On September 17, 2018, the Hawaii Supreme Court filed an opinion in a case entitled Deutsche Bank National Trust vs. Michael C. Greenspon, SCWC-14-0001137. Of interest to appeals, the HAWSCT addressed the issue of “whether a final order must be signed by a district court clerk or judge for an appeal to lie from that order.” Slip. Op. at 1-2. The court answered, generally, in the affirmative. However, the court also held that under the specific facts of this case appellate jurisdiction existed even though the appealed order contained no such signature because “other signed filings related to the order being appealed were sufficient to provide appellate jurisdiction.” Id. at 2.
Greenspon appealed, in part, an order that denied his request for costs. The order was not signed. However, the lower court had also denied a proposed judgment. The Denial of Proposed Judgment was accompanied by a court “Denial Form.” The Denial Form was signed by a trial court judge.
At the onset of its analysis of this issue, the HAWSCT noted that “the statute and rule authorizing appeals to the ICA do not expressly provide that a signature is required for entry of an appealable order or final judgment.” Slip. Op. at 21-22. Based on the relevant rules and governing statues, the HAWSCT held that “a signature of a clerk or judge as to the text of an order is necessary to fulfill the requirements of an ‘entry of judgment or appealable order’ under HRAP Rule 4(a).”
HRAP 4(a) governs the timing for filing civil appeals. Under the HAWSCT’s analysis, the ability of a clerk to sign an order, rather than a judge, is based on specific statutes and rules that permit clerk’s to sign certain types of orders and judgments, including HRS § 604-20, and Hawaii Rules of the District Court Rule 10.
While the court recognized the necessity of a signature of a clerk or judge (whichever is permitted by rule or statute), in this particular case, the HAWSCT held that the absence of such a signature on the appealed order denying the request for costs was not fatal to appellate jurisdiction. According to the court, “other documents in the record [] support a finding that the district court effectively denied the Request for Costs.” Slip. Op. at 26-27. Specifically, although neither the order denying costs nor the denial of proposed judgment contained a signature, the Denial Form was signed by a judge. Thus, the HAWSCT held that “construing the Order Denying Request for Costs with the Denial of Proposed Judgment and its accompanying Denial Form, we find that there is appellate jurisdiction over the appeal from the Order Denying Request for Costs.” Slip. Op. at 28.
The court also addressed the issue of “whether a motion for sanctions may be dismissed without prejudice when the underlying facts and issues allegedly establishing the sanctionable conduct are also at issue in another pending case involving the same parties.” Slip Op. at 1. The HAWSCT held that the lower court did not err.
The HAWSCT’s full unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Pollack, is available here.
Comments