bennetts' motion to confirm. The Chungs then filed a motion to vacate the award within the ninety-day period. The circuit court denied their motion to vacate, and the Chungs appealed the judgment of confirmation and the order denying the motion to vacate. The ICA dismissed the Chungs' appeal after they failed to file a jurisdictional statement and opening brief. Back in the circuit court, the Chungs filed a motion to amend the previous order denying their motion to vacate because they believed that the arbitration statute barred such orders from being appealed. The circuit court agreed, and amended its order to "again confirm" the award to allow the Chungs to appeal. However, the ICA dismissed the Chungs' subsequent appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. On certiorari, the Chungs argued that the ICA erred in dismissing their appeal. The Hawaii Supreme Court agreed. As a preliminary matter, the Chungs could not have appealed from the circuit court's first order denying their motion to vacate the award because Haw. Rev. Stat. Chapter 658A does not permit appeals from such orders. Therefore, the circuit court properly amended its order and judgment and reconfirmed the award to allow the Chungs to appeal. Second, because Haw. Rev. Stat. § 658A-23 clearly provides that the Chungs had ninety days, not less, to file a motion to vacate, and they filed a motion to vacate within that period, the Chungs had a right to timely appeal from the circuit court's amended order and amended judgment.

Appeal Pointer

Any point raised on appeal that requires consideration of the oral proceedings requires that the transcript be made part of the record. HRAP 10(b)(1). A transcript obtained during the course of the trial court proceeding for the...