Estate of Sison v. Estate of Marcos, No. 29372 (Hawaii 11/5/2009)

• Decision Date: 05 November 2009
• Docket Number: No. 29372.,29372.
• Parties: ESTATE OF FRANCISCO SISON, JOSE MARIA SISON, and JAIME PIOPONGCO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Page 1

ESTATE OF FRANCISCO SISON, JOSE MARIA SISON, and JAIME PIOPONGCO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 29372.

Supreme Court of Hawaii.

November 5, 2009.

CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI`I, (MDL NO. 840).

On the briefs:

Carl M. Varady for Plaintiffs-Appellants, Estate of Francisco Sison, Jose Maria Sison, and Jamie Piopongco

Lex R. Smith, Joseph A. Stewart, Thao T. Tran, James P. Linn, pro hac vice, and D. Patrick Long, pro hac vice, for Defendant-Appellee Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos

ORDER ON CERTIFIED QUESTION

(By: Moon, C.J., Nakayama and Duffy, JJ

Intermediate Court of Appeals Associate Judge Leonard, in place of Levinson, J., recused,¹ and Intermediate Court of Appeals Associate Judge Fujise, in place of Acoba, J., recused)

The United States District Court for the District of Hawai`i ("federal district court") has certified to this court the following question of law ("Certified Question"):

With regard to the time period for executing a judgment in [Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS)] § 657-5 [(Supp. 2001)],² does the time period begin after the appellate process is completed (because the appeal may provide relief in the form of damages not provided for in the original judgment and because the completion of the appellate process allows the judgment creditor to proceed without limitation to collect the judgment), or, in the alternative, given that an amended judgment establishes the relationship between judgment creditor and debtor, does an amendment or modification of the original judgment (including an amended judgment providing for additional relief) start the time period anew?

Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we hold that this court's recent published opinion in Roxas v. Marcos, 121 Hawai`i 59, 214 P.3d 598 (2009), vacating 120 Hawai`i 123, 202 P.3d 584 (App.) constitutes a "clear controlling precedent in the Hawai`i judicial decisions" that answers the Certified Question before this court.³ Therefore IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the federal district court's Certified Question is answered in accordance with our recent published opinion in Roxas.⁴

1. Associate Justice Steven H. Levinson retired on December 30, 2008.

2. HRS § 657-5 provides, in its entirety:

Unless an extension is granted, every judgment and decree of any court of the State shall be presumed to be paid and discharged at the expiration of ten years after the judgment or decree was...