430 P.3d 892 (Hawaii App. 2018), CAAP-16-0000858, Schmidt v. HSC, Inc.
|Citation:||430 P.3d 892, 143 Hawaii 331|
|Party Name:||Thomas Frank SCHMIDT and Lorinna Jhincil Schmidt, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. HSC, INC., a Hawaii corporation; Richard Henderson, Sr.; Eleanor R.J. Henderson, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, and John Does 1-10; Jane Does 1-10; Doe Corporations 1-10; and Doe Unincorporated Associations, Including Partnerships 1-10, Defendants|
|Attorney:||R. Steven Geshell, for Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Paul Alston, Honolulu, for Defendants/Appellees/Cross-Appellants.|
|Judge Panel:||By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Fujise and Leonard, JJ.|
|Case Date:||November 30, 2018|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Hawai'i, Intermediate|
This decision has been designated as "Unpublished disposition." in the Pacific Reporter. See HI R RAP RULE 35
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT (CIVIL NO. 06-1-228).
On the briefs:
R. Steven Geshell, for Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
Paul Alston, Honolulu, for Defendants/Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Fujise and Leonard, JJ.
[143 Hawaii 332] SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Plaintiffs-Appellants Thomas Frank Schmidt and Lorinna Jhincil Schmidt (the Schmidts) appeal from the December 6, 2016 Final Judgment (Final Judgment) entered by the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit (Circuit Court). The Schmidts also challenge the Circuit Courts October 19, 2016 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (FOFs and COLs). In the FOFs and COLs and the the Final Judgment, the Circuit Court dismissed the Schmidts claims and entered judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees HSC. Inc. (HSC), Richard Henderson, Sr. (Richard), and Eleanor R.J. Henderson (Eleanor) (collectively, Appellees), on the grounds that the Schmidts cause of action was time-barred pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 651C— 9(1) (2016).2 Appellees cross-appeal and challenge the Circuit Courts December 8, 2016 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part [Appelleess] Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs (Attorneys Fees Order).
The Schmidts raise four points of error, contending that the Circuit Court: (1) clearly erred in entering FOFs 5, 13, 19, 21, 22, and 23; (2) erred in entering COLs 6, 8, 9, and 10; (3) erred in entering judgment in favor of Appellees; and (4) erred in awarding costs to Appellees. Appellees raise two points of error in their cross-appeal, contending that the Circuit Court erred by denying their request for attorneys fees pursuant to HRS § 607-14 based on a conclusion their claims were not in the nature of assumpsit.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve the parties points of error as follows:
(1) This court reviews the Circuit Courts findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard. Beneficial Hawaii, Inc. v. Kida, 96 Hawaii 289, 305, 30 P.3d 895, 911 (2001). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, despite evidence to support the finding, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction in reviewing the entire evidence that a mistake has been committed. A finding of fact is also clearly erroneous when the record lacks substantial evidence...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP