The Doctrine of Unique Circumstances and Extending Appeal Deadlines

• Publication year: 2012

The Doctrine of Unique Circumstances and Extending Appeal Deadlines

by Rebecca A. Copeland

Reliance on invalid circuit court extensions of time for appeals has long been a problem for Hawaii appellate lawyers. Generally, an appeal must be filed within thirty days after the entry of a final judgment or order.¹ The Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure allow for parties to seek extensions of time from the lower court or agency to file a notice of appeal before the initial time period has expired "upon a showing of good cause[.]"² In some cases, parties have sought to comply with the extension rule by submitting stipulations — or agreed upon extensions of time — which are then approved by the court or agency. However, the question has remained whether such stipulations, and other otherwise invalid orders extending time upon which parties have relied, will suffice to extend the appeal deadline.

The Hawaii Supreme Court recently provided an answer — and some relief for parties who rely on invalid circuit court extensions of time — in Cabral v. State.³ In Cabral, the Supreme Court unanimously held that an otherwise untimely appeal premised upon a stipulated extension of time was valid under the unique circumstances doctrine.⁴ According to the Supreme Court, although the circuit court erred by extending the appeal deadline, an appellate court may nevertheless excuse the untimeliness of the appeal if (1) the extension order is issued within the original thirty day appeal time frame, (2) the order extends the appeal deadline, and (3) the order is later deemed invalid.⁵

In Cabral, the circuit court entered its final judgment in favor of the State on April 20, 2007. Ten days later, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied on June 7, 2007 — establishing a July 9, 2007 notice of appeal deadline⁶ (the thirty-day limit expired on a Saturday, thus the deadline ran the following Monday).⁷ On July 6, 2007, during the thirty-day appeal time frame, the parties submitted, and the circuit court approved (without providing written reasons for the approval), a stipulation to extend the notice of appeal deadline until July 23, 2007. The appeal was filed within the extended deadline.⁸

On appeal, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals sua sponte addressed whether it had jurisdiction to consider the appeal.⁹ Relying on the extension rule — Hawaii Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A) — the court held that the stipulation to extend was "an unauthorized procedural device."¹⁰ According to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, "the purported extension was substantively insufficient" because the plaintiffs did not show, and the circuit court did not find, "good cause."¹¹ Thus, it dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.¹²

On certiorari, the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed the Intermediate Court of...