collateral consequences exception in Hawaii

2024The Lethem court applied the collateral consequences exception because "there [wa]s a reasonable possibility that the family court's issuance of the [(minor's)] TRO against Father [would] cause harm to Father's reputation . . . ." Id. at 12, 193 P.3d at 850 . 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER of repetition," it would not "evade full review . . . ." A PPA is not subject to a time restriction or expiration that would prevent such review, unlike the TRO in Lethem.

2024Lethem, 119 Hawaiʻi at 8, 193 P.3d at 846 (concluding that the reputational harm to a father’s appeal of an expired temporary restraining order based on allegations of abuse of his daughter, fell within the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine) (cleaned up). 26 ** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ** The Domingos argue the collateral consequences exception applies based on the ICA’s decision in Bank of New York Mellon v. DeShaw, Nos.

2023"To invoke successfully the collateral consequences doctrine, the litigant must show that there is a reasonable possibility that prejudicial collateral consequences will occur." Lethem, 119 Hawai‘i at 8, 193 P.3 at 846 (emphases omitted) (quoting Putman v. Kennedy, 900 A.2d 1256, 1261-62 (Conn. 2006)).

2012Where there is no direct practical relief available from the reversal of the judgment, as in this case, the collateral consequences doctrine acts as a surrogate, calling for a determination whether a decision in the case can afford the litigant some practical relief in the future. 119 Hawaii at 8 , 193 P.3d at 846 , citing Putman v. Kennedy, 279 Conn. 162, 169 , 900 A.2d 1256, 1262 (2006)(emphasis omitted).

2024The collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply because the Domingos’ first circuit lawsuit was an improper collateral attack on the foreclosure judgment In their third question on certiorari, the Domingos ask: Did the ICA err contrary to this Court’s opinions in Bank of Am., N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo, 143 Hawaii 249 , 428 P.3d 761 (2018), when it dismissed these consolidate appeals based on mootness even though a separate lawsuit remains pending in which the Domingos seek damages for Wilmington’s wrongful foreclosure, making the “collateral consequences” exception to

2024The collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply because the Domingos’ first circuit lawsuit was an improper collateral attack on the foreclosure judgment In their third question on certiorari, the Domingos ask: Did the ICA err contrary to this Court’s opinions in Bank of Am., N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo, 143 Hawaii 249 , 428 P.3d 761 (2018), when it dismissed these consolidate appeals based on mootness even though a separate lawsuit remains pending in which the Domingos seek damages for Wilmington’s wrongful foreclosure, making the “collateral consequences” exception to

2023See McCabe Hamilton & Renny Co., Ltd. v. Chung, 98 Hawai‘i 107, 121, 43 P.3d 244, 258 (App. 2002) (recognizing that "the imposition of issue preclusion where appellate review has been frustrated due to mootness is obviously unfair" and vacating the subject orders, "which are 'unreviewable because of mootness, from spawning any legal consequences'" (quoting Aircall of Haw., Inc. v. Home Properties, Inc., 6 Haw.

2023App. 593, 595-96 , 733 P.2d 1231 , 1232- 33 (1987))); Lethem, 119 Hawai‘i at 11, 193 P.3d at 849 (adopting the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine, and concluding that the reputational harm to a father's appeal of an expired temporary restraining order based on allegations of abuse of his daughter, fell within the collateral consequence exception to the mootness doctrine).

2023See McCabe Hamilton & Renny Co., Ltd. v. Chung, 98 Hawai‘i 107, 121, 43 P.3d 244, 258 (App. 2002) (recognizing that "the imposition of issue preclusion where appellate review has been frustrated due to mootness is obviously unfair" and vacating the subject orders, "which are 'unreviewable because of mootness, from spawning any legal consequences'" (quoting Aircall of Haw., Inc. v. Home Properties, Inc., 6 Haw.

