Opinion ID: 2599393
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: An appellate court reviews a circuit court's determination of an HRCP Rule 60 motion for an abuse of discretion. Amantiad v. Odum, 90 Hawai`i 152, 158, 977 P.2d 160, 166 (1999) (citations omitted). [A]n abuse of discretion occurs where 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. Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. State, 110 Hawai`i 338, 351, 133 P.3d 767, 780 (2006) (quoting Ranger Ins. Co. v. Hinshaw, 103 Hawai`i 26, 30, 79 P.3d 119, 123 (2003)).
A trial court's determination regarding the enforceability of a settlement agreement is a conclusion of law reviewable de novo.  Assocs. Fin. Servs. Co. of Hawai`i, Inc. v. Mijo, 87 Hawai`i 19, 28, 950 P.2d 1219, 1228 (1998) (citation omitted).
Statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewable de novo.  State v. Levi, 102 Hawai`i 282, 285, 75 P.3d 1173, 1176 (2003) (quoting State v. Arceo, 84 Hawai`i 1, 10, 928 P.2d 843, 852 (1996)). When interpreting rules promulgated by the court, principles of statutory construction apply. Kawamata Farms, Inc. v. United Agri Prods., 86 Hawai`i 214, 255, 948 P.2d 1055, 1096 (1997) (quoting State v. Baron, 80 Hawai`i 107, 113, 905 P.2d 613, 619 (1995)).
The existence of duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff . . . is entirely a question of law. Knodle v. Waikiki Gateway Hotel, Inc., 69 Haw. 376, 385, 742 P.2d 377, 383 (1987) (citations omitted).
A trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo. Bremner v. City & County of Honolulu, 96 Hawai`i 134, 138, 28 P.3d 350, 354 (App.2001). The court must accept plaintiff's allegations as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff; dismissal is proper only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his or her claim that would entitle him or her to relief. Dunlea v. Dappen, 83 Hawai`i 28, 32, 924 P.2d 196, 200 (1996), overruled on other grounds by Hac v. Univ. of Hawai`i, 102 Hawai`i 92, 105-06, 73 P.3d 46, 59-60 (2003) (citations omitted). However, . . . a motion seeking dismissal of a complaint is transformed into a Hawai`i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 56 motion for summary judgment when the circuit court considers matters outside the pleadings. Au v. Au, 63 Haw. 210, 213, 626 P.2d 173, 176 (1981). Wong v. Cayetano, 111 Hawai`i 462, 476, 143 P.3d 1, 15 (2006).
We review the circuit court's grant or denial of summary judgment de novo. Hawaiì [sic] Community Federal Credit Union v. Keka, 94 Hawai`i 213, 221, 11 P.3d 1, 9 (2000). The standard for granting a motion for summary judgment is settled: [S]ummary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A fact is material if proof of that fact would have the effect of establishing or refuting one of the essential elements of a cause of action or defense asserted by the parties. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. In other words, we must view all of the evidence and the inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Coon v. City and County of Honolulu, 98 Hawai`i 233, 244-45, 47 P.3d 348, 359-60 (2002) (second alteration in original). Kau v. City & County of Honolulu, 104 Hawai`i 468, 473-74, 92 P.3d 477, 482-83 (2004).
The award of a taxable cost is within the discretion of the [circuit] court and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Wong v. Takeuchi, 88 Hawai`i 46, 52, 961 P.2d 611, 617 (1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).