Oyadomari v. HQHQ, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
21-JUN-2023
07:58 AM
Dkt. 153 MO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

SHARMAN M. OYADOMARI, Trustee of the Kikuko Kuwahara
Irrevocable Grantor Trust dated April 26, 2013,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HQHQ, INC., a Hawai‘i corporation; and
WILLIAM S. QUINN, Defendants-Appellants, and
BRIAN M. HYATT; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10,
Defendants-Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(CIVIL NO. 3CC16-1-000411)

Memorandum Opinion
(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)

Defendants-Appellants HQHQ, Inc. (HQHQ) and William S.

Quinn (Quinn) appeal from nine orders and judgments of the

Circuit Court of the Third Circuit involving judicial

foreclosure and confirmation of sale proceedings brought by

Plaintiff-Appellee Sharman M. Oyadomari (Oyadomari). 1

1 HQHQ and Quinn appeal from the following orders and judgments:

(1) October 13, 2017 "Order Denying Defendant William S.
Quinn's Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff
Sharman M. Oyadomari, Trustee to Accept Full Payment of

(continued . . .)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On appeal, HQHQ and Quinn raise two points of error,

alleging (1) the circuit court erred in failing to grant relief

from the interlocutory decree of foreclosure and (2) all orders

(. . . continued)

the June 20, 2008 Promissory Note, Filed on October 9,
2017 and Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm Sale,
Filed on July 31, 2017";

(2) November 24, 2017 "Order Denying Motion for Leave to
File Defendant William S. Quinn's Counterclaim and
Crossclaim, Filed on October 10, 2017 and Motion for
Reconsideration of October 13, 2017 Ruling Denying
Defendant William S. Quinn's Motion for Order
Compelling Plaintiff Sharman M. Oyadomari, Trustee to
Accept Full Payment of June 20, 2008 Promissory Note
(and Objection to Plaintiff's Notice of Submission
Dated October 24, 2017[)], Filed on November 2, 2017";

(3) November 28, 2017 "Order Denying Defendant William S.
Quinn's Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff
Sharman M. Oyadomari, Trustee to Accept Full Payment of
the June 20, 2008 Promissory Note";

(4) November 28, 2017 "Findings of Fact [(FOF)],
Conclusions of Law and Order Granting Plaintiff's
Motion to Confirm Sale";

(5) November 28, 2017 Writ of Possession;

(6) November 28, 2017 Judgment;

(7) January 24, 2018 "Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to
Alter or Amend Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm Sale Filed
November 28, 2017";

(8) January 24, 2018 "Order Denying Defendant William S.
Quinn's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or
Amend Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order
Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm Sale Filed
November 28, 2017"; and

(9) January 24, 2018 Amended Judgment.

The Honorable Harry P. Freitas presided over the October 13, 2017 order
denying Quinn's motion to compel Oyadomari to accept full payment and
granting Oyadomari's motion to confirm the sale.

The Honorable Henry T. Nakamoto presided over all other orders and
judgments.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

entered after the October 13, 2017 order require reversal. We

affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

According to Quinn, his family founded Pahoa Feed and

Fertilizer as a sole proprietorship in 2000. Quinn explains

that, in 2002, Brian M. Hyatt's (Hyatt) family and Quinn's

family incorporated Pahoa Feed and Fertilizer under HQHQ, Inc.,

a Hawai‘i corporation, consisting of a 50-50 ownership between

the two families.

On June 20, 2008, HQHQ executed a promissory note

(Note), promising to repay Yoso and Kikuko Kuwahara (Kuwaharas),

in their capacity as trustee of their respective revocable

living trusts, for a $445,000.00 loan with an interest rate of

six percent per year. The Note required HQHQ to pay the

Kuwaharas $3,500.00 every month until June 6, 2015, at which

time HQHQ would be required to pay the balance of the Note.

Quinn and Hyatt each personally guaranteed HQHQ's

obligations under the Note. FOF 4. The loan was secured with a

Mortgage on a Property in Puna on the island of Hawai‘i. FOF 2,

3. The Mortgage was recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances on

June 25, 2008.

Kikuko Kuwahara (in her capacity as Trustee of the

Kikuko Kuwahara Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

September 15, 1986, as amended, and as Successor Trustee of the

Yoso Kuwahara Revocable Living Trust dated March 3, 1977, as

amended) assigned the Note and Mortgage to Oyadomari in 2013,

and recorded the assignment in the Bureau of Conveyances. Per

this assignment, Oyadomari had "all right, title and interest in

and to" the Note and Mortgage, including the "obligation and

power to discharge Mortgage through the execution and delivery

of a release of this Mortgage."

According to correspondence Quinn attached to his and

HQHQ's memorandum in opposition to the commissioner's motion for

leave to sell without an open house, Quinn and Oyadomari were

negotiating the terms of a purchase money mortgage for the

property in May 2015, a month before the Note became due. 2

On June 6, 2015, the Note became due with a principal

balance of $312,305.73 and interest accruing at a rate of six

percent per year. FOF 6, 9. HQHQ, Quinn, and Hyatt

(collectively Defendants) failed to pay the amount owed. FOF 7.

In letters dated June 24, 2015 and February 19, 2016,

Oyadomari made demands on Defendants to pay the balance due.

FOF 7. Despite the demands for payment, Defendants "failed to

pay the amounts owed under the Note." FOF 8.

2 Quinn represented to the circuit court that, around this time, the
Hyatt and Quinn families realized "future business opportunities were best
pursued separately as we were at an impasse regarding the direction of the
business and did not work well as business partners." Quinn also submitted
to the circuit court a letter from Hyatt indicating a willingness to
relinquish his family's interest in HQHQ if certain demands were met.

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Correspondence Quinn submitted to the circuit court

indicated that the parties continued negotiating a new loan, but

in June 2016, Oyadomari's attorney stated, "We have a

foreclosure complaint that we are prepared to file but my client

is willing to hold off on filing the complaint if a new loan can

be closed by July 1, 2016" and set a June 17, 2016 deadline. On

June 17, 2016, Quinn responded with modifications, to which

Oyadomari was "not agreeable[.]" Oyadomari then proposed new

terms that would expire at 4:30 p.m. on Friday, June 24, 2016.

The correspondence provided by Quinn did not reflect a response.

B. Procedural Background

1. The Complaint

On November 29, 2016, Oyadomari filed her complaint

for foreclosure in the circuit court against Defendants.

Oyadomari contended Defendants were in "material default under

the terms of the Note and the Mortgage[,]" therefore she was

"entitled to foreclose upon the Mortgage and the subject

property and to obtain a deficiency judgment, if appropriate,

against Defendants."

2. Oyadomari's Motion for Summary Judgment and
Interlocutory Decree of Foreclosure

On February 15, 2017, Oyadomari filed a motion for

summary judgment and interlocutory decree of foreclosure. In

her memorandum in support of the motion, Oyadomari stated she

was entitled to summary judgment on her foreclosure claim

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

because she established the four material factual elements

outlined in Bank of Honolulu v. Anderson, 3 Haw. App. 545, 550,

551, 654 P.2d 1370, 1374, 1375 (1982) (explaining that a party

moving for summary judgment on a foreclosure claim must prove

these material facts to prevail: "(1) the existence of the

Agreement, (2) the terms of the Agreement, (3) default by [the

mortgagor or debtor] under the terms of the Agreement, and

(4) the giving of" requisite notice).

On April 19, 2017, the circuit court entered its

"Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Granting

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Decree

of Foreclosure." The circuit court concluded:

3. Plaintiff provided sufficient evidence of the
existence and terms of the Note and Mortgage.

4. Defendants' failure to pay the amounts owed under
the Note in accordance with the terms of the Note
constitutes a material default under the Note and Mortgage.

5. Plaintiff gave the requisite notice to Defendants
of their default and despite such notice, Defendants failed
to pay the amounts owed to Plaintiff.

6. As a result of Defendants' material default under
the Note and Mortgage, Plaintiff is entitled to foreclose
upon the property secured and encumbered by the Mortgage.

The circuit court also appointed a commissioner to conduct the

sale and entered its judgment.

HQHQ and Quinn did not appeal from this April 19, 2017

order and judgment.

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

3. Oyadomari's Motion to Confirm Sale

The foreclosure sale was held on July 17, 2017, and

Oyadomari entered the final and highest bid of $375,100.00.

Oyadomari then moved to confirm the sale. Oyadomari also

requested: "to satisfy the purchase price by way of an offset

of the amount of her secured debt in the event that [she] is the

confirmed purchaser of the subject property"; direct the

commissioner to convey the property via quitclaim deed to the

confirmed purchaser; award the commissioner fees and expenses as

determined by the circuit court; and discharge the commissioner

once the sale was complete. In addition, Oyadomari sought a

writ of possession or ejectment.

4. Quinn's Motion to Compel Oyadomari to Accept Full
Payment

On October 9, 2017, over five months after the circuit

court granted Oyadomari's motion for summary judgment and

interlocutory decree of foreclosure, Quinn moved to compel

Oyadomari to accept full payment, relying on Hawai‘i Rules of

Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rules 60(b)(2), (b)(5), and (b)(6), and

the court's powers of equity. Quinn requested "an order

compelling [Oyadomari] to accept full payment for the June 20,

2008 Promissory Note, and all other orders necessary to allow

[Quinn] to close the $250,000 loan approved by First Hawaiian

Bank."

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

In the memorandum supporting his motion to compel

Oyadomari to accept full payment, Quinn contended he had a

"right to redeem" and that his "legal obligation to pay

[Oyadomari] includes the reciprocal legal right to receive the

benefit of the bargain." Relying on HRCP Rules 60(b)(2),

(b)(5), and (b)(6), Quinn maintained that when he would be able

to pay Oyadomari "the full amount due under the June 20, 2008

Promissory Note it" would "no longer [be] equitable to proceed

with the foreclosure sale of the property." Quinn stated he

believed Oyadomari was trying to foreclose on the property

because it would provide access to the main road from her

parcel, thus making development of the land "much more

valuable[.]" Quinn also believed this was the same reason "why

[Oyadomari] opposed being paid in full."

5. October 13, 2017 Order

At the October 11, 2017 hearing, the circuit court

considered Quinn's motion to compel Oyadomari to accept full

payment. Quinn argued the court had the authority to compel

Oyadomari to accept the payment because "the law is clear as far

as the Court's broad discretion sitting in equity to grant the

relief" and per HRCP Rule 60(b)(5), where "it is no longer

equitable . . . that [a] judgment" should apply prospectively,

the court has authority to grant relief as requested.

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Oyadomari opposed the motion because she did not

believe the court had the authority to compel her to accept

Quinn's "settlement offer[.]" She also argued that she was

exercising her statutorily and contractually based remedies, and

maintained that Quinn's arguments at this hearing, instead,

should have been made in opposition to her motion for summary

judgment. Oyadomari stated there was no authority at the time

of this hearing, "to say that pursuant to contract law the

defendants have the right to redeem or force" acceptance of the

"settlement offer."

Regarding Oyadomari's motion to confirm the sale,

Quinn and HQHQ requested the commissioner take additional bids,

and then requested the court modify the bidding procedure by

allowing a subsequent bid to be three percent over the prior bid

instead of the normal procedure of five percent over the prior

bid. 3 The circuit court allowed both parties to re-bid on the

property at the hearing. Oyadomari entered the prevailing bid

of $413,547.75.

On October 13, 2017, the circuit court entered an

order denying Quinn's motion to compel Oyadomari to accept full

payment and granting Oyadomari's motion to confirm the sale.

Under Hawai‘i Probate Rules Rule 70(b), in a sale of real property,
3

"[i]f an initial bid has been offered and accepted, a further overbid from
any person shall be permitted at least five percent greater than the initial
acceptable bid."

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

6. Quinn's Motion for Reconsideration

Quinn moved for reconsideration of the October 13,

2017 order, again relying on HRCP Rules 60(b)(2), 60(b)(5) and

60(b)(6). In his motion for reconsideration, Quinn claimed

denying his motion to compel Oyadomari to accept full payment

and granting Oyadomari's motion to confirm the sale "without

explanation is erroneous as a matter of law."

On November 24, 2017, the circuit court denied Quinn's

motion for reconsideration. 4 The circuit court found that the

motion for reconsideration failed "to present any new evidence

or arguments that could not have been presented prior" and noted

a motion for reconsideration "should be more than a forum to

express dissatisfaction with the Court's Order."

7. The November 28, 2017 Orders and Judgment

On November 28, 2017, the circuit court again granted

Oyadomari's motion to confirm the sale. In its findings of

fact, the circuit court found that the tax assessed value of the

property was $237,800.00 and Oyadomari's bid of $413,547.75

"significantly exceeds" the property's value. In its

conclusions of law, the circuit court concluded Oyadomari's bid

for the property was "fair and equitable"; the commissioner's

fees and expenses were fair, reasonable, and necessarily

4 Also in this order, the circuit court denied a motion for leave to
file a counterclaim and crossclaim filed by Quinn on October 10, 2017.

10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

incurred; and Oyadomari's requested attorney's fees and costs

were fair, reasonable, and necessarily incurred. The circuit

court entered a judgment "pursuant to [HRCP Rule 54(b)] as there

is no just reason for delay."

That same day, the circuit court issued a writ of

possession. The writ stated that Oyadomari was "entitled to

possession of the subject property and a writ of ejectment

against Defendants" and commanded the sheriff to remove

Defendants, "and all persons holding by, through or under said

defendants."

The circuit court also entered a second order denying

Quinn's motion to compel Oyadomari to accept full payment.

8. Oyadomari's Motion to Alter or Amend the Confirmation
of Sale

Oyadomari moved to alter or amend the November 28,

2017 order granting her motion to confirm the sale. Oyadomari

asked the court to award her additional attorney's fees and

costs, allow her to offset all the awarded fees and costs

against the property's confirmed purchase price, and withhold

"distribution of any excess sale proceeds pending" her

"execution and enforcement of the Writ of Possession[.]"

Quinn filed both a memorandum in opposition and a

motion to strike Oyadomari's motion to alter or amend the

November 28, 2017 order granting her motion to confirm the sale.

11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The circuit court granted Oyadomari's motion and denied Quinn's

motion.

HQHQ and Quinn filed a notice of appeal on

December 28, 2017.

II. DISCUSSION

HQHQ and Quinn raise two points of error, alleging

(1) the circuit court erred in failing to grant relief from the

interlocutory decree of foreclosure and (2) all orders entered

after the October 13, 2017 order require reversal. We affirm.

A. The Circuit Court Did Not Abuse its Discretion in Denying
Quinn's Motions for Relief

In their first point of error, HQHQ and Quinn argue

that the circuit court "committed grave error by failing to

grant relief from the interlocutory decree of foreclosure where

it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have

prospective application," asserting:

Where (1) [Oyadomari] would be paid in full, (2) Mr. Quinn
had a commercial loan commitment from First Hawaiian Bank
for $250,000.00 to be applied to paying [Oyadomari] in
full, (3) the court would hold a hearing to determine the
full amount to be paid to [Oyadomari], and (4) a court
ordered escrow account would ensure [Oyadomari] was paid in
full, the trial court committed grave error by failing to
grant relief from the interlocutory decree of foreclosure
where it is no longer equitable that the judgment should
have prospective application.

(Formatting altered.)

12
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

We again note that HQHQ and Quinn did not appeal from

the April 19, 2017 order granting Oyadomari's motion for summary

judgment and interlocutory decree of foreclosure or the related

judgment and, thus, waived any appeal from that order or

judgment. Quinn instead attacked the order and judgment through

his October 9, 2017 motion to compel Oyadomari to accept full

payment and his November 2, 2017 motion for reconsideration,

relying on HRCP Rules 60(b)(2), (b)(5), and (b)(6).

On appeal, again relying on HRCP Rules 60(b)(2),

(b)(5), and (b)(6), HQHQ and Quinn argue that "[a]ll of the

equities establish that the interlocutory decree of foreclosure

no longer has prospective application." HQHQ and Quinn further

argue that when Oyadomari "will receive full payment the result

[will be] the same as . . . when a judgment is paid" thereby

relieving her of the "obligation to pay Defendant[s] the amount

in excess of the debt she is owed under the promissory note."

HRCP Rule 60(b) provides in relevant part:

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may
relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a
final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
reasons:

. . . .

(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could
not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial
under Rule 59(b);

. . . .

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has
been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer

13
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

equitable that the judgment should have prospective
application; or

(6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation
of the judgment.

(Formatting altered.)

The circuit court's rulings on a motion based on HRCP

Rules 60(b)(2), (b)(5), and/or (b)(6) are reviewed for abuse of

discretion. See Beneficial Hawaii, Inc. v. Casey, 98 Hawai‘i

159, 164, 45 P.3d 359, 364 (2002); Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki

Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Haw. 85, 114, 839 P.2d 10, 26 (1992)

(explaining abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court has

"clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or disregarded rules or

principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a

party litigant").

"Furthermore, the burden of establishing abuse of

discretion is on appellant, and a strong showing is required to

establish it." Ek v. Boggs, 102 Hawai‘i 289, 294-95, 75 P.3d

1180, 1185-86 (2003) (citation, internal quotation marks, and

brackets omitted).

1. HRCP Rule 60(b)(2)

First, HRCP Rule 60(b)(2) may provide relief if the

evidence was (1) "previously undiscovered even though due

diligence was exercised;" (2) "admissible and credible;" and

(3) "of such material and controlling nature as will probably

change the outcome and not merely cumulative or [t]ending only

14
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

to impeach or contradict a witness." Omerod v. Heirs of

Kaheananui, 116 Hawai‘i 239, 277, 172 P.3d 983, 1021 (2007)

(citation and emphasis omitted).

HQHQ and Quinn rely on "a commercial loan commitment

from First Hawaiian Bank for $250,000.00 to be applied to paying

[Oyadomari] in full," which was dated October 5, 2017.

Unchallenged findings show that (1) "[p]ursuant to the

terms of the Note, all amounts owed under the Note were due and

payable on June 6, 2015"; (2) as of June 6, 2015, HQHQ and Quinn

owed $312,305.73; (3) HQHQ and Quinn failed to pay the amount

owed by June 6, 2015; and (4) Oyadomari filed a complaint to

foreclose on November 29, 2016. The record shows that the

circuit court granted Oyadomari's motion for summary judgment

and interlocutory decree of foreclosure, and entered its

judgment, on April 19, 2017.

Dated October 5, 2017, the First Hawaiian Bank loan

commitment was created over two years after the Note was due

and, thus, was not previously undiscovered evidence. Further,

the loan commitment was for $250,000.00 while the amount due on

June 6, 2015 was $312,305.73. 5 Thus, nothing in the First

Hawaiian Bank loan commitment changes the default on the Note or

is "of such material and controlling nature as will probably

5 Quinn asserted that "[w]ith the $250,000 First Hawaiian Bank loan and
his additional liquid assets [he] can pay" the full amount owed under the
Note. Quinn, however, did not elaborate on his additional liquid assets.

15
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

change the outcome." See generally, Omerod, 116 Hawai‘i at 277,

172 P.3d at 1021.

2. HRCP Rule 60(b)(5)

Next, "HRCP Rule 60(b)(5) is based on the historic

power of a court of equity to modify its decree in the light of

changed circumstances." In re Hawaiian Elec. Co., 149 Hawai‘i

343, 362, 489 P.3d 1255, 1274 (2021) (citation omitted). HRCP

Rule 60(b)(5) "is not a substitute for an appeal" but "refers to

'some change in conditions that makes continued enforcement

inequitable.'" Id. "The burden is on the movant to

'demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying relief.'"

Id.

The only circumstance that changed after the default

of the Note was the First Hawaiian Bank loan commitment for

$250,000.00. But that loan commitment was offered over two

years after the Note was due, over ten months after the

complaint to foreclose was filed, over five months after the

court granted Oyadomari's motion for summary judgment and

interlocutory decree of foreclosure, and did not cover the

amount owed on the Note. Untimely and insufficient alternative

financing was not an extraordinary circumstance justifying

relief from the interlocutory decree of foreclosure and the

related judgment.

16
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

3. HRCP Rule 60(b)(6)

Finally, under HRCP Rule 60(b)(6), "the movant must

show that (1) the motion is based on some reason other than

those specifically stated in clauses 60(b)(1) through (5);

(2) the reason urged is such as to justify the relief; and

(3) the motion is made within a reasonable time." Cvitanovich-

Dubie v. Dubie, 125 Hawai‘i 128, 144, 254 P.3d 439, 455 (2011)

(citation and emphasis omitted). "A party seeking relief under

HRCP Rule 60(b)(6) after the time of appeal has run must

establish the existence of 'extraordinary circumstances' that

prevented or rendered him unable to prosecute an appeal."

Hawai‘i Hous. Auth. v. Uyehara, 77 Hawai‘i 144, 148-49, 883 P.2d

65, 69-70 (1994) (citation omitted).

Again, the unchallenged findings show HQHQ and Quinn

failed to pay the $312,305.73 owed by June 6, 2015, and they did

not appeal the April 19, 2017 order granting the motion for

summary judgment and interlocutory decree of foreclosure, and

judgment. As they do in their HRCP Rules 60(b)(2) and (b)(5)

arguments, HQHQ and Quinn rely on the First Hawaiian Bank loan

commitment to say Quinn can now afford to pay off the loan.

However, obtaining financing over two years after the default,

over ten months after the complaint to foreclose was filed, and

over five months after the order granting summary judgment and

interlocutory decree of foreclosure, did not establish

17
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

extraordinary circumstances that rendered HQHQ and Quinn unable

to prosecute an appeal and did not justify relief from the

interlocutory decree of foreclosure and related judgment.

Based on the record before us, HQHQ and Quinn did not

meet their burden of showing there was newly discovered

evidence, the judgment was no longer equitable, or any other

reason justifying relief. See generally, HRCP Rule 60(b); Ek v.

Boggs, 102 Hawai‘i at 294-95, 75 P.3d at 1185-86. Thus, we

cannot say that the circuit court abused its discretion in its

October 13, 2017 order by, as HQHQ and Quinn phrase the issue,

"failing to grant relief from the interlocutory decree of

foreclosure" based on HRCP Rule 60(b). (Formatting altered.)

B. Challenge to Orders Subsequent to the October 13, 2017
Order is Waived

In their second point of error, HQHQ and Quinn contend

"[w]here the trial court committed grave error by entering the

October 13, 2017 [Order], the reversal of the October 13, 2017

Order requires reversal of all subsequent Orders, Findings of

Fact, Conclusions of Law and decisions[.]" (Formatting altered.)

HQHQ and Quinn's entire argument consists of the following two

sentences:

"This point is procedural and straight forward.
All of the court's actions after the October 13,
2017 Order must be set aside as they are based on
an order that no longer exists."

18
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP)

Rule 28(b)(7) requires an argument to "contain[] the contentions

of the appellant on the points presented and the reasons

therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts

of the record relied on. . . . Points not argued may be deemed

waived." In addition, "[a]n appellate court need not address

matters as to which the appellant has failed to present a

discernible argument." Int'l Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Carbonel, 93

Hawai‘i 464, 473, 5 P.3d 454, 463 (2000).

HQHQ and Quinn provide no analysis, and cite no legal

authority to support this point of error. In short, HQHQ and

Quinn did not comply with HRAP Rule 28(b)(7) and did not present

a discernible argument. We consider this argument waived.

In any event, as explained above, the circuit court

did not err in entering its October 13, 2017 order. Therefore,

HQHQ and Quinn's second point of error also lacks merit.

III. CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, we affirm the Circuit Court of

the Third Circuit's:

1. October 13, 2017 "Order Denying [Quinn's] Motion

for Order Compelling [Oyadomari] to Accept Full

Payment of the June 20, 2008 Promissory Note,

Filed on October 9, 2017 and Granting

19
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

[Oyadomari's] Motion to Confirm Sale, Filed on

July 31, 2017";

2. November 24, 2017 "Order Denying Motion for Leave

to File [Quinn's] Counterclaim and Crossclaim,

Filed on October 10, 2017 and Motion for

Reconsideration of October 13, 2017 Ruling

Denying [Quinn's] Motion for Order Compelling

[Oyadomari] to Accept Full Payment of June 20,

2008 Promissory Note (And Objection to

Plaintiff's Notice of Submission Dated

October 24, 2017[ )], Filed on November 2, 2017";

3. November 28, 2017 "Order Denying [Quinn's] Motion

for Order Compelling [Oyadomari] to Accept Full

Payment of the June 20, 2008 Promissory Note";

4. November 28, 2017 "Findings of Fact, Conclusions

of Law and Order Granting [Oyadomari's] Motion to

Confirm Sale";

5. November 28, 2017 Writ of Possession;

6. November 28, 2017 Judgment;

7. January 24, 2018 "Order Granting [Oyadomari's]

Motion to Alter or Amend Findings of Fact,

Conclusions of Law and Order Granting

[Oyadomari's] Motion to Confirm Sale Filed

November 28, 2017";

20
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

8. January 24, 2018 "Order Denying [Quinn's] Motion

to Strike [Oyadomari's] Motion to Alter or Amend

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order

Granting [Oyadomari's] Motion to Confirm Sale

Filed November 28, 2017"; and

9. January 24, 2018 Amended Judgment.

(Some formatting altered.)

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, June 21, 2023.

On the briefs: /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
Chief Judge
Andrew S. Iwashita,
for Defendant-Appellant /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
William S. Quinn. Associate Judge

Edmund W.K. Haitsuka, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Danielle N. Degele-Mathews, Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellee
Sharman M. Oyadomari, Trustee
of the Kikuko Kuwahara
Irrevocable Grantor Trust
dated April 26, 2013.

21