2022See Luat v. Cacho, 92 Hawai#i 330, 343, 991 P.2d 840, 853 (App. 1999) (recognizing that the clear and convincing proof standard applied under HRS § 604-10.5 "is required to sustain claims which have serious social consequences or harsh or far reaching effects on individuals" (quoting Masaki v. General Motors Corp., 71 Haw. 1, 15-16 , 780 P.2d 566, 575 (1989)), and "reduces the risk to the alleged wrongdoer of having his or her reputation tarnished erroneously by increasing the plaintiff's burden of proof" (quoting Coyle v. Compton, 85 Hawai#i 197, 208, 940 P.2d 404, 415 (App. 1997))); cf. Hami

2022See Luat v. Cacho, 92 Hawai#i 330, 343, 991 P.2d 840, 853 (App. 1999) (recognizing that the clear and convincing proof standard applied under HRS § 604-10.5 "is required to sustain claims which have serious social consequences or harsh or far reaching effects on individuals" (quoting Masaki v. General Motors Corp., 71 Haw. 1, 15-16 , 780 P.2d 566, 575 (1989)), and "reduces the risk to the alleged wrongdoer of having his or her reputation tarnished erroneously by increasing the plaintiff's burden of proof" (quoting Coyle v. Compton, 85 Hawai#i 197, 208, 940 P.2d 404, 415 (App. 1997))); cf. Hami

2022See Luat v. Cacho, 92 Hawai#i 330, 343, 991 P.2d 840, 853 (App. 1999) (recognizing that the clear and convincing proof standard applied under HRS § 604-10.5 "is required to sustain claims which have serious social consequences or harsh or far reaching effects on individuals" (quoting Masaki v. General Motors Corp., 71 Haw. 1, 15-16 , 780 P.2d 566, 575 (1989)), and "reduces the risk to the alleged wrongdoer of having his or her reputation tarnished erroneously by increasing the plaintiff's burden of proof" (quoting Coyle v. Compton, 85 Hawai#i 197, 208, 940 P.2d 404, 415 (App. 1997))); cf. Hami

2022See Luat v. Cacho, 92 Hawai#i 330, 343, 991 P.2d 840, 853 (App. 1999) (recognizing that the clear and convincing proof standard applied under HRS § 604-10.5 "is required to sustain claims which have serious social consequences or harsh or far reaching effects on individuals" (quoting Masaki v. General Motors Corp., 71 Haw. 1, 15-16 , 780 P.2d 566, 575 (1989)), and "reduces the risk to the alleged wrongdoer of having his or her reputation tarnished erroneously by increasing the plaintiff's burden of proof" (quoting Coyle v. Compton, 85 Hawai#i 197, 208, 940 P.2d 404, 415 (App. 1997))); cf. Hami

2022See Luat v. Cacho, 92 Hawai#i 330, 343, 991 P.2d 840, 853 (App. 1999) (recognizing that the clear and convincing proof standard applied under HRS § 604-10.5 "is required to sustain claims which have serious social consequences or harsh or far reaching effects on individuals" (quoting Masaki v. General Motors Corp., 71 Haw. 1, 15-16 , 780 P.2d 566, 575 (1989)), and "reduces the risk to the alleged wrongdoer of having his or her reputation tarnished erroneously by increasing the plaintiff's burden of proof" (quoting Coyle v. Compton, 85 Hawai#i 197, 208, 940 P.2d 404, 415 (App. 1997))); cf. Hami

2022See Luat v. Cacho, 92 Hawai#i 330, 343, 991 P.2d 840, 853 (App. 1999) (recognizing that the clear and convincing proof standard applied under HRS § 604-10.5 "is required to sustain claims which have serious social consequences or harsh or far reaching effects on individuals" (quoting Masaki v. General Motors Corp., 71 Haw. 1, 15-16 , 780 P.2d 566, 575 (1989)), and "reduces the risk to the alleged wrongdoer of having his or her reputation tarnished erroneously by increasing the plaintiff's burden of proof" (quoting Coyle v. Compton, 85 Hawai#i 197, 208, 940 P.2d 404, 415 (App. 1997))); cf. Hami

2022Fund v. Puna Geothermal Venture, 77 Hawai#i 64, 67, 881 P.2d 1210, 1213 (1994). 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER We conclude that the reputational harm that Christopher could reasonably suffer from an injunction issued under HRS § 604-10.5(g), based on findings and conclusions that Christopher engaged in harassment as defined in HRS § 604-10.5(a)(2), is sufficient to trigger the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine.

2008See Pelosi v. Wailea Ranch Estates, 91 Hawai'i 478, 486 , 985 P.2d 1045, 1053 (1999) (remanding ease to the ICA for reconsideration in light of this court’s holding). .

2008See Pelosi v. Wailea Ranch Estates, 91 Hawai`i 478, 486, 985 P.2d 1045, 1053 (1999) (remanding case to the ICA for reconsideration in light of this court's holding).