Opinion
23300.
August 28, 2000.
Appeal from the First Circuit Court (Civ. No. 95-4107).
Louis L.C. Chang, for plaintiff-appellant on the motion.
MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, and RAMIL, JJ., and Circuit Judge MILKS, in place of ACOBA, J., recused.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Upon consideration of the motion for reconsideration of the August 9, 2000 order dismissing appeal, the papers in support and the record, it appears that the amount of a deficiency in a foreclosure case is not a claim for relief in the foreclosure action, but is simply a matter incident to enforcement of the judgment of foreclosure. See MDG Supply v. Diversified Investments, Inc., 51 Haw. 375, 380, 463 P.2d 525, 529 (1969); Sturkie v. Han, 2 Haw. App. 140, 146-147, 627 P.2d 296, 301-302 (1981). In Civil No. 95-4107, the matter of whether the deficiency amount was chargeable to the defendants was not a claim for relief for which certification under HRCP 54(b) was required and the purported certification of the matter in the March 2, 2000 judgment is of no legal effect.
The first part of the foreclosure case ended with entry of the May 7, 1996 certified judgment of foreclosure and the second part ended with entry of the March 12, 1998 and May 22, 1998 orders denying entry of a deficiency judgment. But for the fact that the May 7, 1996 certified judgment was invalid as entered during the bankruptcy stay, the second part would have been appealable when the deficiency judgment orders were entered. The second part became appealable when the new and valid certified judgment of foreclosure was entered on November 5, 1998. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied.