NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-17-0000924 

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS 

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I 

SHARMAN M. OYADOMARI, Trustee of the Kikuko Kuwahara 

Irrevocable Grantor Trust dated April 26, 2013, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HQHQ, INC., a Hawai‘i corporation; and 

WILLIAM S. QUINN, Defendants-Appellants, and 

BRIAN M. HYATT; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

(CIVIL NO. 3CC16-1-000411) 

Memorandum Opinion 

(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.) 

 Defendants-Appellants HQHQ, Inc. (HQHQ) and William S. 

Quinn (Quinn) appeal from nine orders and judgments of the 

Circuit Court of the Third Circuit involving judicial 

foreclosure and confirmation of sale proceedings brought by 

Plaintiff-Appellee Sharman M. Oyadomari (Oyadomari).1

1 HQHQ and Quinn appeal from the following orders and judgments: 

 

(1) October 13, 2017 "Order Denying Defendant William S. 

Quinn's Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff

Sharman M. Oyadomari, Trustee to Accept Full Payment of

(continued . . .)

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-17-0000924

21-JUN-2023

07:58 AM

Dkt. 153 MO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

2

On appeal, HQHQ and Quinn raise two points of error,

alleging (1) the circuit court erred in failing to grant relief 

from the interlocutory decree of foreclosure and (2) all orders 

(. . . continued)

the June 20, 2008 Promissory Note, Filed on October 9, 

2017 and Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm Sale, 

Filed on July 31, 2017";

(2) November 24, 2017 "Order Denying Motion for Leave to 

File Defendant William S. Quinn's Counterclaim and 

Crossclaim, Filed on October 10, 2017 and Motion for 

Reconsideration of October 13, 2017 Ruling Denying 

Defendant William S. Quinn's Motion for Order 

Compelling Plaintiff Sharman M. Oyadomari, Trustee to 

Accept Full Payment of June 20, 2008 Promissory Note 

(and Objection to Plaintiff's Notice of Submission 

Dated October 24, 2017[)], Filed on November 2, 2017";

(3) November 28, 2017 "Order Denying Defendant William S. 

Quinn's Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff 

Sharman M. Oyadomari, Trustee to Accept Full Payment of 

the June 20, 2008 Promissory Note";

(4) November 28, 2017 "Findings of Fact [(FOF)], 

Conclusions of Law and Order Granting Plaintiff's 

Motion to Confirm Sale";

(5) November 28, 2017 Writ of Possession;

(6) November 28, 2017 Judgment;

(7) January 24, 2018 "Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to 

Alter or Amend Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and 

Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm Sale Filed 

November 28, 2017";

(8) January 24, 2018 "Order Denying Defendant William S. 

Quinn's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or 

Amend Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order 

Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm Sale Filed 

November 28, 2017"; and

(9) January 24, 2018 Amended Judgment.

The Honorable Harry P. Freitas presided over the October 13, 2017 order 

denying Quinn's motion to compel Oyadomari to accept full payment and 

granting Oyadomari's motion to confirm the sale.

The Honorable Henry T. Nakamoto presided over all other orders and 

judgments.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

3

entered after the October 13, 2017 order require reversal. We 

affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

According to Quinn, his family founded Pahoa Feed and 

Fertilizer as a sole proprietorship in 2000. Quinn explains 

that, in 2002, Brian M. Hyatt's (Hyatt) family and Quinn's 

family incorporated Pahoa Feed and Fertilizer under HQHQ, Inc., 

a Hawai‘i corporation, consisting of a 50-50 ownership between 

the two families.

On June 20, 2008, HQHQ executed a promissory note 

(Note), promising to repay Yoso and Kikuko Kuwahara (Kuwaharas),

in their capacity as trustee of their respective revocable 

living trusts, for a $445,000.00 loan with an interest rate of 

six percent per year. The Note required HQHQ to pay the 

Kuwaharas $3,500.00 every month until June 6, 2015, at which 

time HQHQ would be required to pay the balance of the Note.

Quinn and Hyatt each personally guaranteed HQHQ's

obligations under the Note. FOF 4. The loan was secured with a 

Mortgage on a Property in Puna on the island of Hawai‘i. FOF 2,

3. The Mortgage was recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances on 

June 25, 2008.

Kikuko Kuwahara (in her capacity as Trustee of the 

Kikuko Kuwahara Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

4

September 15, 1986, as amended, and as Successor Trustee of the 

Yoso Kuwahara Revocable Living Trust dated March 3, 1977, as 

amended) assigned the Note and Mortgage to Oyadomari in 2013, 

and recorded the assignment in the Bureau of Conveyances. Per 

this assignment, Oyadomari had "all right, title and interest in 

and to" the Note and Mortgage, including the "obligation and 

power to discharge Mortgage through the execution and delivery 

of a release of this Mortgage."

According to correspondence Quinn attached to his and 

HQHQ's memorandum in opposition to the commissioner's motion for 

leave to sell without an open house, Quinn and Oyadomari were

negotiating the terms of a purchase money mortgage for the 

property in May 2015, a month before the Note became due.2

On June 6, 2015, the Note became due with a principal 

balance of $312,305.73 and interest accruing at a rate of six 

percent per year. FOF 6, 9. HQHQ, Quinn, and Hyatt 

(collectively Defendants) failed to pay the amount owed. FOF 7.

In letters dated June 24, 2015 and February 19, 2016, 

Oyadomari made demands on Defendants to pay the balance due. 

FOF 7. Despite the demands for payment, Defendants "failed to 

pay the amounts owed under the Note." FOF 8.

2 Quinn represented to the circuit court that, around this time, the 

Hyatt and Quinn families realized "future business opportunities were best 

pursued separately as we were at an impasse regarding the direction of the 

business and did not work well as business partners." Quinn also submitted 

to the circuit court a letter from Hyatt indicating a willingness to 

relinquish his family's interest in HQHQ if certain demands were met.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

5

Correspondence Quinn submitted to the circuit court 

indicated that the parties continued negotiating a new loan, but 

in June 2016, Oyadomari's attorney stated, "We have a 

foreclosure complaint that we are prepared to file but my client 

is willing to hold off on filing the complaint if a new loan can 

be closed by July 1, 2016" and set a June 17, 2016 deadline. On 

June 17, 2016, Quinn responded with modifications, to which 

Oyadomari was "not agreeable[.]" Oyadomari then proposed new 

terms that would expire at 4:30 p.m. on Friday, June 24, 2016. 

The correspondence provided by Quinn did not reflect a response.

B. Procedural Background

1. The Complaint

On November 29, 2016, Oyadomari filed her complaint 

for foreclosure in the circuit court against Defendants. 

Oyadomari contended Defendants were in "material default under 

the terms of the Note and the Mortgage[,]" therefore she was 

"entitled to foreclose upon the Mortgage and the subject 

property and to obtain a deficiency judgment, if appropriate, 

against Defendants."

2. Oyadomari's Motion for Summary Judgment and 

Interlocutory Decree of Foreclosure

On February 15, 2017, Oyadomari filed a motion for 

summary judgment and interlocutory decree of foreclosure. In 

her memorandum in support of the motion, Oyadomari stated she 

was entitled to summary judgment on her foreclosure claim 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

6

because she established the four material factual elements 

outlined in Bank of Honolulu v. Anderson, 3 Haw. App. 545, 550, 

551, 654 P.2d 1370, 1374, 1375 (1982) (explaining that a party 

moving for summary judgment on a foreclosure claim must prove 

these material facts to prevail: "(1) the existence of the 

Agreement, (2) the terms of the Agreement, (3) default by [the 

mortgagor or debtor] under the terms of the Agreement, and 

(4) the giving of" requisite notice). 

On April 19, 2017, the circuit court entered its 

"Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Granting 

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Decree 

of Foreclosure." The circuit court concluded: 

3. Plaintiff provided sufficient evidence of the 

existence and terms of the Note and Mortgage.

