LK v. JB, CAAP-21-0000026

CourtCourt of Appeals of Hawai'i
Citation151 Hawai‘i 168,509 P.3d 1131 (Table)
Docket NumberCAAP-21-0000026
Parties LK, Petitioner-Appellee, v. JB, Respondent-Appellant
Decision Date27 May 2022

151 Hawai‘i 168
509 P.3d 1131 (Table)

LK, Petitioner-Appellee,
JB, Respondent-Appellant

NO. CAAP-21-0000026

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i.

May 27, 2022

On the briefs:

JB, Self-represented Respondent-Appellant

(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)


In this case involving a Petition for an Order for Protection (Petition ) filed by Petitioner-Appellee LK (LK ),1 self-represented Respondent-Appellant JB (JB ) appeals from an "Order Denying Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order Pursuant to Rule 60b(3) Fraud, 60b(4) the Judgment is Void and Motion to Stay Execution of Judgments and Order (FC-DA 19-1-2156) Pending Hearing Pursuant to [Hawai‘i Family Court Rules (HFCR )] 62(b)" (Order Denying Rule 60(b) Motion ) entered on December 21, 2020, by the Family Court of the First Circuit (Family Court ).2

On appeal, JB apparently contends: (1) the Family Court erred by failing to set aside a default against him although he appeared for a hearing two minutes after the default had been entered; and (2) LK failed to meet constitutional standing requirements because LK's description in the Petition of an incident is not concrete and particular.3

We resolve JB's points of error as follows and affirm.

JB's opening brief4 does not comply with Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP ) Rule 28, including that it does not contain any record references as required by HRAP Rule 28(b)(3), and fails to set forth where in the record he objected to the Family Court's alleged errors or brought the errors to the court's attention as required by HRAP Rule 28(b)(4). However, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court instructs that pleadings prepared by self-represented litigants should be interpreted liberally, and self-represented litigants should not be automatically foreclosed from appellate review because they fail to comply with court rules. Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai‘i 368, 380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020). Therefore, we address JB's points and arguments to the extent they can be discerned and we are able to address them.

Point of error (1): JB argues the Family Court erred in failing to withdraw a default against him although JB appeared for a hearing two minutes after the oral default was entered and he participated in the proceedings. Although JB fails to provide a date for the hearing, his argument appears to be in reference to a December 17, 2019 hearing on the Petition, for which the Family Court minutes note that "calls for Respondent are preserved[,] Respondent is defaulted" and "Respondent appeared later."5 On the same date,...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT