Inter-Island Resorts, Limited v. Akahane

• Decision Date: 19 February 1960
• Docket Number: No. 4148,INTER-ISLAND,4148
• Citation: 352 P.2d 856,44 Haw. 93
• Parties: RESORTS, LTD. v. Elizabeth K. AKAHANE et al. and Commission of Labor and Industrial Relations of the Territory of Hawaii.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Page 856

352 P.2d 856

44 Haw. 93

INTER-ISLAND RESORTS, LTD. v. Elizabeth K. AKAHANE et al. and Commission of Labor and Industrial Relations of the Territory of Hawaii.

No. 4148.

Supreme Court of Hawai'i.

Feb. 19, 1960.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A judgment is the final action of a court, which disposes of the matter before it.

2. The court's reasons for its action do not constitute a part of its judgment.

3. If any matter which does not belong in a judgment is incorporated therein, such incorporation will not render the judgment invalid, but the improper matter will be disregarded as surplusage.

4. Where, in a proceeding for judicial review of a referee's decision under Hawaii Employment Security Law, allowing employees' claims for unemployment benefits and charging the amounts of the benefits against the employer's reserve account, the circuit judge ruled that the employees were disqualified for unemployment benefits, and did not rule on the question of the propriety of charging the amounts of the benefits against the employer's reserve account because that question became moot this court will not consider the latter question on an appeal from the judgment of the circuit judge.

5. Appeal may not be taken by a party not aggrieved by the judgment appealed from.

Toshimi Sodetani, Deputy Atty. Gen., for Commission of Labor and Industrial Relations, for the motion.

H. William Burgess, Carlsmith, Carlsmith, Wichman & Case, Hilo, for petitioner, contra.

Before TSUKIYAMA, C. J., MARUMOTO, CASSIDY and WIRTZ, JJ., and FAIRBANKS, Circuit Judge, in place of LEWIS, J., disqualified.

MARUMOTO, Justice.

The case involves claims for unemployment benefits filed by certain employees of Inter-Island Resorts, Ltd., under the Hawaii Employment Security Law. The Commissioner of Labor and Industrial Relations of the Territory of Hawaii, through its administrator, made the original determination, which allowed the claims and charged the amounts of the benefits against the employer's reserve account. The employer appealed from the determination, and the appeal was heard by a referee for the Bureau of Employment Security, who affirmed the determination by his decision of July 21, 1953, and further decision of October 6, 1953. The employer then filed with the circuit judge at chambers, Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, a petition for judicial review of the referee's decision. The commission was joined as a party respondent in the petition, as provided by statute. In his pre-trial order, the circuit judge set forth the following issues of law as the issues to be determined by him:

'1. Were Claimants eligible for unemployment compensation under Section 4230(c), Revised Laws of Hawaii 1945?

'2. Were Claimants disqualified for unemployment compensation under Section 4231(a), Revised Laws of Hawaii 1945?

'3. Were Claimants disqualified for unemployment compensation under Section 4231(c), Revised Laws of Hawaii 1945?

'4. Were Claimants disqualified for unemployment compensation under Section 4231(d), Revised Laws of Hawaii 1945?

'5. Should the benefits paid to Claimants be charged to the account of the Employer under Section 4250(b), Revised Laws of Hawaii 1945, as amended, and under the general intent and purpose of the Hawaii Employment Security Law?'

The circuit judge ruled against the employer on the first three issues and for the employer on the fourth issue. He did not rule on the fifth issue, presumably because that issue became moot by his ruling on the fourth issue. He filed a written decision in which he set forth his reasoning for his rulings, and thereafter entered a judgment, which, with the omission of preliminary recitals, read as follows:

'Now, Therefore, in pursuance of the Court's Decision filed July 8, 1959, It Is Hereby Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed as follows:

'(1) That the said Decision and Further Decision of the Referee be reversed and set aside;

'(2) That Individual Respondents herein are declared to be disqualified for unemployment insurance benefits under Section 4231(d), Revised Laws of Hawaii 1945; and

'(3) That the above entitled cause be remanded to the Referee, Bureau of Employment Security, for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Decision of this Court.'

Both the commission and the employer appealed to this court from the judgment.

Upon the docketing of the appeals, the commission filed its opening brief. It stated in the brief that there is only one question presented on its appeal, namely, 'whether the Claimants are disqualified for unemployment compensation under Section 4231(d), Revised Laws of Hawaii 1945.'

The employer did not file its opening brief. But, in its answering brief, in addition to answering the commission's argument in the opening brief, it stated four additional questions, and set forth its arguments on those questions. The additional questions corresponded to the first, second, third and fifth issues set forth by the circuit judge in his pre-trial order. Presumably, the employer intended its answering brief to serve a dual purpose, that is, as its opening brief on its appeal and as its answering brief on the commission's appeal.

The commission filed its reply brief, but it confined the scope of its reply to meeting the employer's answer to the arguments in the opening brief.

After filing its reply brief, the commission filed a motion to strike portions of the answering brief and to dismiss the employer's appeal. The portions of the answering brief sought to be stricken are the four additional questions stated by the employer and its arguments thereon. We are asked at this time to rule on the motion.

The commission urges that the mentioned portions of the answering brief be stricken on the ground that the additional questions are not properly before this court. It contends that the circuit judge adjudged that the claimants were disqualified for unemployment benefits under R.L.H.1945, § 4231(d), and that he neither affirmed nor reversed any other portion of the referee's decision nor did he adjudicate any other issue.

The contention is without merit as applied to the first three questions stated in the opening brief, which corresponds to the first three issues set forth in the pre-trial order. It is based on an erroneous premise that the court's reasons for its action is an integral part of a judgment.

A judgment is the final action of a court, which disposes of the matter before it. In re Forstner Chain Corp., 1 Cir., 177 F.2d 572, 576. The court's reasons for its action do not constitute a part of its judgment. 30A Am.Jur., Judgments, § 15; 49 C.J.S. Judgments § 22. If any matter which does not properly belong in a judgment is incorporated therein, such incorporation will not render the judgment invalid, but the improper matter will be disregarded as surplusage. 49 C.J.S. Judgments § 84.

The judgment in this case consists of three parts. The first part reading, 'That the said Decision and Further Decision of the Referee be reversed and set aside,' states the only essential matter in the judgment, namely, the circuit judge's disposition of the matter as to which judicial review was sought.

The second part reading, 'That Individual Respondent...