Case Notes

• Publication year: 2014

CASE NOTES

Supreme Court

Civil Procedure

Kellberg v. Yuen, No. SCWC-12-0000266, January 22, 2014, (Pollack, J.). This appeal arose out of a decision by the Planning Director of the County of Hawaii to approve a subdivision on the subject property. Appellant, an adjacent land owner, filed an action challenging the subdivision approval. The Hawaii Supreme Court reversed the ICA decision that it did not have jurisdiction because Appellant did not exhaust his administrative remedies.

Lahaina Fashions, Inc. v. Bank of Hawaii, No. SCWC-30644, January 7, 2014, (Acoba, J.). Appellant defaulted on its mortgage and therefore agreed to sell the real property to the Appellee and lease it back. Appellant retained the option to repurchase the property. However, Appellant's leasehold interest was sold to a third party as a result of a bankruptcy sale. Appellant filed a complaint and issues later arose concerning the jury's answers to questions on the special verdict form. On appeal the Hawaii Supreme Court held that: (1) depending on the circumstances, a court may recall a jury following discharge if the jury is in the presence of, under the direction of, or subject to the control of the court; (2) a special verdict form cannot be amended simply because the jury realized that its answers to the special verdict form caused a result opposite from what it intended or misunderstood the legal effect of its answer to a special verdict question; and (3) a contract to convey property does not create a trust relationship between the vendor and the purchaser of the property and therefore does not impose any fiduciary duties on the vendor.

Lambert v. Teisina, No. SCWC-12-0001204, January 10, 2014, (Per Curiam). The Appellants applied for certiorari review of the ICAs dismissal of their appeal of a Confirmation Order for lack of jurisdiction. Appellants argued that the Confirmation Order was a final, appealable order in the absence of a final judgment under the exception in Forgay v. Conrad, 47 U.S. 201 (1848). The Hawaii Supreme Court agreed with Appellants that the Confirmation Order was a final appealable order under the Forgay doctrine.

Appeal Pointers

A statement of jurisdiction must be filed by an appellant and a cross-appellant within 10 days after the record on appeal is filed with the appellate clerk. HRAP 12.1(a). An appeal or cross-appeal is in default if the statement of jurisdiction is not filed. Relief from default must be obtained from the appellate court.

Criminal

State v. Armitage, No. SCWC-29794, January 28, 2014, (Acoba, J. with Recktenwald, C.J. concurring and dissenting with whom Nakayama, J. joined). Appellee State filed complaints against Appellants for the offense of Entrance into the Reserve. The Hawaii Supreme Court concluded that the charges must be dismissed because they failed to charge the requisite state of mind intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.

Recktenwald, C.J., joined by Nakayama, J. concurred and dissented based on Recktenwald, C.J.'s opinion in State v. Apollonio, 130 Hawaii 353, 311 P.3d 676 that the lack of a mens rea allegation in the charges required the cases be dismissed without prejudice despite Appellants' lack of objection to the sufficiency of the charges. However, Recktenwald, C.J. concurred he would affirm Appellants' convictions based on their arguments on the merits.

State v. Baker, No. SCWC-11-0000666, January 27, 2014, (Recktenwald, C.J. with Acoba, J...