Court Opinion

ID: 9961142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 21:04:42.508461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:17.900193
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

                                                  Electronically Filed
                                                  Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                                  CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                  17-APR-2024
                                                  09:57 AM
                                                  Dkt. 229 SO

                           NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

                 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

                         OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

   ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF KUHIO SHORES AT POIPU,
            Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee,
                                  v.
PACIFIC RIM PROPERTY SERVICE CORPORATION, a Hawaii Corporation,
             Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                 and
      VIVIAN T. LORD; DIRECTOR OF FINANCE, COUNTY OF KAUAI,
                        Defendants-Appellees,
                                 and
     JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10;
          DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES 1-10; and
               DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-10, Defendants
                                 and
       WILLIAM H. GILLIAM, Real Party in Interest-Appellant

          APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                         (CIVIL NO. 16-1-0063)

                    SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, and Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.)

          We construe the November 1, 2019 Notice of Appeal filed
by Real Party in Interest-Appellant William H. Gilliam (Gilliam),
self-represented, to appeal from the following order and writ,
entered on October 2, 2019, by the Circuit Court of the Fifth
Circuit (Circuit Court):1/ (1) "Order Granting
Plaintiff[/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee] Association of
Apartment Owners of Kuhio Shores at Poipu's [(AOAO)] Motion for
Instructions for the Receiver" (Order to Sell); and (2) "Writ of

     1/
            The Honorable Kathleen N.A. Watanabe presided.
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Possession." The Order to Sell, among other things: (a)
authorizes a court-appointed receiver (Receiver) of
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellee Pacific Rim Property
Service Corporation to sell the property that is the subject of
the underlying foreclosure action (Property), and (b) states that
the Receiver "is entitled to the exclusive and immediate
possession of the Property along with issuance of [the] [W]rit of
[P]ossession effective forthwith." The Writ of Possession
specifically commands Gilliam's removal from the Property.
          On May 29, 2020, we entered an order granting Gilliam's
March 12, 2020, and May 10, 2020 emergency motions for stay,
which stayed the Order to Sell and the Writ of Possession as
against Gilliam in his personal capacity, pending this court's
final decision in this appeal.
          On appeal, Gilliam appears to raise various issues
regarding the underlying foreclosure action and the related
appointment of the Receiver. Gilliam also appears to contend
that the Circuit Court denied him due process in issuing the
Order to Sell and the Writ of Possession against him, as a non-
party.2/
          After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant
legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues
raised and the arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve
Gilliam's contentions as follows.

I.   Jurisdiction

           There appears to have been no adjudication of the
AOAO's foreclosure complaint, no issuance of a foreclosure

      2/
             We note that Gilliam's opening brief fails to comply in material
respects with Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4) and
(7). In particular, Gilliam makes numerous factual assertions and arguments
without any supporting references to the record and fails to articulate
specific points of error. The argument section is conclusory and often
difficult to discern. Gilliam's "failure to comply with HRAP Rule 28(b)(4) is
alone sufficient to affirm the circuit court's judgment." Morgan v. Planning
Dep't, Cty. of Kauai, 104 Hawai#i 173, 180, 86 P.3d 982, 989 (2004) (citing
Schefke v. Reliable Collection Agency, Ltd., 96 Hawai #i 408, 420, 32 P.3d 52,
64 (2001)). Nevertheless, we have "consistently adhered to the policy of
affording litigants the opportunity 'to have their cases heard on the merits,
where possible.'" Morgan, 104 Hawai#i at 180–81, 86 P.3d at 989–90 (quoting
O'Connor v. Diocese of Honolulu, 77 Hawai#i 383, 386, 885 P.2d 361, 364
(1994)). We thus address Gilliam's arguments to the extent discernible.

                                      2
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

decree, and no judgment entered. There is thus no final and
appealable order under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 667-51(a).
It follows that Gilliam's appeal, as it relates to the
foreclosure action and the related appointment of the Receiver,
should be dismissed.
          However, this court has appellate jurisdiction to
review the Order to Sell and the Writ of Possession, which are
inextricably linked, under the Forgay doctrine. See Forgay v.
Conrad, 47 U.S. 201 (1848); Ciesla v. Reddish, 78 Hawai#i 18, 20,
889 P.2d 702, 704 (1995); Bank of America, N.A. v. Webb, No.
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2019 WL 1785047, at *2 (Haw. App. Apr. 24, 2019)
(SDO). Gilliam's status as a nonparty to the underlying
foreclosure action does not deprive this court of such
jurisdiction. See Kahala Royal Corp. v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn
& Stifel, 113 Hawai#i 251, 276, 151 P.3d 732, 757 (2007) (holding
that a non-party has standing to appeal without having intervened
in the underlying litigation where a court order "directly binds
the nonparty by name") (quoting 15A C. Wright, A. Miller & E.
Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure: Jurisdiction and Related
Matters § 3902.1, at 44323 (2006)); Webb, 2019 WL 1785047, at *2
(concluding that this court had jurisdiction over a non-party's
appeal from a writ of possession that expressly authorized the
non-party's removal from property that was the subject of an
underlying foreclosure action); see also Tax Found. of Hawai#i v.
State, 144 Hawai#i 175, 188, 439 P.3d 127, 140 (2019) (standing
is a prudential consideration and not an issue of subject matter
jurisdiction).
          Therefore, this court has jurisdiction over Gilliam's
appeal to the limited extent that Gilliam is entitled to
appellate review of the Order to Sell and the Writ of Possession,
which in combination expressly authorize the immediate sale of,
and Gilliam's removal from, the Property. See Webb, 2019 WL
1785047, at *2.

II.   The Circuit Court Abused its Discretion in Entering the
      Order to Sell and the Writ of Possession

          We construe Gilliam's opening brief as contending that
the Circuit Court denied him due process and otherwise abused its

                                  3
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

discretion in issuing the Order to Sell and the Writ of
Possession against him, as a non-party.
          In Webb, we ruled that the circuit court abused its
discretion in issuing a writ of possession that expressly
authorized a non-party's removal from property that was the
subject of an underlying foreclosure action, where the non-party
was never made a party to the action. 2019 WL 1785047, at *3.
There, as here, the non-party appellant claimed an interest in
the property, but the foreclosing entity never named the non-
party as a defendant in the foreclosure action, and the circuit
court denied the non-party's motion to intervene. We reasoned:

          "Generally, '[i]t is elementary that one is not bound
          by a judgment in personam resulting from litigation in
          which he is not designated as a party or to which he
          has not been made a party by service of process.'"
          Kahala Royal Corp., 113 Hawai#i at 277, 151 P.3d at
          758 (quoting Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research,
          Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969)). Further, "[i]n order
          for the decree of the lower court to be binding upon
          such [absent] persons, they must be made parties to
          the suit, either as plaintiffs or defendants." Haiku
          Plantations Ass'n v. Lono, 56 Haw. 96, 102, 529 P.2d
          1, 5 (1974) (quoting Filipino Fed'n of Am., Inc. v.
          Cubico, 46 Haw. 353, 372, 380 P.2d 488, 498 (1963)).

Id. We concluded that, to the extent the writ of possession
named the non-party in her personal capacity, "the Circuit Court
erred in rendering a binding adjudication against [the] non-
party, from which she was aggrieved[,]" and thus abused its
discretion. Id.; see NationStar Mortgage LLC v. Balocon, No.
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2018 WL 3114474, at *3 (Haw. App. June 25, 2018)
(holding that the trial court erred in explicitly including a
non-party appellant in its order granting confirmation of sale
and judgment, and issuing a writ of possession against the non-
party appellant).
          Similarly, here, the Writ of Possession and, by
reference, the Order to Sell specifically commands the removal of
Gilliam, in his personal capacity, from the Property. However,
Gilliam was never made a party to the underlying foreclosure
action. Applying this court's reasoning in Webb, we conclude
that the Circuit Court abused its discretion in issuing the Order
to Sell and the Writ of Possession against Gilliam because he was
never made a party to the underlying action.

                                    4
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

          To the extent that Gilliam attempts to raise any other
contentions regarding the Order to Sell and the Writ of
Possession over which we have jurisdiction, they are difficult,
if not impossible, to discern. In any event, given our
disposition, we need not reach such contentions.

III.   Conclusion

          For the reasons discussed above, we vacate the "Order
Granting Plaintiff Association of Apartment Owners of Kuhio
Shores at Poipu's Motion for Instructions for the Receiver" and
the "Writ of Possession," entered on October 2, 2019, by the
Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit. The appeal as it relates to
the foreclosure action and the related appointment of the
Receiver is dismissed. This case is remanded to the Circuit
Court for further proceedings consistent with this Summary
Disposition Order.
          Further, Gilliam's October 7, 2022 request for judicial
notice pursuant to Hawai#i Rules of Evidence Rule 201 is denied.
Gilliam's April 2, 2024 motion to retain oral argument, and April
5, 2024 motion to strike Defendant-Appellee Director of Finance,
County of Kauai's joinder to the AOAO's memorandum opposing
Gilliam's motion to retain oral argument are also denied.
          DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 17, 2024.

On the briefs:

William H. Gilliam,                   /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Self-represented Real Party in        Presiding Judge
Interest-Appellant

Marcus A. Busekrus,                   /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Christian P. Porter,                  Associate Judge
H. Maxwell Kopper
(Porter McGuire Kiakona, LLP)
Jeffrey H.K. Sia, and                 /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Dorothy P.H. Meisner                  Associate Judge
(Chong, Nishimoto, Sia,
Nakamura, & Goya)
for Plaintiff/Counterclaim
Defendant-Appellee.

                                  5