79 Hawai'i 26, Wong v. Wong

• Decision Date: 06 June 1995
• Docket Number: No. 18011,18011
• Citation: 79 Hawaii 26,897 P.2d 953
• Parties: 79 Hawai'i 26 James K. WONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Henry Ho WONG and Colene Smith Wong, husband and wife, individually, and as tenants by the entirety, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Page 953

897 P.2d 953

79 Hawai'i 26

James K. WONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Henry Ho WONG and Colene Smith Wong, husband and wife,

individually, and as tenants by the entirety,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18011.

Supreme Court of Hawai'i.

June 6, 1995.

[79 Hawai'i 27] Gary Victor Dubin, on the briefs, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellant.

Edward A. Jaffe, Phillip A. Li and Brian I. Ezuka, Torkildson, Katz, Jossem, Fonseca, Jaffe, Moore & Hetherington, on the briefs, Honolulu, for defendants-appellees.

Before MOON, C.J., and KLEIN, LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA and RAMIL, JJ.

RAMIL, Justice.

Plaintiff-Appellant James K. Wong appeals after entry of an amended final judgment by the first circuit court in favor of Defendants-Appellees Henry Ho Wong and Colene Smith Wong.

For the reasons stated below, we vacate the amended final judgment entered January 20, 1994 and reinstate the final judgment entered December 28, 1993. I. Relevant Facts

Plaintiff-Appellant James Wong (Appellant) sued Defendants-Appellees Henry and Colene Wong (Appellees). Appellant asserted claims denominated "breach of contract," "promissory estoppel," "fraud and deceit," "quantum meruit," and "breach of a settlement agreement." Appellant sought compensatory and punitive damages. No counterclaims or cross-claims were filed.

After a special jury verdict in favor of the Appellees, the circuit court entered judgment as follows:

FINAL JUDGMENT

Final Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendants Henry Ho Wong and Colene Smith Wong and against Plaintiff James K. Wong as follows:

1. Plaintiff's Complaint and all claims therein alleged are hereby dismissed with prejudice, and Plaintiff shall recover nothing against Defendants, or either of them, on said Complaint.

2. Defendants shall have and recover from and against Plaintiff the amount of $192,280.24, consisting of reasonable attorneys' fees under HRS § 607-14 in the amount of $175,000 and taxable costs in the amount of $17,280.24.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, December 22, 1993.

The clerk entered the judgment on December 28, 1993. On January 11, 1994, the clerk entered a notice of entry of judgment pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP). The notice of entry is dated January 10, 1994 and signed by the clerk, apparently on that date. The notice bears a notation "copies sent to" counsel for Appellant.

The record shows no further entries until January 20, 1994, when the clerk entered an "amended final judgment" as follows:

AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT

The Court hereby amends its Final Judgment entered on December 28, 1993 by withdrawing the prior Final Judgment and by reinstating that Final Judgment effective with the entry of this Amended Final Judgment.

Final Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendants Henry Ho Wong and Colene Smith Wong and against Plaintiff James K. Wong as follows:

1. Plaintiff's Complaint and all claims therein alleged are hereby dismissed with prejudice, and Plaintiff shall recover nothing against Defendants, or either of them, on said Complaint.

2. Defendants shall have and recover from and against Plaintiff the amount of $192,280.24, consisting of reasonable attorneys' fees under HRS § 607-14 in the amount of $175,000 and taxable costs in the amount of $17,280.24.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, January 19, 1994.

On January 21, 1994, the clerk entered a notice of entry of the amended final judgment, pursuant to HRCP 77(d).

On February 3, 1994, Appellant moved, pursuant to HRCP 7(b), ¹ 59(e), ² and 62(d), ³ to alter or amend the January 20, 1994 amended judgment and to stay it. Appellant's certificate of service states that the motion was served on January 31, 1994. On March 14, 1994, the circuit court denied Appellant's motion to alter or amend the judgment.

On April 11, 1994, Appellant Wong filed his notice of appeal.

II. Issue

Appellant formulates 17 substantive issues in this appeal. Sua sponte, we pose the dispositive question as whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to enter the amended judgment from which appeal is taken.

III. Discussion

In each appeal, the supreme court is required to determine whether it has jurisdiction. See, e.g., Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai'i 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994). Jurisdiction is the base requirement for any court considering and resolving an appeal or original action. Without jurisdiction, a court is not in a position to consider the case further. Pele Defense Fund v. Puna Geothermal Venture, 77 Hawai'i 64, 69 n. 10, 881 P.2d 1210, 1215 n. 10 (1994). An appellant's failure to file a timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional defect that can neither be waived by the parties nor disregarded by the court in the exercise of judicial discretion. Bacon v. Karlin, 68 Haw. 648, 650, 727 P.2d 1127, 1129 (1986). Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement of the parties. O'Daniel v. Inter-Island Resorts Ltd., 46 Haw. 197, 208, 377 P.2d 609, 615 (1962) (jurisdiction of circuit court at issue). A judgment rendered by a court without subject matter jurisdiction is void, questions about the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the case, and "we have jurisdiction here on appeal, not on the merits, but for the purpose of correcting an error in jurisdiction." Bush v. Hawaiian Homes Comm'n., 76 Hawai'i 128, 133, 870 P.2d 1272, 1277 (1994).

