points error in Hawaii

2026Nevertheless, "a pro se litigant's failure to state the alleged errors of the lower court in precise compliance with HRAP Rule 28(b) . . . will not foreclose consideration of the appeal, so long as the litigant's argument can reasonably be discerned." Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawaiʻi 368, 380, 465 P.3d 815, 827 (2020) (cleaned up).

2025See Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai‘i 368, 380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020). 3 Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve the points of error as discussed below, and affirm.

2025Okada Trucking Co. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 97 Hawai‘i 450, 458, 40 P.3d 73, 81 (2002). 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve the points of error as discussed below, and affirm.

2007See Okada Trucking Co., Ltd. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 97 Hawai'i 450, 458 , 40 P.3d 73, 81 (2002) (“Findings of fact ... that are not challenged *349 on appeal are binding on the appellate court.”); Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4) (the opening brief must contain “[a] concise statement of the points of error set forth in separately numbered paragraphs....

2021It is Waltrip's burden, as the appellant, "to show error by reference to matters in the record, and [appellant] has the responsibility of providing an adequate transcript." Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai#i 225, 230, 909 P.2d 553, 558 (1995) 2 (...continued) . . . . (4) A concise statement of the points of error set forth in separately numbered paragraphs.

2009As a preliminary matter, the State's brief fails to comply with the requirements of Hawai`i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4) in that it fails to include a "concise statement of the points of error." " [F]ailure to comply with HRAP [Rule] 28(b)(4) is alone sufficient to affirm the judgment of the circuit court." O'Connor v. Diocese of Honolulu, 77 Hawai`i 383, 385, 885 P.2d 361, 363 (1994); Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai`i 225, 228, 909 P.2d 553, 556 (1995); City & County of Honolulu v. Kailua Auto Wreckers, Inc., 66 Haw. 532, 534 , 668 P.2d 34, 35 (1983).

2025This kitchen-sink approach violates Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b)(4) which requires "[a] concise statement of the points of error set forth in separately numbered paragraphs." (Emphasis added.) Gleaned from SKR's argument section, SKR appears to contend, as best we can tell, that the Environmental Court erred in granting the MSJs because: (1) the FEA failed in several respects to fully disclose and assess all of the information required by HRS Chapter 343 and HAR Chapter 11-200, which information was necessary for DLNR and the Board to properly evaluate the possible environme

2025This kitchen-sink approach violates Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b)(4) which requires "[a] concise statement of the points of error set forth in separately numbered paragraphs." (Emphasis added.) Gleaned from SKR's argument section, SKR appears to contend, as best we can tell, that the Environmental Court erred in granting the MSJs because: (1) the FEA failed in several respects to fully disclose and assess all of the information required by HRS Chapter 343 and HAR Chapter 11-200, which information was necessary for DLNR and the Board to properly evaluate the possible environme

2021In Omerod v. Heirs of Kaheananui, 116 Hawai#i 239, 262, 172 P.3d 983, 1006 (2007), the Hawai#i Supreme Court disregarded points of error due to noncompliance with HRAP Rule 28(b)(4)(ii) and (iii) and (b)(4)(C), holding that appellants "are required to do more than assert bald points of error," and that "cursory treatment of the points of appeal cannot reasonably be considered compliant with HRAP Rule 28(b)(4)." Similarly, in Nuuanu Valley Ass'n v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 119 Hawai#i 90, 2 HRAP Rule 28(b)(4) states in pertinent part, (b) Opening brief. . . . [T]he appellant shall file an ope

2014See e.g., Omerod v. Heirs of Kaheananui, 116 Hawai'i 239, 263 , 172 P.3d 983, 1007 (2007) (stating that due to the briefs noncompliance with HRAP Rule 28(b)—which would require the court to sift through the more than 6,000 page record to determine the specific errors—the points of error regarding the lower court’s decision would be disregarded).

2026(Emphasis added.) By its plain language, HRS § 514B-146(n) applies "[a]fter any judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding in which the association acquires title to the unit." Id.; see also Barker, 153 Hawaiʻi at 149, 528 P.3d at 222 ("The rules of statutory interpretation require us to apply a plain language analysis when statutory language is clear.

2026(Emphasis added.) By its plain language, HRS § 514B-146(n) applies "[a]fter any judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding in which the association acquires title to the unit." Id.; see also Barker, 153 Hawaiʻi at 149, 528 P.3d at 222 ("The rules of statutory interpretation require us to apply a plain language analysis when statutory language is clear.

2024"On appeal, the issue of standing is reviewed de novo under the right/wrong standard." Abaya v. Mantell, 112 Hawai‘i 176, 180, 145 P.3d 719, 723 (2006).

2024"On appeal, the issue of standing is reviewed de novo under the right/wrong standard." Abaya v. Mantell, 112 Hawai‘i 176, 180, 145 P.3d 719, 723 (2006).

2024To establish standing to foreclose, the "plaintiff must necessarily prove its entitlement to enforce the note as it is the default on the note that gives rise to the action." Bank of Am., N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo, 139 Hawaiʻi 361, 368, 390 P.3d 1248, 1255 (2017).

2023See, e.g., Querubin v. Thronas, 107 Hawai#i 48, 56, 109 P.3d 689, 697 (2005). 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER The Davises contend that U.S. Bank failed to establish that it had standing at the time of the filing of the Complaint (Complaint), as required by the Hawai#i Supreme Court in Bank of Am., N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo, 139 Hawai#i 361, 370, 390 P.3d 1248, 1257 (2017), and subsequent cases.

2023See Marvin v. Pflueger, 127 Hawai#i 490, 496, 280 P.3d 88, 94 (2012) (internal citations, quotation marks, brackets, and ellipses omitted) (addressing cases on their merits despite noncompliance with HRAP Rule 28, "where the remaining (continued...) NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER contending that the District Court erred by: (1) "not suppressing Boyers['s] un-Mirandized statements made in response to custodial interrogation and evidence that is 'fruit' of those statements"; (2) "granting, over the defense's objections, the [Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai#i

2023See Marvin v. Pflueger, 127 Hawai #i 490, 496, 280 P.3d 88, 94 (2012) ("Nonetheless, noncompliance with Rule 28 does not always result in dismissal of the claims, and this court has consistently adhered to the policy of affording litigants the opportunity to have their cases heard on the merits, where possible.") (citation, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted). 12 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER that "the trial court based its sentencing decisions on unsubstantiated claims made by the DPA" and "the parole agent witness," and the trial court plainly

2022Tatibouet, 123 Hawai#i at 510, 236 P.3d at 1246 ("[A]lthough a claim for attorney's fees does not preserve a case which has otherwise become moot on appeal, the question of attorney's fees is ancillary to the underlying action and survives independently under the Court's equitable jurisdiction.") (cleaned up).

2022Tatibouet, 123 Hawai#i at 510, 236 P.3d at 1246 ("[A]lthough a claim for attorney's fees does not preserve a case which has otherwise become moot on appeal, the question of attorney's fees is ancillary to the underlying action and survives independently under the Court's equitable jurisdiction.") (cleaned up).

2012Thus, in O'Connor v. Diocese of Honolulu, 77 Hawai'i 383, 386 , 885 P.2d 361, 364 (1994), this court, "pursuant to HRAP Rule 2,” ”elect[ed]” to "address the issue posed by th[e] appeal[,]” despite its lack of compliance with HRAP Rule 28(b)(4), quoted supra. See State v. Rees, No. 27349, 112 Hawai’i 2, 2006 WL 2860183 , at *2 (Haw.App.

2009As a preliminary matter, the State's brief fails to comply with the requirements of Hawai`i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4) in that it fails to include a "concise statement of the points of error." " [F]ailure to comply with HRAP [Rule] 28(b)(4) is alone sufficient to affirm the judgment of the circuit court." O'Connor v. Diocese of Honolulu, 77 Hawai`i 383, 385, 885 P.2d 361, 363 (1994); Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai`i 225, 228, 909 P.2d 553, 556 (1995); City & County of Honolulu v. Kailua Auto Wreckers, Inc., 66 Haw. 532, 534 , 668 P.2d 34, 35 (1983).

