Opinion ID: 2655264
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The circuit court lacked jurisdiction to award Respondent attorneys’ fees subsequent to Petitioners’ filing of the notice of appeal because Respondent failed to file a motion for the award of fees. The filing of motions for the award of attorneys’ fees and costs is governed by Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 54(d)(2): Claims for attorneys’ fees and related nontaxable expenses shall be made by motion unless the substantive law governing the action provides for the recovery of such fees as an element of damages to be proved at trial. . . . Unless otherwise provided by statute or order of the court, the motion must be filed and served no later than 14 days after entry of an appealable order or judgment; must specify the judgment and the statute, rule, or other grounds entitling 11  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  the moving party to the award; and must state the amount or provide a fair estimate of the amount sought. (Emphasis added). Additionally, pursuant to HRCP Rule 7(b), a motion may be made orally during a hearing: An application to the court for an order shall be by motion which, unless made during a hearing or trial, shall be made in writing, shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought. The requirement of writing is fulfilled if the motion is stated in a written notice of the hearing of the motion. (Emphasis added). In construing statutes or rules, “‘laws in pari materia, or upon the same subject matter, shall be construed with reference to each other.’” Aloha Care v. Ito, 126 Hawai#i 326, 349, 271 P.3d 621, 644 (2012) (alterations omitted) (quoting HRS § 1-16 (1993)). And, “[w]hen faced with ‘a plainly irreconcilable conflict between a general and a specific statute concerning the same subject matter,’ this court invariably favors the specific.” Kinkaid v. Bd. of Review of City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 106 Hawai#i 318, 323, 104 P.3d 905, 910 (2004) (some internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Metcalf v. Vol. Emps. Ben. Ass’n of Haw., 99 Hawai#i 53, 59, 52 P.3d 823, 829 (2002)). Applying this principle to HRCP Rules 7(b) and 54(d)(2)(A), it is apparent that HRCP Rule 54(d)(2)(A) sets specific requirements for the filing and serving of motions for attorney fees and is the controlling rule. Pursuant to HRCP Rule 54(d)(2)(A), a motion for attorneys’ fees must be filed and served no later than 12  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  14 days after entry of the judgment, must specify the judgment and the statute, rule, or other grounds entitling the award, and must state the amount or provide a fair estimate of the amount sought. In Respondent’s opposition to Petitioners’ motion for a stay, and during argument, Respondent stressed that he “had not yet” and that he would be filing a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Respondent himself did not intend his brief justifications for the award of attorneys’ fees in his March 5, 2012 memorandum in opposition to Petitioners’ motion for a stay, or his discussion of attorneys’ fees and costs during the March 13, 2012 hearing, to constitute the requisite “motion” for attorneys’ fees and costs. Instead, Respondent was simply presenting arguments to justify the inclusion of attorneys’ fees in the calculation of a supersedeas bond. Additionally, Respondent’s March 23, 2012 memorandum regarding the award of attorneys’ fees and costs cannot constitute a motion of attorneys’ fees and costs because it was filed after the circuit court’s March 14, 2012 minute order awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to Respondent. Respondent’s memorandum in opposition to Petitioners’ motion for a stay and his arguments during the March 13, 2012 hearing also fail to meet HRCP Rule 54(d)(2)(A)’s requirements 13  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  for a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Respondent’s memorandum was filed four days prior to the court’s entry of judgment on March 9, 2012; therefore it could not identify the judgment on which the award was based. Respondent’s opposition also identified HRS § 667-33(c) as the grounds for the award and made no mention of assumpsit, which was the basis of the circuit court’s award. During the March 13, 2012 hearing, Respondent argued that the award of attorneys’ fees and costs was justified under the theory of assumpsit, but Respondent failed to “state the amount or provide a fair estimate of the amount sought,” as required under HRCP Rule 54(d)(2)(A). Respondent also failed to identify the judgment on which the award of attorneys’ fees and costs was based. Because Respondent did not file a timely motion for attorneys’ fees and costs prior to the filing of the notice of appeal, the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enter an award of attorneys’ fees and costs subsequent to the filing of the notice of appeal. “The notice of appeal shall be deemed to appeal the disposition of all post-judgment motions that are timely filed after entry of the judgment or order.” HRAP Rule 4(a)(3). “Generally, the filing of a notice of appeal divests the [circuit] court of jurisdiction over the appealed case.” TSA Int’l Ltd. v. Shimizu Corp., 92 Hawai#i 243, 265, 990 P.2d 713, 14  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  735 (1999). The circuit court only “retains jurisdiction to determine matters collateral or incidental to the judgment, and may act in aid of the appeal.” Id. Therefore, the circuit court’s April 27, 2012 order awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to Respondent is void for lack of jurisdiction.