Opinion ID: 2614631
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: A circuit court's denial of a motion for relief from judgment filed pursuant to HRCP Rule 60(b) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Kawamata Farms, Inc. v. United Agri Products, 86 Hawai`i 214, 256, 948 P.2d 1055, 1097 (1997) (quoting Hawai`i Hous. Auth. v. Uyehara, 77 Hawai`i 144, 147, 883 P.2d 65, 68 (1994)). The trial court abuses its discretion when it clearly exceeds the bounds of reason or disregards rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant. State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai`i 319, 329, 984 P.2d 78, 88 (1999) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
We review a trial court's FOFs under the clearly erroneous standard. A[n] [FOF] is clearly erroneous when, despite evidence to support the finding, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction in reviewing the entire evidence that a mistake has been committed. State v. Kane, 87 Hawai`i 71, 74, 951 P.2d 934, 937 (1998) (quoting Aickin v. Ocean View Investments Co., 84 Hawai`i 447, 453, 935 P.2d 992, 998 (1997) (quoting Dan v. State, 76 Hawai`i 423, 428, 879 P.2d 528, 533 (1994))). An FOF is also clearly erroneous when the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding. Alejado v. City and County of Honolulu, 89 Hawai`i 221, 225, 971 P.2d 310, 314 (App.1998) (quoting Nishitani v. Baker, 82 Hawai`i 281, 287, 921 P.2d 1182, 1188 (App.1996)). See also State v. Okumura, 78 Hawai`i 383, 392, 894 P.2d 80, 89 (1995). We have defined `substantial evidence' as credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to support a conclusion. Roxas v. Marcos, 89 Hawai`i 91, 116, 969 P.2d 1209, 1234 (1998) (quoting Kawamata Farms v. United Agri Products, 86 Hawai`i 214, 253, 948 P.2d 1055, 1094 (1997) (quoting Takayama v. Kaiser Found. Hosp., 82 Hawai`i 486, 495, 923 P.2d 903, 912 (1996) (citation, some internal quotation marks, and original brackets omitted))). Kotis, 91 Hawai`i at 328, 984 P.2d at 87 (footnote omitted) (brackets in original). Hawai`i appellate courts review conclusions of law de novo, under the right/wrong standard. See Associates Fin. Services Co. of Hawaii, Inc. [v. Mijo], 87 Hawai`i [19] at 28, 950 P.2d [1219] at 1228. Under the right/wrong standard, this court `examine[s] the facts and answer[s] the question without being required to give any weight to the trial court's answer to it.' Estate of Marcos, 88 Hawai`i at 153, 963 P.2d at 1129 (citation omitted). Robert's Hawaii School Bus, Inc. v. Laupahoehoe Transportation Co., Inc., 91 Hawai`i 224, 239, 982 P.2d 853, 868 (1999).