Title: Buena Vista Investors, LLC v. Schmidt

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

No, 27479

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

 

BUENA VISTA INVESTORS, LLC, a Hawai'i limited liability company,
Plaintiff-Appellee

DAMON SCHMIDT, Defendant-Appellant
and

INDYHAC BANK, a federal banking corporation, KALOKO 11
ASSOCIATION, @ Hewei's non-profit corporation, KALOKO LANT
TERRACE, an ‘unincorporated association, COUNTY OF HAKAI:,
JOHN and JANE DOES 1-10, ‘DOE FARINERSHZPS, CORPORATIONS ang

ENTITIES 1-20, nd DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS I-42,
Defendant =

:

222 it 12

APPEAL FROM THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT = _|~
(CIV. NO. 03-1-0087K)

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
CATION AND/OR IDERATY
(By: Daffy, J. for the court")

Upon consideration of the motion for clarification
and/or partial reconsideration of the January 11, 2006 order
denying appellant's motion to dismiss appeal for lack of
Jurisdiction, the papers in support and the record, it appears
that the separate judgment rule of HRCP 58, as interpreted by
Jenkine v, Cades Schutte Flemina ¢ Wright, 76 Hawai'i 115, 868
P.2d 1334 (1994), applies to @ final judgment in @ civil case

appealable pursuant to HRS § 641-1(s) and does not extend to a

judgment entered on a decree of foreclosure appealable pursuant

 

‘Considered by: Mocn, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Accba, and dutty,

aad
to HRS § 667-51(a) (1) (Supp. 2004). The July 29, 2005 “Judgment
for Interlocutory Decree of Foreclosure” -- though appealable
pursuant to HRS § 641-1(a), but not compliant with Jenkins - is a

judgnent entered on a decree of foreclosure that is alternatively

 

appealable pursuant to HRS § 667-51 (a) (2) (Supp. 2004).
It further oppears that the request for clarification
and/or reconsideration as to Supreme Court No. 27440 should be
filed in No. 27440 by the parties to that appeal. Therefore,
IP 18 HEREBY OROERED that the motion for clarification
and/or partial reconsideration is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai", January 27, 2006.

FOR THE COURT:
ne Dactigitee \e
resociace vustice Ge

oF

 

 

Gary Victor Dubin
for appellant
on the motion