 

4. Defendants' failure to pay the amounts owed under 

the Note in accordance with the terms of the Note 

constitutes a material default under the Note and Mortgage.

5. Plaintiff gave the requisite notice to Defendants 

of their default and despite such notice, Defendants failed 

to pay the amounts owed to Plaintiff.

6. As a result of Defendants' material default under 

the Note and Mortgage, Plaintiff is entitled to foreclose 

upon the property secured and encumbered by the Mortgage. 

The circuit court also appointed a commissioner to conduct the 

sale and entered its judgment.

HQHQ and Quinn did not appeal from this April 19, 2017 

order and judgment. 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

7

3. Oyadomari's Motion to Confirm Sale

The foreclosure sale was held on July 17, 2017, and 

Oyadomari entered the final and highest bid of $375,100.00. 

Oyadomari then moved to confirm the sale. Oyadomari also 

requested: "to satisfy the purchase price by way of an offset 

of the amount of her secured debt in the event that [she] is the 

confirmed purchaser of the subject property"; direct the 

commissioner to convey the property via quitclaim deed to the 

confirmed purchaser; award the commissioner fees and expenses as

determined by the circuit court; and discharge the commissioner

once the sale was complete. In addition, Oyadomari sought a 

writ of possession or ejectment.

4. Quinn's Motion to Compel Oyadomari to Accept Full

Payment

On October 9, 2017, over five months after the circuit 

court granted Oyadomari's motion for summary judgment and

interlocutory decree of foreclosure, Quinn moved to compel 

Oyadomari to accept full payment, relying on Hawai‘i Rules of 

Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rules 60(b)(2), (b)(5), and (b)(6), and 

the court's powers of equity. Quinn requested "an order 

compelling [Oyadomari] to accept full payment for the June 20, 

2008 Promissory Note, and all other orders necessary to allow 

[Quinn] to close the $250,000 loan approved by First Hawaiian 

Bank."
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

8

In the memorandum supporting his motion to compel 

Oyadomari to accept full payment, Quinn contended he had a 

"right to redeem" and that his "legal obligation to pay 

[Oyadomari] includes the reciprocal legal right to receive the 

benefit of the bargain." Relying on HRCP Rules 60(b)(2), 

(b)(5), and (b)(6), Quinn maintained that when he would be able 

to pay Oyadomari "the full amount due under the June 20, 2008 

Promissory Note it" would "no longer [be] equitable to proceed 

with the foreclosure sale of the property." Quinn stated he 

believed Oyadomari was trying to foreclose on the property 

because it would provide access to the main road from her 

parcel, thus making development of the land "much more 

valuable[.]" Quinn also believed this was the same reason "why 

[Oyadomari] opposed being paid in full."

5. October 13, 2017 Order

At the October 11, 2017 hearing, the circuit court 

considered Quinn's motion to compel Oyadomari to accept full 

payment. Quinn argued the court had the authority to compel 

Oyadomari to accept the payment because "the law is clear as far 

as the Court's broad discretion sitting in equity to grant the 

relief" and per HRCP Rule 60(b)(5), where "it is no longer 

equitable . . . that [a] judgment" should apply prospectively, 

the court has authority to grant relief as requested.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

9

Oyadomari opposed the motion because she did not 

believe the court had the authority to compel her to accept 

Quinn's "settlement offer[.]" She also argued that she was 

exercising her statutorily and contractually based remedies, and 

maintained that Quinn's arguments at this hearing, instead,

should have been made in opposition to her motion for summary 

judgment. Oyadomari stated there was no authority at the time 

of this hearing, "to say that pursuant to contract law the 

defendants have the right to redeem or force" acceptance of the 

"settlement offer."

