Court Opinion

ID: 9550847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:43:29.871925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:33.091819
License: Public Domain

*175DISSENTING OPINION OF KOBAYASHI, J., WITH WHOM MARUMOTO, J., JOINS
I dissent.
I am of the opinion that the applicable statute of limitations in the instant case is HRS § 657-12. The opinion of the majority of the court does violence to the generally known and usual meaning of the word “debt”1 to reach the conclusion that HRS § 657-1(1) is applicable. Clearly HRS § 657-7 and HRS § 657-1(1) are not applicable herein.
In a strained, tenuous analysis and construction of HRS § 657-1(1) the majority of the court, in actuality, judicially legislates HRS § 657-1(1) to read “actions based upon a debt, contract, obligation, or liability”. The explanations stated in the opinion are:
1. “[W]e are persuaded that the words ‘obligation’ and ‘liability’ . . . would be rendered meaningless unless read to encompass actions such as this, . .
2. “A narrow reading of section 657-1(1) would thus fail to give effect to the meaning of these words [obligation and liability] — a result which transgresses the basic proposition that ‘[a] statute should be so construed as to make it consistent in all its parts and so that effect may be given to every section, clause or part of it’ ”.
“A debt means a fixed and certain obligation to pay money or some other valuable thing or things either in the present or in the future.”
See also, In re Estate of Colburn, 26 Haw. 679, 688 (1923).
The majority of the court, in its opinion, simply overlooks the fact that HRS § 657-1(1), as enacted, states clearly, simply, and without ambiguity in its relevant portion as follows:
(1) Actions for the recovery of any debt, founded upon *176any contract, obligation, or liability, .... (Emphasis added.)
Thus, without any uncertainty a debt must be involved and contrary to the statement expressed by the majority of the court the remaining portion of the quoted statute are all given effect because said debt must be founded upon any contract, obligation or liability.
The opinion of the majority is difficult to comprehend, especially when we consider the amendment of HRS § 657-1 subsequent to the accrual2 of the instant claim for relief, the fact that the language of HRS § 657-1(1) is plain and unambiguous,3 and the clear applicability of HRS § 657-12.

 HRS § 1-14; Burke v. Boulder M. & E. Co., 77 Colo. 230, 232, 235 P. 574, 575 (1925), which states:
“A debt means a fixed and certain obligation to pay money or some other valuable thing or things either in the present or in the future.”
See also, In re Estate of Colburn, 26 Haw. 679, 688 (1923).

See Yoshizaki v. Hilo Hospital, 50 Haw. 1, 427 P.2d 845 (1967); 50 Haw. 150, 433 P.2d 220 (1967).

 See Matson Terminals, Inc. v. Hasegawa, 54 Haw. 563, 565-66, 512 P.2d 1, 2 (1973).