appeal to show error in Hawaii

2026See Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawaiʻi 225, 230, 909 P.2d 553, 558 (1995) ("The burden is upon appellant in an appeal to show error by reference to matters in the record, and he or she has the responsibility of providing an adequate transcript." (cleaned up)).

2026See Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawaiʻi 225, 230, 909 P.2d 553, 558 (1995) ("The burden is upon appellant in an appeal to show error by reference to matters in the record, and he or she has the responsibility of providing an adequate transcript." (cleaned up)).

2010Contrary to Mother’s assertion that her pre-termination counsel was ineffective, the family court expressly noted in its March 7, 2005 written order denying Mother’s July 12, 2004 oral motion for a new attorney that “[t]he court has seen nothing to indicate Ms. Iopa [has] not been effective in her representation and notes Ms. Iopa has worked hard to assist [Mother].” This court has held that “[t]he burden is upon appellant in an appeal to show error by reference to matters in the record, and he or she has the responsibility of providing an adequate transcript.” Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 H

2010Contrary to Mother's assertion that her pre-termination counsel was ineffective, the family court expressly noted in its March 7, 2005 written order denying Mother's July 12, 2004 oral motion for a new attorney that "[t]he court has seen nothing to indicate Ms. Iopa [has] not been effective in her representation and notes Ms. Iopa has worked hard to assist [Mother]." This court has held that "[t]he burden is upon appellant in an appeal to show error by reference to matters in the record, and he or she has the responsibility of providing an adequate transcript." Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 H

2024Corp. v. Ferguson, 91 Hawai‘i 81, 92, 979 P.2d 1107, 1118 (1999) (leaving the trial court's decision in an eminent domain case undisturbed where appellant did not provide a relevant transcript, noting "the burden is upon appellant in an appeal to show error by reference to matters in the record, and [appellant] has the responsibility of providing an adequate transcript") (citation and bracket omitted).

2013Corp. v. Ferguson, 91 Hawai'i 81, 92 , 979 P.2d 1107, 1118 (1999) ("We have stated that 'the burden is upon appellant in an appeal to show error by reference to matters in the record, and he has the responsibility of providing an adequate transcript.’ ”) (quoting Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai'i 225, 230 , 909 P.2d 553, 558 (1995)) (brackets omitted). .The Castros also argued that the district court erred by granting summary judgment: 1) without granting them additional time for discovery prior to the hearing; 2) despite “the insufficiency of [U.S. Bank’s] moving papers,” and U.S. Bank’s

2010Workers, Local 646, 77 Hawai'i 471, 474 , 887 P.2d 1029, 1032 (1995) (“Lepere, as appellant, had a duty to include the relevant transcripts of proceedings as a part of the record on appeal.”) (footnote omitted); see Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 10(b)(1)(A) (“When an appellant desires to raise any point on appeal that requires consideration of the oral proceedings before the court ... appealed from, the appellant shall file ... a request or requests to prepare a reporter’s transcript of such parts of the proceedings as the appellant deems necessary that are not already on file.”).

2010Workers, Local 646, 77 Hawai'i 471, 474 , 887 P.2d 1029, 1032 (1995) (“Lepere, as appellant, had a duty to include the relevant transcripts of proceedings as a part of the record on appeal.”) (footnote omitted); see Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 10(b)(1)(A) (“When an appellant desires to raise any point on appeal that requires consideration of the oral proceedings before the court ... appealed from, the appellant shall file ... a request or requests to prepare a reporter’s transcript of such parts of the proceedings as the appellant deems necessary that are not already on file.”).

2023Nonetheless, as Father is self-represented, we address Father's arguments "to the extent they can reasonably be discerned." Wagner v. World Botanical Gardens, Inc., 126 Hawai#i 190, 193, 268 P.3d 443, 446 (App. 2011). 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER Rule 10(b)(1)(A) and (b)(3); State v. Hoang, 93 Hawai#i 333, 336, 3 P.3d 499, 502 (2000) (holding that defendant's failure to include arraignment transcript in record precluded review of claimed error); Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai#i 225, 230, 909 P.2d 553, 558 (1995) ("The burden is upon appellant in

2022See HRAP Rule 10(b)(1)(A) and (b)(3); State v. Hoang, 93 Hawai#i 333, 336 3 P.3d 499, 502 (2000) (holding that defendant's failure to include arraignment transcript in record precluded review of claimed error); Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai#i 225, 230, 909 P.2d 553, 558 (1995) (explaining that the "burden is upon appellant in an appeal to show error by reference to matters in the record, and he or she has the responsibility of providing an adequate transcript") (cleaned up).

2023Nonetheless, as Father is self-represented, we address Father's arguments "to the extent they can reasonably be discerned." Wagner v. World Botanical Gardens, Inc., 126 Hawai#i 190, 193, 268 P.3d 443, 446 (App. 2011). 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER Rule 10(b)(1)(A) and (b)(3); State v. Hoang, 93 Hawai#i 333, 336, 3 P.3d 499, 502 (2000) (holding that defendant's failure to include arraignment transcript in record precluded review of claimed error); Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai#i 225, 230, 909 P.2d 553, 558 (1995) ("The burden is upon appellant in

2022"The burden is upon appellant in an appeal to show error by reference to matters in the record, and he [or she] has the responsibility of providing an adequate transcript." Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai#i 225, 230, 909 P.2d 553, 558 (1995) (quoting Union Building Materials Corp. v. The Kakaako Corp., 5 Haw.

2007Corp v. Ferguson, 91 Hawai'i 81, 92 , 979 P.2d 1107, 1118 (1999) (reiterating that “[t]he burden is upon appellant in an appeal to show error” (quoting Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai'i 225, 230 , 909 P.2d 553 558 (1995) (citation omitted))); Costa, 5 Haw.App. at 430 , 697 P.2d at 50 (stating that “the burden is on appellant to convince the appellate body that the presumptively correct action of the circuit court is incorrect” (citations omitted)).

2007Corp v. Ferguson, 91 Hawai'i 81, 92 , 979 P.2d 1107, 1118 (1999) (reiterating that “[t]he burden is upon appellant in an appeal to show error” (quoting Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai'i 225, 230 , 909 P.2d 553 558 (1995) (citation omitted))); Costa, 5 Haw.App. at 430 , 697 P.2d at 50 (stating that “the burden is on appellant to convince the appellate body that the presumptively correct action of the circuit court is incorrect” (citations omitted)).

2026We conclude that Appellants' point of error (1) lacks merit. (2) Appellants contend that the circuit court erred in entering COLs 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 14. "[COLs] are reviewed de novo, under the right/wrong standard of review." Lambert v. Waha, 137 Hawaiʻi 423, 431, 375 P.3d 202, 210 (2016) (cleaned up).

2026We conclude that Appellants' point of error (1) lacks merit. (2) Appellants contend that the circuit court erred in entering COLs 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 14. "[COLs] are reviewed de novo, under the right/wrong standard of review." Lambert v. Waha, 137 Hawaiʻi 423, 431, 375 P.3d 202, 210 (2016) (cleaned up).

2026Although we do not automatically foreclose self- represented litigants from appellate review if they do not comply with court rules, Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawaiʻi 368, 380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020), we are unable to discern any basis for Husband's apparent contention that the family court erred by entering the Divorce Decree.

2026Although we do not automatically foreclose self- represented litigants from appellate review if they do not comply with court rules, Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawaiʻi 368, 380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020), we are unable to discern any basis for Husband's apparent contention that the family court erred by entering the Divorce Decree.

2025Res., 143 Hawaiʻi 114, 120, 424 P.3d 469, 475 (2018) (citation omitted). (1) Choi appears to challenge the Circuit Court and ESARO decisions by arguing that she was discharged for circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and not for work-related misconduct.

2023See Nickells, 98 Hawai‘i at 510, 51 P.3d at 377 (citing Kissel, 57 Haw. at 38 , 549 P.2d at 470 ); Konohia v. Commodity Forwarders, Inc., No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2022 WL 1502566 , at *1-2 (App. May 12, 2022) (SDO) (affirming the LIRAB's dismissal of appellant's appeal from the director's decision when appellant filed the appeal to the LIRAB one day past the mandatory deadline under HRS § 386-87(a)).

2023Nonetheless, as Father is self-represented, we address Father's arguments "to the extent they can reasonably be discerned." Wagner v. World Botanical Gardens, Inc., 126 Hawai#i 190, 193, 268 P.3d 443, 446 (App. 2011). 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER Rule 10(b)(1)(A) and (b)(3); State v. Hoang, 93 Hawai#i 333, 336, 3 P.3d 499, 502 (2000) (holding that defendant's failure to include arraignment transcript in record precluded review of claimed error); Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai#i 225, 230, 909 P.2d 553, 558 (1995) ("The burden is upon appellant in

2023See Nickells, 98 Hawai‘i at 510, 51 P.3d at 377 (citing Kissel, 57 Haw. at 38 , 549 P.2d at 470 ); Konohia v. Commodity Forwarders, Inc., No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2022 WL 1502566 , at *1-2 (App. May 12, 2022) (SDO) (affirming the LIRAB's dismissal of appellant's appeal from the director's decision when appellant filed the appeal to the LIRAB one day past the mandatory deadline under HRS § 386-87(a)).

2023See Nickells, 98 Hawai‘i at 510, 51 P.3d at 377 (citing Kissel, 57 Haw. at 38 , 549 P.2d at 470 ); Konohia v. Commodity Forwarders, Inc., No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2022 WL 1502566 , at *1-2 (App. May 12, 2022) (SDO) (affirming the LIRAB's dismissal of appellant's appeal from the director's decision when appellant filed the appeal to the LIRAB one day past the mandatory deadline under HRS § 386-87(a)).