Regarding Oyadomari's motion to confirm the sale, 

Quinn and HQHQ requested the commissioner take additional bids, 

and then requested the court modify the bidding procedure by 

allowing a subsequent bid to be three percent over the prior bid 

instead of the normal procedure of five percent over the prior 

bid.3 The circuit court allowed both parties to re-bid on the 

property at the hearing. Oyadomari entered the prevailing bid 

of $413,547.75.

On October 13, 2017, the circuit court entered an 

order denying Quinn's motion to compel Oyadomari to accept full 

payment and granting Oyadomari's motion to confirm the sale.

3 Under Hawai‘i Probate Rules Rule 70(b), in a sale of real property, 

"[i]f an initial bid has been offered and accepted, a further overbid from 

any person shall be permitted at least five percent greater than the initial 

acceptable bid."
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

10

6. Quinn's Motion for Reconsideration

Quinn moved for reconsideration of the October 13, 

2017 order, again relying on HRCP Rules 60(b)(2), 60(b)(5) and 

60(b)(6). In his motion for reconsideration, Quinn claimed 

denying his motion to compel Oyadomari to accept full payment 

and granting Oyadomari's motion to confirm the sale "without 

explanation is erroneous as a matter of law."

On November 24, 2017, the circuit court denied Quinn's 

motion for reconsideration.4 The circuit court found that the 

motion for reconsideration failed "to present any new evidence 

or arguments that could not have been presented prior" and noted

a motion for reconsideration "should be more than a forum to 

express dissatisfaction with the Court's Order."

7. The November 28, 2017 Orders and Judgment

On November 28, 2017, the circuit court again granted 

Oyadomari's motion to confirm the sale. In its findings of 

fact, the circuit court found that the tax assessed value of the 

property was $237,800.00 and Oyadomari's bid of $413,547.75

"significantly exceeds" the property's value. In its 

conclusions of law, the circuit court concluded Oyadomari's bid 

for the property was "fair and equitable"; the commissioner's 

fees and expenses were fair, reasonable, and necessarily 

4 Also in this order, the circuit court denied a motion for leave to 

file a counterclaim and crossclaim filed by Quinn on October 10, 2017.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

11

incurred; and Oyadomari's requested attorney's fees and costs 

were fair, reasonable, and necessarily incurred. The circuit 

court entered a judgment "pursuant to [HRCP Rule 54(b)] as there 

is no just reason for delay."

That same day, the circuit court issued a writ of 

possession. The writ stated that Oyadomari was "entitled to 

possession of the subject property and a writ of ejectment 

against Defendants" and commanded the sheriff to remove 

Defendants, "and all persons holding by, through or under said 

defendants."

The circuit court also entered a second order denying 

Quinn's motion to compel Oyadomari to accept full payment.

8. Oyadomari's Motion to Alter or Amend the Confirmation 

of Sale 

Oyadomari moved to alter or amend the November 28, 

2017 order granting her motion to confirm the sale. Oyadomari 

asked the court to award her additional attorney's fees and 

costs, allow her to offset all the awarded fees and costs 

against the property's confirmed purchase price, and withhold 

"distribution of any excess sale proceeds pending" her 

"execution and enforcement of the Writ of Possession[.]" 

Quinn filed both a memorandum in opposition and a 

motion to strike Oyadomari's motion to alter or amend the

November 28, 2017 order granting her motion to confirm the sale. 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

12

The circuit court granted Oyadomari's motion and denied Quinn's 

motion.

HQHQ and Quinn filed a notice of appeal on 

December 28, 2017.

II. DISCUSSION

HQHQ and Quinn raise two points of error, alleging 

(1) the circuit court erred in failing to grant relief from the 

interlocutory decree of foreclosure and (2) all orders entered 

after the October 13, 2017 order require reversal. We affirm.

