Estate Admin. Servs. LLC v. Mohulamu
| Decision Date | 19 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | SCWC-19-0000050 |
| Citation | 466 P.3d 408 |
| Parties | ESTATE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES LLC, Interim Personal Representative for the Estate of Philip Finn, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sione P. MOHULAMU, Falaula Tinoga, Sr., and Samantha Kaliko, Respondents/Defendants-Appellees, and Christy Tigilau, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
This certiorari proceeding arises out of the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ ("ICA") dismissal of a January 23, 2019 appeal filed by Christy Tigilau ("Tigilau"). Tigilau appealed a judgment and writ of possession filed on January 10, 2019 by the District Court of the First Circuit, Wai‘anae Division ("district court") in an ejectment case.1
Pursuant to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes ("HRS") § 607-3 (2016), Hawai‘i state courts have discretionary power to waive the prepayment of court costs where payment appears onerous.2 Court rules also provide judges with discretion to waive costs, including Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule ("HRAP") Rule 24 (2016),3 which provides in relevant part as follows:
Tigilau filed two motions to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") on appeal to the ICA. The first motion provided little information regarding Tigilau's financial status, but the second motion provided much greater detail. In denying both motions, the ICA ordered Tigilau to follow the portion of HRAP Rule 24(a) stating that "[a] motion for leave to proceed on appeal [IFP] ... shall ordinarily be made in the first instance to the court ... appealed from." The ICA ordered Tigilau to either file an IFP motion in the district court within ten days or pay the filing fees in full.
The ICA also did not address whether requiring Tigilau to pay the filing fees would be onerous under HRS § 607-3. After Tigilau did not file an IFP motion or pay filing fees within ten days of the second order, on June 20, 2019, the ICA dismissed Tigilau's appeal on that basis.
Tigilau is a self-represented defendant appealing a writ of possession in a residential ejectment case. We hold that, under the circumstances, the ICA abused its discretion in ordering Tigilau to file IFP motions in the district court, in denying Tigilau's second IFP motion based on HRS § 607-3 and HRAP Rule 24, and then in dismissing her appeal. We further hold that, consistent with the fundamental tenet of Hawai‘i law that submissions of self-represented litigants should be interpreted liberally, see Waltrip v. TS Enters., Inc., 140 Hawai‘i 226, 239, 398 P.3d 815, 828 (2016), when courts have discretion in applying court rules or statutes, they must consider the access to justice principle of reducing barriers to the civil justice system for self-represented litigants.
We therefore vacate the ICA's June 20, 2019 "Order Dismissing Appeal," grant Tigilau's motion to this court for IFP status on appeal, and remand this case to the ICA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
On December 7, 2018, Estate Administrative Services, LLC, Interim Personal Representative for the Estate of Philip Finn ("Estate Services") filed a complaint for ejectment in district court. The complaint alleged that Philip Finn was the owner of a property and that various people, including Tigilau, were occupying the property without a rental agreement or an ownership interest in the property and refused to vacate. After various proceedings, on January 10, 2019, the district court entered a judgment for possession and issued a writ of possession as to Tigilau. On January 20, 2019, Tigilau was served with the judgment for possession and writ of possession, as well as notice of Estate Services’ intent to execute the writ of possession. On February 13, 2019, Tigilau was removed from the property by deputy sheriffs.
On January 23, 2019, Tigilau filed a notice of appeal in the ICA.
Tigilau filed a motion to proceed IFP along with her notice of appeal, stating that she could not afford the costs of the appeal ("first IFP motion").4 On January 25, 2019, the ICA entered an order denying Tigilau's first IFP motion. The order stated in relevant part:
Thus, the ICA ordered Tigilau to file an IFP motion in the district court or pay the filing fee within 10 days. She did neither. Instead, on February 7, 2019, Tigilau filed a second motion for leave to proceed on appeal IFP in the ICA ("second IFP motion"). This time, Tigilau submitted a notarized Form 4 to the HRAP, an "Affidavit to Accompany Motion for Leave to Appeal [IFP]." In the affidavit, Tigilau attested under oath that January 6, 2011 had been the last date she had been employed and that her monthly wage at the time had been $560.00. She also attested that she had not received any income within the last twelve months; she did not have any cash or a checking or savings account; and she did not own any real estate, stocks, bonds, notes, automobiles, or other valuable property (excluding ordinary household furnishings and clothing).
On June 4, 2019, the ICA entered an order denying Tigilau's second IFP motion.5 The ICA denied the second IFP motion on the same grounds as the first, and again ordered Tigilau to file an IFP motion in the district court or pay the filing fees within ten days or risk dismissal of her appeal.6 The ICA stated in relevant part:
Tigilau did not pay the appellate filing fee or file a motion for leave to proceed on appeal IFP in the district court case within ten days.9 Then, on June 20, 2019, the ICA entered an "Order Dismissing Appeal."10 In this order, the ICA repeated the procedural history above regarding Tigilau's motions to proceed IFP. The ICA stated in relevant part as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial