Dunbar v. Hapai, III

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
26-JUL-2023
07:45 AM
Dkt. 37 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

JOHN P. DUNBAR, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
ARCHIE HAPAI, III, Defendant-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 3CC111000158)

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

Plaintiff-Appellant John P. Dunbar, Jr. (Dunbar)

appeals pro se from two orders on non-hearing post-judgment

motions: (1) the order denying Plaintiff's Non-Hearing Motion to

Extend the Life of the Judgment (Order Denying Extension) entered

on May 20, 2022, by the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit

(Circuit Court);1 and (2) the order denying Motion for Relief of

Judgment or Order (Order Denying Reconsideration) entered by the

Circuit Court on July 6, 2022.2

1
The Honorable Peter K. Kubota presided.
2
Defendant-Appellee Archie Hapai, III (Hapai) is also pro se. The
parties' briefs do not comply with Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule
28(b)(4), but we nevertheless have considered the merits of both of their
arguments to the extent that we have been able to discern them.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Dunbar raises two points of error on appeal, contending

that the Circuit Court erred in: (1) finding (in the Order

Denying Extension) that the May 14, 2012 Judgment (Judgment)

entered in favor of Dunbar and against Hapai expired without the

timely filing of a motion to extend the judgment; and (2) finding

(in the Order Denying Reconsideration), that Dunbar's motion to

extend was untimely because it was filed on May 16, 2022, and the

Judgment expired on May 14, 2022.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we

resolve Dunbar's points of error as follows:

As noted above, the Judgment was entered on May 14,

2012. Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 657-5 (2016) states:

§ 657-5 Domestic judgments and decrees. Unless an
extension is granted, every judgment and decree of any court
of the State shall be presumed to be paid and discharged at
the expiration of ten years after the judgment or decree was
rendered. No action shall be commenced after the expiration
of ten years from the date a judgment or decree was rendered
or extended. No extension of a judgment or decree shall be
granted unless the extension is sought within ten years of
the date the original judgment or decree was rendered. A
court shall not extend any judgment or decree beyond twenty
years from the date of the original judgment or decree. No
extension shall be granted without notice and the filing of
a non-hearing motion or a hearing motion to extend the life
of the judgment or decree.

(Emphases added).

In addition, Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP)

Rule 6(a) provides, in relevant part:

Rule 6. TIMES.
(a) Computation. In computing any period of time prescribed
or allowed by these rules, by order of court, or by any applicable
statute, the day of the act, event, or default after which the

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

designated period of time begins to run shall not be included.
The last day of the period so computed shall be included unless it
is a Saturday, a Sunday or a holiday, in which event the period
runs until the end of the next day which is not a Saturday, a
Sunday or a holiday.

(Emphases added).

Thus, pursuant to HRS § 657-5, absent an extension

being granted, the May 14, 2012 Judgment was presumed to be paid

and discharged at the expiration of ten years after the Judgment

was entered. Also, pursuant to HRS § 657-5, no extension of the

Judgment could be granted unless the extension was sought within

ten years of the date of the original Judgment. That said, HRCP

Rule 6(a), which applies to any applicable statute, provides that

the last day of that ten-year period is included unless, inter

alia, it falls on a Saturday, in which case the period runs until

the end of the following day that is not excluded.

Here, the ten-year period after the Judgment was

rendered would have ended on May 14, 2022, except for the

undisputed and indisputable fact that May 14, 2022 was a

Saturday. Accordingly, here, the statutory period ran until the

end of the day on Monday, May 16, 2022. [Dunbar's] Non-Hearing

Motion to Extend the Life of the Judgment (Motion to Extend) was

timely filed on May 16, 2022.3 Therefore, the Circuit Court

erred when it denied that motion, as well as the motion for

3
Hapai's argument that an extension must be granted within the
statutory period is inconsistent with the plain language of the statute and
therefore is without merit .

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

reconsideration, on the grounds that the Judgment expired on May

14, 2022, and the Motion to Extend was untimely.4

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the Circuit

Court's May 20, 2022 Order Denying Extension and July 6, 2022

Order Denying Reconsideration, and remand this case to the

Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this

Summary Disposition Order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 26, 2023.

On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
John P. Dunbar, Jr., Presiding Judge
Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se.
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Archie Hapai, III, Associate Judge
Defendant-Appellee Pro Se.
/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Associate Judge

4
We note that Hapai did not object or respond to either motion,
notwithstanding that the record reflects that he was served with both. See
Sacor Fin., Inc. v. Naluai, CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2023 WL 4145924, *1 (Haw. App.
June 23, 2023) (SDO) (concluding that HRS § 657–5 is a statute of limitations
for actions to enforce domestic judgments, which includes a deadline for
seeking to extend the time period to enforce the judgment, and that the
defense of the statute of limitations is a personal defense, the defendant
alone may exercise or waive it, and it may not be invoked on behalf of the
defendant by the court).

4