Opinion ID: 2636189
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The December 6, 2004 Judgment

Text: After the issuance of the circuit court's February 1, 2002 order dismissing the State's verified petition, no further action was taken in the instant case until December 6, 2004, at which time, a judgmentprepared by the Statewas filed in favor of the Trans and against the State. Thereafter, on December 9, 2004, the State filed a notice of appeal. On December 13, 2004, the Trans filedpursuant to HRCP Rule 60 (2007)a motion to strike the judgment or, in the alternative, to amend the judgment to correct errors and enter the judgment nunc pro tunc, effective February 1, 2002 [hereinafter, the motion to strike the judgment]. Specifically, the Trans requested that two typographical errors be corrected and, essentially, argued that the State should be precluded from appealing from the judgment inasmuch as the circuit court's February 1, 2002 order of dismissal was a final order which [the State], under Hawai`i Rules of Appellate Procedure [(HRAP)] Rule 4(a)(1) [(2001)],[ [7] ]. . . was required to challenge within 30 days after it was filed. The State opposed the Trans' motion to strike the judgment, arguing, inter alia, that the circuit court's February 1, 2002 order was not an appealable order because it was incomplete as it did not address [the Trans'] claims against [the State] for attorneys fees and costs. A hearing was held on December 27, 2004, [8] wherein the parties argued their above stated positions. On January 20, 2005, the circuit court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Trans' motion to strike the judgment. Specifically, the circuit court granted the Trans' request to (1) correct one clerical or typographical error in the judgment and (2) enter the judgment nunc pro tunc to February 1, 2002. However, the circuit court, citing the ICA's decision in Stratis v. Pacific Insurance Co., 8 Haw.App. 79, 82-83, 794 P.2d 1122, 1124-25 (1990), held that the nunc pro tunc provision could not be used to defeat the State's right to appeal from the judgment and the State's time to appeal ran from the actual date of entry of the circuit court's order. The circuit court denied all other relief requested by the Trans. The State filed a second notice of appeal on January 24, 2005, appealing from the circuit court's (1) January 20, 2005 order and (2) December 6, 2004 judgment.