In this case, a final judgment as to all claims was entered in the circuit court on December 28, 1993. A notice of appeal filed within 30 days after entry of that judgment would have invoked the jurisdiction of this court. Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) 4(a)(1). However, the notice of appeal was not filed until April 11, 1994, some 104 days after entry of the December 28, 1993 final judgment. In the interim between the December 28, 1993 judgment and the April 11, 1994 notice of appeal, the trial court, sua sponte, vacated the December 28, 1993 judgment and reentered it as an amended judgment on January 20, 1994. The January 20, 1994 amended judgment did not change the substantive terms of the December 28, 1993 judgment. The effect of the amended judgment was to extend the time for serving a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to HRCP 59(e) and, by operation of HRAP 4(a)(4), to extend the time for filing the notice of appeal. ⁴ The record is silent as to the reason for entry of the amended judgment.

The circuit court's actions in this case are contrary to the specific prohibitions of HRCP 6(b) and the exclusive means for enlarging the time for filing a notice of appeal prescribed by HRAP 4(a)(4) and (5).

At common law, a court of record had authority to vacate or set aside its judgment during the term in which it was rendered. See, e.g., DuPonte v. DuPonte, 53 Haw. 123, 126, 488 P.2d 537, 539-540 (1971); Wallace v. Wallace, 1 Haw.App. 315, 321, 619 P.2d 511, 515 (1980). With few exceptions, the jurisdiction of a court over its judgments terminated with the close of the term at which the judgment was rendered. See, e.g., Goo v. Hee Fat, 34 Haw. 123, 126-127 (1937). However, terms of circuit courts were abolished in 1972, see 1988 Haw.Sess.L.Act 88, § 3; Wallace v. Wallace, 1 Haw.App. 315, 321, 619 P.2d 511, 515 (1980), and our circuit courts now sit in continuous session.

In the circumstances of this case, a question arises as to whether the circuit court could sua sponte vacate and reenter its own judgment. In the absence of rules and terms of court, a court may act to alter its own judgment within "proper limitations of time." See, e.g., Tavares v. Tavares, 58 Haw. 541, 574 P.2d 125 (1978), and Wallace v. Wallace, 1 Haw.App. 315, 619 P.2d 511 (1980) (applying common law principles to events occurring in the family courts before the effective dates of the Family Court Rules). However, the circuit courts are now governed by the Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure. Those rules set forth the circumstances under and the times within which the circuit courts may take actions to review and set aside their own judgments, see HRCP 50, 52(b), 59, and 60, and a rule, HRCP 6(b), that specifically limits the granting of extensions of time to take such actions. ⁵ Once a valid judgment is entered, the only means by which a circuit court may thereafter alter or amend it is by appropriate motion under HRCP 59(e). DuPonte, 53 Haw. at 126, 488 P.2d at 539.

We recognize that, in this case, Appellant did not receive the December 28, 1993 entry of judgment until after the time for filing and serving an HRCP 59 motion had passed, but that lack of notice is of no consequence. HRCP 77(d) ⁶ plainly provides that the failure of the clerk to serve notice of entry of judgment "does not affect the time to appeal or relieve or authorize the court to relieve a party for failure to appeal within the time allowed, except as permitted in Rule 4(a) of the Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure." The exceptions permitted by HRAP 4 are: (1) timely post-judgment motions that toll the time for filing the notice of appeal, see HRAP 4(a)(4); and (2) extensions of time for filing the notice of appeal granted under the conditions set out in HRAP 4(a)(5). Appellant did not file or serve a timely motion to toll the time for taking an appeal before the court entered its amended judgment. Appellant did not seek and the circuit court did not grant an extension of time to file the notice of appeal. Thus, the judgment was final and appealable as of December 28, 1993. ⁷ If the statutory right to appeal were to be preserved in this case, it was incumbent upon Appellant to either seek an extension of time to file the notice of appeal under HRAP 4(a)(5) or to file the notice of appeal. The trial court was no longer authorized to consider an HRCP 59 motion, see HRCP 6(b), and the parties could not confer jurisdiction upon the court by agreement, see, e.g., O'Daniel v. Inter-Island Resorts, Ltd., 46 Haw. 197, 209, 377 P.2d 609, 615 (1962).

Nor...