Case Title: Smith v. Kona Coast Services, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2006-02-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAW Lidaany

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION *#*

No. 24712

se Wd 82 034 9002
aad

  

LORAINE SMITH, individually and as trustee and beneficiary under
trust dated Novenber 29, 1979, as amended July 26, 1990
‘and November 6, 1998, Plaintift-Appeliee,

KONA COAST SERVICES, INC., R.T. DOC HALLIDAY,
and R.T. DOC HALLIOAY, LLC, ‘Defendants-Appellants.

 

 

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(Civ. No. 98-237k)

‘SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, JJ., and
Circuit Judge Raffetto, in place of Duffy, J., recused)

    

‘The defendant-appellant R.T. Doc Halliday appeals fron
the October 23, 2001 order of the circuit court for the third

circuit, the Honorable Ronald Ibarra presiding, confirming the

\ tn Waldiday's notice of appeal, he further purports to represent
hig linited Iiebility company (LUC), the defendant RT. Doe Halliday, LLC, but
Halliday ss not a licensed attorney. Consequently, we hold that the notice of
bppeal te defective with respect to the Lic-
By snalogy to Oshu Plumbing & Sheet Metal, Ltd. v. Kona Constr. ince,

60 Haw. 372, 377-16, 890 F.2d $70, 574 (1919) (*[NJonvattorney agents ore Tot
sliowed to fepresent corporations in litigation. - "ly LLCs, too, must be
represented by counsel

 

Unlike lay agents of corporations,
professional rules of conduct and are amenable to diseiplin
Sction ..-. for vielations of ethical standards:

   

   

   

 

attorneys, being fully accountable to the courts,
Geeignaved to act ae the representatives of corporations,

Ad. at 378, S90 P.2d at $74 (citing Merco Constr, Eng’rs, Ine, v. Mun, Court,

Set B.2a 636, €41 (Cal. 1976))- “similar considerations apply to

partnerships, and have led most courts to conclude that a partnership may only

‘appeer in court through counsel.” In xe JCLNDS Notes Acquisition, LLC, 259
Ben. 289, 292-9¢ (Bankr. N.0. Ohio 2001} Thaesueh as an LUC is on artificial
person and a hybrid of @ corporation and a partnership =~ though not precisely
fone or the other ~~ we apply the rule in Qahu Elunbing-é sheet Metal, lid, to
the Lic'in the present matter, See generally id. at 256

Nevertheless, the defectiveness of the notice of appeal is moct inasmuch
as the alleges errors were not preserved for appeal, seg inera.

 

 

  

 
‘** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ##*
arbitrator Edward C. King’s March 8, 2001 final award

(hereinatts

 

1 “the award”).
On appeal, Halliday contends that the circuit court

 

erred in confirming the award inasmuch as the awar
(2) “[olrders the corporate dissolution of [the defendant-
appellant Kona Coast Services, Inc. ()KCS{}] and payment and
distribution of KCS funds to [the plaintif£-eppellee Loraine
Smith] [(a)] without requiring any accounting or audit of
corporate assets and liabilities” and (b) “prior to the payment
and (2)

 

of any corporate liabilities to corporate creditors”,
“requires [Halliday] to file tax returns misrepresenting the
identity of shareholders and the anount of KCS corporate
distributions between 1998 and 2001.”

Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the erguments advanced and the issues raised, we affirm the
circuit court's October 23, 2001 order for the following reasons:

Notwithstanding Halliday’s argument that his points of
error fall’within the “public policy” grounds for vacatur
recognized in Gepava v, State Farm Mut, Auto, Ins, Co., 94
Hawai'i 362, 365, 14 P.3d 1043, 1046 (2000), and InJandboatmen’s
inion of the Pac, v. Sause Bros., Inc., 77 Hawai'i 187, 193, 881
P.2d 1255, 1291 (App. 1994), he waived his points of error by not
filing his motion to vacate within the time accorded him by
Hawai" Revised Statutes (HRS) § 658-11 (1993). Halliday did not
extend the deadline for his objections merely by (1) describing
his motion to vacate as a “memorandum in opposition to [smith]'s
motion to confirm. . . and motion to vacate”; and/or (2) arguing

for vacatur on “public policy” grounds rather than on grounds

2
‘s* NOT FOR PUBLICATION *##
enumerated by HRS $§ 658-9 and 658-10 (1993).

Moreover, Halliday does not attempt to demonstrate to
this court “where in the record,” if at all, he “brought (the
alleged errors] to the attention of the [circuit] court,” as
required by Hawai's Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(b) (4) (144) -

Inasmuch as Halliday failed to preserve the errors he
alleges, we need not address then on the merits. See Bitney v.
Honolulu Police Dept., 96 Hawai'i 243, 251, 30 P.3d 257, 265
(2001) (**(A}ppellate courts{] will not consider an issue not
raised below unless justice so requires.’") (quoting Hill vw
Inouye, 90 Hawai'i 76, 62, 976 P.2d 390, 396 (1998) (brackets

altered). Moreover, we decline to exercise our discretion under

 

the plain error doctrine; the parties voluntarily submitted to

“Yall the hazards of the arbitration process, including the risk

that the arbitrator{] may make mistakes,’ see Daiichi Hawai'i
Real Estate Corp, v. Lichter, 103 Hawai'i 325, 336, 82 P.3d 411,

422 (2003) (brackets in original) (quoting Mars Constr’rs, Inc.
v. Tropical Enters., $1 Haw. 332, 336, 460 P.2d 317, 329 (1969).
Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY OROERED that the order from which the
appeal is taken is affirmed.

DATE!

 

Honolulu, Hawai'i, February 28, 2006.

on the briefs:
Francis L. Jung, of Gp

Sung « Vassar, P.C., .

for the defendants-appellants ste Blicwce

Rf. Doc Halliday and S

R.T. Doc Halliday, LLC Buaua Oradea
Lary 0. Ratliff, a ee

for the plaintift-appellee 7 tas

Loraine Smith