Opinion ID: 2630595
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: This court has appellate jurisdiction over an appeal from a circuit court order expunging a lis pendens because such an order is a collateral order.

Text: The Association argues that this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal sub judice because (1) the order was interlocutory and was not certified, [5] (2) the order was not collateral, and (3) the doctrine of Forgay v. Conrad, 47 U.S.(6 How.) 201, 12 L.Ed. 404 (1848) [6] is inapplicable. Knauer asserts that this court has jurisdiction pursuant to the collateral order doctrine as set forth in International Savings and Loan Association v. Woods, 69 Haw. 11, 15, 731 P.2d 151, 154 (1987), and the irreparable injury doctrine as adopted by Penn, 2 Haw.App. at 274, 630 P.2d at 649 (quoting Forgay, 47 U.S. (6 How) at 206). Because an order granting a motion to expunge a lis pendens is a collateral order and Knauer timely appealed, this court has appellate jurisdiction. This court has long held that jurisdiction is the base requirement for any court resolving a dispute because without jurisdiction, the court has no authority to consider the case. TSA International Ltd. v. Shimizu Corp., 92 Hawai`i at 265, 990 P.2d at 737 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In civil cases, this court's appellate jurisdiction arises from a circuit court's final judgment or order pursuant to HRS § 641-1(a) (1993), [7] from a circuit court's interlocutory order pursuant to HRS § 641-1(b) (1993), [8] or from a collateral order. Judgments, orders, or decrees need not be final judgments to be appealable, if they are collateral orders affecting rights which are independent of, and separable from, the rights asserted in the main action. Chuck v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 61 Haw. 552, 555, 606 P.2d 1320, 1323 (1980) (quoting Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949)). The collateral order doctrine is narrowly construed; thus, to fall within its confines an order must [1] conclusively determine the disputed question, [2] resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and [3] be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Siangco v. Kasadate, 77 Hawai`i 157, 161, 883 P.2d 78, 82 (1994) (alteration in original) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 57 L.Ed.2d 351, [] (1978) (footnote omitted)); see also Association of Owners v. Swinerton & Walberg Co., 68 Haw. 98, 105, 705 P.2d 28, 34 (1985); MDG Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Invs., Inc., 51 Haw. 480, 481-82, 463 P.2d 530, 532 (1969). An order expunging a lis pendens meets the three criteria. The order conclusively resolves whether the lis pendens should or should not be cancelled because nothing further in the suit can affect the validity of the notice. The order cancelling the lis pendens does not address the merits of the underlying claim. And if the movant had to wait until final judgment on the underlying claim, the realty could be sold before the issue was resolved, thereby rendering the order unreviewable. See Scroggins v. Edmondson, 250 Ga. 430, 297 S.E.2d 469, 472 (1982); Keith v. Bratton, 738 F.2d 314, 316 (8th Cir.1984); Chrysler Corp. v. Fedders, 670 F.2d 1316, 1318 n. 2 (3d Cir.1982); Suess v. Stapp, 407 F.2d 662, 663 (7th Cir.1969). In the instant case, the September 7, 1999 order expunging the lis pendens conclusively determined whether Knauer's action was one in which a lis pendens could or could not be filed. The issue of the lis pendens was completely separate from Knauer's underlying action in which he sought equitable relief and damages. Once the real property in the underlying action was sold, review of Knauer's lis pendens would serve no purpose. We hold that an order expunging a lis pendens is a collateral order, and thus this court has jurisdiction over this appeal.