A. The Circuit Court Did Not Abuse its Discretion in Denying 

Quinn's Motions for Relief

In their first point of error, HQHQ and Quinn argue 

that the circuit court "committed grave error by failing to 

grant relief from the interlocutory decree of foreclosure where 

it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have 

prospective application," asserting:

Where (1) [Oyadomari] would be paid in full, (2) Mr. Quinn 

had a commercial loan commitment from First Hawaiian Bank 

for $250,000.00 to be applied to paying [Oyadomari] in 

full, (3) the court would hold a hearing to determine the 

full amount to be paid to [Oyadomari], and (4) a court 

ordered escrow account would ensure [Oyadomari] was paid in 

full, the trial court committed grave error by failing to 

grant relief from the interlocutory decree of foreclosure 

where it is no longer equitable that the judgment should 

have prospective application. 

(Formatting altered.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

13

We again note that HQHQ and Quinn did not appeal from 

the April 19, 2017 order granting Oyadomari's motion for summary 

judgment and interlocutory decree of foreclosure or the related 

judgment and, thus, waived any appeal from that order or 

judgment. Quinn instead attacked the order and judgment through 

his October 9, 2017 motion to compel Oyadomari to accept full 

payment and his November 2, 2017 motion for reconsideration, 

relying on HRCP Rules 60(b)(2), (b)(5), and (b)(6).

On appeal, again relying on HRCP Rules 60(b)(2),

(b)(5), and (b)(6), HQHQ and Quinn argue that "[a]ll of the 

equities establish that the interlocutory decree of foreclosure 

no longer has prospective application." HQHQ and Quinn further 

argue that when Oyadomari "will receive full payment the result 

[will be] the same as . . . when a judgment is paid" thereby 

relieving her of the "obligation to pay Defendant[s] the amount 

in excess of the debt she is owed under the promissory note."

HRCP Rule 60(b) provides in relevant part: 

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may 

relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a 

final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following 

reasons:

. . . .

(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could 

not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial 

under Rule 59(b);

. . . .

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or 

discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has 

been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

14

equitable that the judgment should have prospective 

application; or

(6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation 

of the judgment.

 

(Formatting altered.) 

The circuit court's rulings on a motion based on HRCP 

Rules 60(b)(2), (b)(5), and/or (b)(6) are reviewed for abuse of 

discretion. See Beneficial Hawaii, Inc. v. Casey, 98 Hawai‘i 

159, 164, 45 P.3d 359, 364 (2002); Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki 

Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Haw. 85, 114, 839 P.2d 10, 26 (1992) 

(explaining abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court has 

"clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or disregarded rules or 

principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a 

party litigant"). 

"Furthermore, the burden of establishing abuse of 

discretion is on appellant, and a strong showing is required to 

establish it." Ek v. Boggs, 102 Hawai‘i 289, 294-95, 75 P.3d 

1180, 1185-86 (2003) (citation, internal quotation marks, and 

brackets omitted). 

 1. HRCP Rule 60(b)(2) 

First, HRCP Rule 60(b)(2) may provide relief if the 

evidence was (1) "previously undiscovered even though due 

diligence was exercised;" (2) "admissible and credible;" and 

(3) "of such material and controlling nature as will probably 

change the outcome and not merely cumulative or [t]ending only 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

15

to impeach or contradict a witness." Omerod v. Heirs of 

Kaheananui, 116 Hawai‘i 239, 277, 172 P.3d 983, 1021 (2007) 

(citation and emphasis omitted). 

HQHQ and Quinn rely on "a commercial loan commitment 

from First Hawaiian Bank for $250,000.00 to be applied to paying 

[Oyadomari] in full," which was dated October 5, 2017. 

 Unchallenged findings show that (1) "[p]ursuant to the 

terms of the Note, all amounts owed under the Note were due and 

payable on June 6, 2015"; (2) as of June 6, 2015, HQHQ and Quinn 

owed $312,305.73; (3) HQHQ and Quinn failed to pay the amount 

owed by June 6, 2015; and (4) Oyadomari filed a complaint to 

foreclose on November 29, 2016. The record shows that the 

circuit court granted Oyadomari's motion for summary judgment 

and interlocutory decree of foreclosure, and entered its 

judgment, on April 19, 2017. 

