Case Notes

• Jurisdiction: Hawaii,United States
• Citation: Vol. 16 No. 06
• Publication year: 2012

CASE NOTES

Supreme Court

Civil Procedure

Marvin v. Pflueger, No. SCWC-28501, April 27, 2012 (Nakayama, Acting C.J., with Acoba, J., concurring and dissenting). Landowners brought this lawsuit against their neighbor, seeking compensation for property damage caused by the neighbor and seeking a determination of access and water rights. The application before the Hawaii Supreme Court, however, raised questions concerning procedural aspects of the hearings before the trial court and of the appeal before the ICA. The first question presented concerned pleading standards of appellate briefs, and the remaining questions addressed the trial court's determination of which parties must participate in a lawsuit, and the procedure an appellate court should follow when reviewing that determination. The Hawaii Supreme Court concluded that the ICA did not err in reviewing the defendants' points of error on appeal but that the ICA erred in vacating the trial court's final judgment.

Plaintiffs asserted that it was grave error for the ICA to review FOFs 102 and 104 because defendants did not challenge those findings in the points of error section of their amended opening brief before the ICA. Defendants contended that the ICA had authority to review the two findings of fact because they were redundant of COL 12, which the defense properly challenged. The Hawaii Supreme Court concluded that the defendants' substantial compliance with Haw. R. App. P. Rule 28 obviated any need for the ICA to review the findings under plain error. Plaintiffs also asserted that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that a non-party owner was not an indispensible party and did not have to be joined under Haw. R. Civ. P. Rule 19.

Note: To access the full text of the opinions on-line, see the Judiciary's web site at http://www.state.hi.us/jud/ctops. htm.

Acoba, J., concurred and dissented. Justice Acoba stated that the majority foreclosed defendant from joining the non-party owner because the defendant allegedly raised joinder in an untimely manner. However, in doing so, the majority undermined the plain language and purpose of Haw. R. Civ. P. Rule 19. Not only would Justice Acoba have joined the non-party, because it was feasible to do so, the circuit court should have joined her as a party. Justice Acoba also claimed that the majority erred on other points: (1) the majority mischaracterized the non-party's interest by construing it narrowly; (2) the majority erred in holding that the non-party was not an indispensable party; (3) the majority wrongly contended that delay was the crucial factor to be considered in applying Haw. R. Civ. P. Rule 19(b) in the instant circumstances; (4) neither equity, good conscience, nor policy considerations supported the majority's position; (5) "substantial compliance" with Haw. R. App. P. Rule 28(b)(4)(C) did not need to be reached because the findings that were not challenged by defendant on appeal...