Opinion ID: 2613178
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Motion to Reinstate Appeal

Text: Finally, Park argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying her motion to reinstate the appeal. Neither Park nor her attorney appeared at the district court hearing and the court affirmed the revocation pursuant to District Court Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 72(h) (1991). [5] Park moved to reinstate the appeal based on the neglect of a secretary at her attorney's office. The secretary apparently placed the notification of the hearing date in another person's file, thus accounting for the confusion. A motion to set aside a default entry or default judgment may and should be granted when the court finds (1) that the nondefaulting party will not be prejudiced by the re-opening, (2) that the defaulting party has a meritorious defense, and 3) that the default was not the result of inexcusable neglect or a willful act. BDM, Inc. v. Sageco, Inc., 57 Haw. 73, 77, 549 P.2d 1147, 1150 (1976); Dillingham Investment Corp. v. Kunio Yokoyama Trust, 8 Haw.App. 226, 236, 797 P.2d 1316, 1320 (1990). Having examined Park's contentions on appeal, we believe that she has no meritorious defense and that the outcome of her appeal would be no different if reinstated. Therefore, we hold that Park fails to meet the second prong of the BDM test and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Park's motion.