Dated October 5, 2017, the First Hawaiian Bank loan 

commitment was created over two years after the Note was due 

and, thus, was not previously undiscovered evidence. Further, 

the loan commitment was for $250,000.00 while the amount due on 

June 6, 2015 was $312,305.73.5 Thus, nothing in the First 

Hawaiian Bank loan commitment changes the default on the Note or 

is "of such material and controlling nature as will probably 

5 Quinn asserted that "[w]ith the $250,000 First Hawaiian Bank loan and 

his additional liquid assets [he] can pay" the full amount owed under the 

Note. Quinn, however, did not elaborate on his additional liquid assets.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

16

change the outcome." See generally, Omerod, 116 Hawai‘i at 277, 

172 P.3d at 1021. 

 2. HRCP Rule 60(b)(5) 

Next, "HRCP Rule 60(b)(5) is based on the historic 

power of a court of equity to modify its decree in the light of 

changed circumstances." In re Hawaiian Elec. Co., 149 Hawai‘i 

343, 362, 489 P.3d 1255, 1274 (2021) (citation omitted). HRCP 

Rule 60(b)(5) "is not a substitute for an appeal" but "refers to 

'some change in conditions that makes continued enforcement 

inequitable.'" Id. "The burden is on the movant to 

'demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying relief.'" 

Id. 

The only circumstance that changed after the default 

of the Note was the First Hawaiian Bank loan commitment for 

$250,000.00. But that loan commitment was offered over two 

years after the Note was due, over ten months after the 

complaint to foreclose was filed, over five months after the 

court granted Oyadomari's motion for summary judgment and 

interlocutory decree of foreclosure, and did not cover the 

amount owed on the Note. Untimely and insufficient alternative 

financing was not an extraordinary circumstance justifying 

relief from the interlocutory decree of foreclosure and the 

related judgment. 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

17

 3. HRCP Rule 60(b)(6) 

Finally, under HRCP Rule 60(b)(6), "the movant must 

show that (1) the motion is based on some reason other than 

those specifically stated in clauses 60(b)(1) through (5); 

(2) the reason urged is such as to justify the relief; and 

(3) the motion is made within a reasonable time." CvitanovichDubie v. Dubie, 125 Hawai‘i 128, 144, 254 P.3d 439, 455 (2011) 

(citation and emphasis omitted). "A party seeking relief under 

HRCP Rule 60(b)(6) after the time of appeal has run must 

establish the existence of 'extraordinary circumstances' that 

prevented or rendered him unable to prosecute an appeal." 

Hawai‘i Hous. Auth. v. Uyehara, 77 Hawai‘i 144, 148-49, 883 P.2d 

65, 69-70 (1994) (citation omitted). 

Again, the unchallenged findings show HQHQ and Quinn 

failed to pay the $312,305.73 owed by June 6, 2015, and they did 

not appeal the April 19, 2017 order granting the motion for 

summary judgment and interlocutory decree of foreclosure, and 

judgment. As they do in their HRCP Rules 60(b)(2) and (b)(5) 

arguments, HQHQ and Quinn rely on the First Hawaiian Bank loan 

commitment to say Quinn can now afford to pay off the loan. 

However, obtaining financing over two years after the default, 

over ten months after the complaint to foreclose was filed, and 

over five months after the order granting summary judgment and 

interlocutory decree of foreclosure, did not establish 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

18

extraordinary circumstances that rendered HQHQ and Quinn unable 

to prosecute an appeal and did not justify relief from the 

interlocutory decree of foreclosure and related judgment. 

Based on the record before us, HQHQ and Quinn did not 

meet their burden of showing there was newly discovered 

evidence, the judgment was no longer equitable, or any other 

reason justifying relief. See generally, HRCP Rule 60(b); Ek v. 

Boggs, 102 Hawai‘i at 294-95, 75 P.3d at 1185-86. Thus, we 

cannot say that the circuit court abused its discretion in its 

October 13, 2017 order by, as HQHQ and Quinn phrase the issue, 

"failing to grant relief from the interlocutory decree of 

foreclosure" based on HRCP Rule 60(b). (Formatting altered.) 

B. Challenge to Orders Subsequent to the October 13, 2017 

Order is Waived 

 

 In their second point of error, HQHQ and Quinn contend 

"[w]here the trial court committed grave error by entering the 

October 13, 2017 [Order], the reversal of the October 13, 2017 

Order requires reversal of all subsequent Orders, Findings of 

Fact, Conclusions of Law and decisions[.]" (Formatting altered.) 

HQHQ and Quinn's entire argument consists of the following two 

sentences: 

"This point is procedural and straight forward. 

All of the court's actions after the October 13, 

2017 Order must be set aside as they are based on 

an order that no longer exists." 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

19

Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) 

Rule 28(b)(7) requires an argument to "contain[] the contentions 

of the appellant on the points presented and the reasons 

therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts 

of the record relied on. . . . Points not argued may be deemed 

waived." In addition, "[a]n appellate court need not address 

matters as to which the appellant has failed to present a 

discernible argument." Int'l Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Carbonel, 93 

Hawai‘i 464, 473, 5 P.3d 454, 463 (2000). 

 HQHQ and Quinn provide no analysis, and cite no legal 

authority to support this point of error. In short, HQHQ and 

Quinn did not comply with HRAP Rule 28(b)(7) and did not present 

a discernible argument. We consider this argument waived. 

 In any event, as explained above, the circuit court 

did not err in entering its October 13, 2017 order. Therefore, 

HQHQ and Quinn's second point of error also lacks merit. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 For the above reasons, we affirm the Circuit Court of 

the Third Circuit's: 

1. October 13, 2017 "Order Denying [Quinn's] Motion 

for Order Compelling [Oyadomari] to Accept Full 

Payment of the June 20, 2008 Promissory Note, 

Filed on October 9, 2017 and Granting 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

20

[Oyadomari's] Motion to Confirm Sale, Filed on 

July 31, 2017";

2. November 24, 2017 "Order Denying Motion for Leave 

to File [Quinn's] Counterclaim and Crossclaim, 

Filed on October 10, 2017 and Motion for 

Reconsideration of October 13, 2017 Ruling 

Denying [Quinn's] Motion for Order Compelling 

[Oyadomari] to Accept Full Payment of June 20, 

2008 Promissory Note (And Objection to 

Plaintiff's Notice of Submission Dated 

October 24, 2017[ )], Filed on November 2, 2017";

3. November 28, 2017 "Order Denying [Quinn's] Motion 

for Order Compelling [Oyadomari] to Accept Full 

Payment of the June 20, 2008 Promissory Note";

4. November 28, 2017 "Findings of Fact, Conclusions 

of Law and Order Granting [Oyadomari's] Motion to 

Confirm Sale";

5. November 28, 2017 Writ of Possession;

6. November 28, 2017 Judgment;

7. January 24, 2018 "Order Granting [Oyadomari's]

Motion to Alter or Amend Findings of Fact, 

Conclusions of Law and Order Granting 

[Oyadomari's] Motion to Confirm Sale Filed 

November 28, 2017";
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

21

8. January 24, 2018 "Order Denying [Quinn's] Motion 

to Strike [Oyadomari's] Motion to Alter or Amend 

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order 

Granting [Oyadomari's] Motion to Confirm Sale 

Filed November 28, 2017"; and

9. January 24, 2018 Amended Judgment.

(Some formatting altered.)

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, June 21, 2023.

On the briefs:

Andrew S. Iwashita,

for Defendant-Appellant

William S. Quinn.

Edmund W.K. Haitsuka,

Danielle N. Degele-Mathews,

for Plaintiff-Appellee

Sharman M. Oyadomari, Trustee 

of the Kikuko Kuwahara

Irrevocable Grantor Trust 

dated April 26, 2013.

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

Chief Judge

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Associate Judge

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen

Associate Judge