(By: Fujise, Presiding Judge, Leonard and Reifurth, JJ.)In light of the Hawai'i Supreme Court's Opinion in Association of Condominium Homeowners of Tropics at Waikele v. Sakuma, 131 Hawai'i 254, 319 P.3d 94 (December 17, 2013), the Opinion filed herein on November 26, 2013 is hereby vacated, sua sponte. A new opinion shall be filed.
Such a reading of this rule would be in violation of the principle that "[c]ourts are bound to give effect to all parts of a statute, and that no clause, sentence, or word shall be construed as superfluous, void, or insignificant if a construction can be legitimately found which will give force to and preserve all words of the statute." Ass'n of Condo. Homeowners of Tropics at Waikele ex rel. Bd. of Dirs. v. Sakuma, 131 Hawai‘i 254, 256, 318 P.3d 94, 96 (2013). Thus, the omission of an equivalent authority in the Family Court Rules remains significant.
Nevertheless, "when a timely post-judgment tolling motion is deemed denied, it does not trigger the thirty-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal until entry of the judgment or appealable order pursuant to HRAP Rules 4(a)(1) and 4(a)(3)." Association of Condominium Homeowners of Tropics at Waikele v. Sakuma, 131 Hawai'i 254, 256, 318 P.3d 94, 96 (2013). Consequently, "the time for filing the notice of appeal is extended until 30 days after entry of an order disposing of the motion[.
On March 11, 2013, Wahiawa Hospitals filed a notice of appeal from the February 11, 2013 Order Granting/Denying and the February 22, 2013 Order Granting in the instant appeal, in which this court has jurisdiction. See Association of Condominium Homeowners of Tropics at Waikele ex rel Bd. of Directors v. Sakuma, 131 Hawai‘i 254, 318 P.3d 94 (2013).Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, as well as Sato, CAAP–13–0000042, we vacate the circuit court's February 11, 2013 Order Granting/Denying and the February 22, 2013 Order Granting.
Petitioners/Defendants–Appellants Ronald Pajela Amasol and Jean Louise Morales Amasol (collectively, "the Amasols") seek review of the November 20, 2013 "Order Dismissing Appeal for Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction" ("Dismissal Order") issued by the Intermediate Court of Appeals ("ICA"). In light of our decision in Association of Condominium Homeowners of Tropics at Waikele v. Sakuma, 131 Hawai‘i 254, 318 P.3d 94 (2013), which was issued about one month after the Dismissal Order, we hold that the ICA erred in dismissing as untimely the Amasols' appeal from the December 31, 2012 order denying their April 16, 2012 motion for reconsideration and the decisions for which reconsideration had been sought. Clarifying our opinion in Sakuma, however, we also hold that the ICA did not err in dismissing as premature any attempted appeal of the Amasols' July 13, 2012 amended reconsideration motion, because the circuit court has not entered an order disposing of that motion.
Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants Ronald Pajela Amasol and Jean Louise Morales Amasol (collectively, "the Amasols") seek review of the November 20, 2013 Order Dismissing Appeal for Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction" ("Dismissal Order") issued by the Intermediate Court of Appeals ("ICA"). In light of our decision in Association of Condominium Homeowners of Tropics at Waikele v. Sakuma, 131 Hawai'i 254, 318 P.3d 94 (2013), which was issued about one month after the Dismissal Order, we hold that the ICA erred in dismissing as untimely the Amasols' appeal from the December 31, 2012 order denying their April 16, 2012 motion for reconsideration and the decisions for which reconsideration had been sought. Clarifying our opinion in Sakuma, however, we also hold that the ICA did not err in dismissing as premature any attempted appeal of the Amasols' July 13, 2012 amended reconsideration motion, because the circuit court has not entered an order disposing of that motion.
The two HRCP Rule 60(b) motions were filed on May 29 and June 12, 2012, more than ten days after the April 23, 2012 judgment, and thus cannot be considered as tolling motions under Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 4(a)(3). See Ass'n of Condo. Homeowners of Tropics at Waikele ex rel. Bd. of Directors v. Sakuma, 131 Hawai‘i 254, 256, 318 P.3d 94, 96 (2013) (“Under HRAP Rule 4(a)(3), a timely post-judgment motion tolls the time to file a notice of appeal until thirty days after the entry of an order disposing of the motion.”) (emphasis added); Lambert v. Lua, 92 Hawai‘i 228, 234, 990 P.2d 126, 132 (App.1999) (“An HRCP Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment may toll the period for appealing a judgment or order ... if the motion is served and filed within ten (10) days after the judgment is entered.”) (citation omitted).
()On September 28, 2015, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Patsy Naomi Sakuma (Sakuma) filed an application for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Intermediate Court of Appeals' (ICA) September 23, 2015 judgment on appeal. Although it is understandable that the ICA presumed it had jurisdiction and addressed Sakuma's appeal after the majority's opinion in Ass'n of Condo. Homeowners of Tropics at Waikele ex rel. Bd. of Dirs. v. Sakuma, 131 Hawai'i 254, 318 P.3d 94 (2013) was issued, our recent decision in Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Amasol, 135 Hawai'i 357, 351 P.3d 584 (2015) clarified that the ICA did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Therefore,
Nevertheless, "when a timely post-judgment tolling motion is deemed denied, it does not trigger the thirty-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal 'until entry of the judgment or appealable order pursuant to HRAP Rules 4(a)(1) and 4(a)(3)." Association of Condominium Homeowners of Tropics at Waikele v. Sakuma, 131 Hawai'i 254, 256, 318 P.3d 94, 96 (2013). Consequently, "the time for filing the notice of appeal is extended until 30 days after entry of an order disposing of the motion[.
Pursuant to HRCP Rule 4(a)(3), Appellant Lominario extended the initial thirty-day time period under HRAP Rule 4(a)(1) for filing a notice of appeal from the July 20, 2015 judgment for possession when Appellant Lominario served her July 23, 2015 post-judgment motion for reconsideration pursuant to District Court Rule of Civil Procedure (DCRCP) Rule 59 within ten days after entry of the July 20, 2015 judgment for possession, as DCRCP Rule 59 required for a timely post-judgment motion that invoked the tolling provision in HRAP Rule 4(a)(3) and extended the time period for filing a notice of appeal. HRAP Rule 4(a)(3) provides that when a party files a timely post-judgment motion for reconsideration of a judgment, "the time for filing the notice of appeal is extended until 30 days after entry of an order disposing of the motion[.]" See, e.g., Association of Condominium Homeowners of Tropics at Waikele v. Sakuma, 131 Hawai'i 254, 256, 318 P.3d 94, 96 (2013). Consequently, the thirty-day time period under HRAP Rule 4(a)(3) for filing a notice of appeal from July 20, 2015 judgment for possession commenced upon entry of the district court's August 13, 2015 post-judgment order denying Appellant Lominario's July 23, 2015 DCRCP Rule 59 post-judgment motion for reconsideration of the July 20, 2015 judgment for possession.