2020Corp. v. Ferguson, 91 Hawai‘i 81, 85-86, 979 P.2d 1107, 1111-12 (1999) (addressing an appeal on the merits despite the fact that the opening brief fell “woefully short” of the requirements of HRAP Rule 28(b) and did not state the points of error alleged or where in the record the errors occurred and contained a one- sentence statement of the case); In re Estate of Damon, 119 Hawai‘i 500, 503-04, 199 P.3d 89, 92-93 (2008) (addressing the merits of one of appellants arguments despite the fact that the citation for the relevant point of error was located in the statement of the case); Wagner v. W

2012Damon at 512 n. 11, 199 P.3d at 101 n. 11. .

2016She further asserts that the issue of “the pre-trial custody of an alleged defendant affects the public interest, vrill arise in the future, and will almost always become moot before a needed authoritative determination by an appellate court can be made.” As to the last point, the Director also argues that “a real question of law remains unsettled” because “the interpretation and application of HRS chapter 704 affects the proceedings of all criminal cases (in which mental competency is at issue)[.]” The Director therefore requests that the ICA’s dismissal order be vacated and this case remande

2016She further asserts that the issue of “the pre-trial custody of an alleged defendant affects the public interest, vrill arise in the future, and will almost always become moot before a needed authoritative determination by an appellate court can be made.” As to the last point, the Director also argues that “a real question of law remains unsettled” because “the interpretation and application of HRS chapter 704 affects the proceedings of all criminal cases (in which mental competency is at issue)[.]” The Director therefore requests that the ICA’s dismissal order be vacated and this case remande

2013Dir. of Courts, 108 Hawai'i 31, 37 , 116 P.3d 673, 679 (2005) (brackets omitted)).

2013Dir. of Courts, 108 Hawai'i 31, 37 , 116 P.3d 673, 679 (2005) (brackets omitted)).

2012Kernan v. Tanaka, 75 Haw. 1, 15 , 856 P.2d 1207, 1215 (1993) (cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1119 , 114 S.Ct. 1070 , 127 L.Ed.2d 389 (1994)) (“Appellate courts have an obligation to insure they have jurisdiction to hear and determine each case.”) The Commission, HC & S, and WWC argue that Hui/MTF and OHA do not have a right of appeal, and therefore the court has no jurisdiction in this matter.

2012Kernan v. Tanaka, 75 Haw. 1, 15 , 856 P.2d 1207, 1215 (1993) (cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1119 , 114 S.Ct. 1070 , 127 L.Ed.2d 389 (1994)) (“Appellate courts have an obligation to insure they have jurisdiction to hear and determine each case.”) The Commission, HC & S, and WWC argue that Hui/MTF and OHA do not have a right of appeal, and therefore the court has no jurisdiction in this matter.

2026See Bush v. Hawaiian Homes Comm'n, 76 Hawaiʻi 128, 133, 870 P.2d 1272, 1277 (1994) ("[T]hough a lower court is found to have lacked jurisdiction, we have jurisdiction here on appeal, not of the merits, but for the purpose of correcting an error in jurisdiction." (citation omitted)).

2026See Bush v. Hawaiian Homes Comm'n, 76 Hawaiʻi 128, 133, 870 P.2d 1272, 1277 (1994) ("[T]hough a lower court is found to have lacked jurisdiction, we have jurisdiction here on appeal, not of the merits, but for the purpose of correcting an error in jurisdiction." (citation omitted)).

2026CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX (1) Herbert and Patricia contend that the probate court erred in "approv[ing] [Amano's] compensation without waiting for the outcome of [the Surcharge Petition]." They contend that the probate court could not properly evaluate the reasonableness of Amano's requested compensation without "tak[ing] into account the outcome of the [S]urcharge [P]etition." 7 "In an action for an accounting, a court of equity is called upon to determine the propriety of every entry in an estate's account." In re Est. of Bishop, 53 Haw. 604, 605 , 499 P.2d 670, 671 (1972).

