Opinion ID: 2508213
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Order Granting Stay Of Proceedings

Text: On December 19, 2000, the ERS filed a motion for partial stay of proceedings to enforce postjudgment order pending appeal and a memorandum in support of the motion. In its memorandum in support of the motion, the ERS contended (1) that Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 62 (2004) provides for a stay pending appeal and (2) that the ERS is likely to prevail on appeal, and a stay is necessary to prevent undue prejudice to the ERS.... On January 17, 2001, the Retirees filed a response to the ERS's motion. In their response, the Retirees contended that, in granting a stay pending appeal[,]... [the circuit] court [should] clarify ... that postjudgment interest shall be paid upon the money ordered to be paid in the October 18, 2000 order, should [the Retirees] prevail on appeal. On January 22, 2001, the ERS filed a reply memorandum, asserting (1) that the Retirees'response to the motion for a stay appears to indicate that [they] do not oppose the motion and (2) that there is no statutory or common law authority for awarding interest[] upon interest โ i.e., compound interest, insofar as compound interest in a postjudgment situation is non-recoverable, precisely because postjudgment interest is statutory, and there is no statutory (or common law) basis for compound interest. On January 25, 2001, the circuit court conducted a hearing on the ERS's motion. On February 14, 2001, the circuit court entered an order granting a stay of the proceedings. The circuit court reasoned as follows: The motion for the stay itself was unopposed. [The Retirees] took the position that any stay should be conditioned upon the [circuit c]ourt ordering that in the event that [they] prevailed on appeal on the postjudgment interest issue, that the ERS shall pay postjudgment interest, dating from October 18, 2000, the date that this [c]ourt entered its Order Following Remand from the Hawai'i Supreme Court Regarding Attorney's Fees and Postjudgment Interest for Retired Teachers of the Class Action, on the interest the [circuit c]ourt ordered the ERS to calculate and pay in that order. [The Retirees] argued that postjudgment interest was due on the interest awarded in the [circuit c]ourt's October 18, 2000 order which [the Retirees] argued was the equivalent of a money judgment. [The Retirees] also argued, inter alia, that such a condition was fair and reasonable, because [they] would lose the use of the interest this [c]ourt ordered paid during the time between this [c]ourt's October 18, 2000 order and the conclusion of the appeal, and were a stay granted without such relief, they would not be compensated for that loss. The ERS argued that because the sums the [circuit c]ourt ordered the ERS to calculate and pay in its October 18, 2000 order constituted postjudgment interest, the relief requested by [the Retirees] would have amounted to interest upon interest. The ERS argued that interest upon interest was not permitted pursuant to statute or common law. The [circuit c]ourt having considered the arguments of the parties, and their submissions, specifically finds that to grant the condition for a stay requested by [the Retirees] would constitute the awarding of interest upon interest, and that is not authorized by law. Thus, the [circuit c]ourt grants the Motion for a Stay requested by the ERS without condition. That portion of this [c]ourt's Order Following Remand from the Hawai'i Supreme Court Regarding Attorney's Fees and Postjudgment Interest for Retired Teachers of the Class Action ordering the ERS to calculate and pay postjudgment interest, is stayed pending resolution of the ERS's appeal of this matter. On March 9, 2001, the Retirees timely filed a notice of appeal from the order granting stay of proceedings. [13] On October 29, 2004, we ordered consolidation of the foregoing appeal with the November 14 and 15, 2000 appeals ( i.e., the already consolidated No. 23892) for disposition under No. 23892. See supra note 2.