LK v. JB

• Decision Date: 27 May 2022
• Docket Number: CAAP-21-0000026
• Citation: 151 Hawai‘i 168,509 P.3d 1131 (Table)
• Parties: LK, Petitioner-Appellee, v. JB, Respondent-Appellant
• Court: Hawaii Court of Appeals

151 Hawai‘i 168

509 P.3d 1131 (Table)

LK, Petitioner-Appellee,

v.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.)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

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, December 17, 2019, the Family Court issued an Order For Protection.

JB did not appeal from the Order For Protection and thus we lack appellate jurisdiction to directly review that order. This appeal is limited to review of the Order Denying Rule 60(b) Motion, which was filed a year later, on December 21, 2020. We thus address JB's arguments on appeal in this context. In his December 9, 2020 "Motion for Relief From Judgment or Order Pursuant to Rule 60b(3) Fraud, 60b(4) the Judgment is Void & Motion to Stay Execution of Judgments and Orders (FC-DA NO 19-1-2156) Pending Hearing Pursuant to HFCR 62(b)" (Motion for Relief ), JB argued he was previously unaware of the default at the December 17, 2019 hearing and that the Family Court erred in defaulting him.

On appeal, JB fails to provide transcripts for the December 17, 2019 hearing and thus our review is limited in that we cannot directly determine what occurred during that hearing. See Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai‘i 225, 230, 909 P.2d 553, 558 (1995) ("The burden is upon appellant in an appeal to show error by reference to matters in the record, and he or she has the responsibility of providing an adequate transcript." (Citation and brackets omitted)). Moreover, JB fails to assert why he is entitled to relief under HFCR Rule 60(b). Thus, he does not establish error by the Family Court. Moreover, we note that based on the record before us, the Family Court did not enter a written default against JB and the Order For Protection filed on December 17, 2019, states that JB was present in court for the hearing that same day. In short, it does not appear the Family Court entered the Order For Protection based on JB having defaulted.

Accordingly, given the record before us, we conclude JB's first point of error is without merit.

Point of error (2): JB contends that LK failed to meet constitutional standing requirements because LK's description of an incident in the Petition is not concrete and particular. See Corboy v. Louie, 128 Hawai‘i 89, 104, 283 P.3d 695, 710 (2011) (explaining the requirements of...