2026CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX (1) Herbert and Patricia contend that the probate court erred in "approv[ing] [Amano's] compensation without waiting for the outcome of [the Surcharge Petition]." They contend that the probate court could not properly evaluate the reasonableness of Amano's requested compensation without "tak[ing] into account the outcome of the [S]urcharge [P]etition." 7 "In an action for an accounting, a court of equity is called upon to determine the propriety of every entry in an estate's account." In re Est. of Bishop, 53 Haw. 604, 605 , 499 P.2d 670, 671 (1972).

2025See, e.g., Kauhane, 145 Hawai i at 374, 452 P.3d at 371 . (4-7) In light of our decision to vacate and remand the case to the Circuit Court to be dismissed without prejudice based on the insufficiency of the 2022 Complaint, we need not reach the other points of error Bekkum raises on appeal. 4 See, e.g., State v. Borochov, 86 Hawai i 183, 193-94, 948 P.2d 604, 614-15 (App. 1997) (declining to reach other points of error where appellate court decided to vacate and remand case based on insufficient complaint); State v. Cummings, 101 Hawai i 139, 145, 63 P.3d 1109, 1115 (2003), overruled on other

2025A. Under the Method 1 height restriction, "[n]o portion of any building or other structure, except antennas and chimneys, shall be more than 18 feet above the highest existing ground elevation at the building or structure[,]" Sandomire, 144 Hawai#i at 326, 439 P.3d at 278, and this "is determined based on the topography and elevation conditions 'existing' as of the 'as is' date," versus future or changed "topography and elevation conditions resulting from cutting and/or filling done by a lot owner after that date." Id. at 327 n.11, 439 P.3d at 279 n.11. "[E]xpert testimony may be of assistance

2025A. Under the Method 1 height restriction, "[n]o portion of any building or other structure, except antennas and chimneys, shall be more than 18 feet above the highest existing ground elevation at the building or structure[,]" Sandomire, 144 Hawai#i at 326, 439 P.3d at 278, and this "is determined based on the topography and elevation conditions 'existing' as of the 'as is' date," versus future or changed "topography and elevation conditions resulting from cutting and/or filling done by a lot owner after that date." Id. at 327 n.11, 439 P.3d at 279 n.11. "[E]xpert testimony may be of assistance

2025See Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 3(a) ("Failure of an appellant to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground only for such action as the appellate court deems appropriate[.]"); see also State v. Graybeard, 93 Hawai‛i 513, 518, 6 P.3d 385, 390 (App. 2000) ("[O]ur appellate courts have ignored formal jurisdictional defects that are due to the derelictions of a criminal defendant's attorney.") (citations omitted). 2 The Honorable Kevin A. Souza presided over 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX and 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX. 3 HRS § 7

2025"The existence of jurisdiction is a question of law [reviewed] de novo under the right/wrong standard." Amantiad v. Odum, 90 Hawaiʻi 152, 158, 977 P.2d 160, 166 (1999) (citation omitted).

2025Upon careful review of the record and relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve the AOAO's contentions as follows: (1) We address the AOAO's points of error out of order to first resolve the question of whether the Circuit Court had "jurisdiction and authority to dismiss the case." See Norris v. Six Flags Theme Parks, Inc., 102 Hawaiʻi 203, 206, 74 P.3d 26, 29 (2003) (noting "[t]he United States Supreme Court has said that jurisdiction generally must precede merits in dispositional order.") (cleaned

2025See, e.g., Kauhane, 145 Hawai i at 374, 452 P.3d at 371 . (4-7) In light of our decision to vacate and remand the case to the Circuit Court to be dismissed without prejudice based on the insufficiency of the 2022 Complaint, we need not reach the other points of error Bekkum raises on appeal. 4 See, e.g., State v. Borochov, 86 Hawai i 183, 193-94, 948 P.2d 604, 614-15 (App. 1997) (declining to reach other points of error where appellate court decided to vacate and remand case based on insufficient complaint); State v. Cummings, 101 Hawai i 139, 145, 63 P.3d 1109, 1115 (2003), overruled on other