CourtListener 10873378

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
10-JUN-2026
08:19 AM
Dkt. 62 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

STUART GLAUBERMAN and VICKY RAMIL,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
CELESTE M. GONSALVES,
Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1DRC-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Gluck, JJ.)

Self-represented Defendant-Appellant Celeste M.
Gonsalves (Gonsalves) appeals from the August 7, 2025 "Order
Denying Defendant's Non-Hearing Motion for Reconsideration"
(Order) entered by the District Court of the First Circuit,
Koʻolaupoko Division (District Court). The Order – denying a
motion for reconsideration – followed the District Court's oral
denial of Gonsalves' June 27, 2025 "Motion to Vacate Judgment
Per HRCP Rule 60(b)(4)." 1

1 The Honorable Denise K.H. Kawatachi presided over the 2025
proceedings.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted, and having given due consideration to the arguments
advanced and the issues raised, we resolve Gonsalves'
contentions as follows, and affirm.
The background facts are these: In 2021, Gonsalves
was renting an accessory dwelling unit from Plaintiffs-Appellees
Stuart B. Glauberman and Vicky Ramil. Glauberman and Ramil
filed an action for summary possession and damages, after which
Glauberman (through a property manager) filed a second action
for possession when Gonsalves refused to vacate. Gonsalves
brought counterclaims. The District Court granted summary
judgment to Glauberman and Ramil, after which Gonsalves appealed
to this court. In a January 2024 Summary Disposition Order,
this court affirmed the District Court's grant of summary
judgment. Gonsalves filed a motion for reconsideration in this
court, which was denied. She petitioned for a writ of
certiorari with the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court (denied) and moved for
reconsideration (denied), after which she petitioned for a writ
of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court (denied) and
moved for rehearing (denied). 2
On June 27, 2025, Gonsalves returned to District Court
and filed a motion to vacate judgment pursuant to Hawaiʻi Rules
of Civil Procedure (HRCP) 60(b)(4) (eff. 2006) (Rule 60(b)(4)
Motion). Her motion states that she "introduces new evidence
that supports her claim that this judgment is void by way of

2 See Glauberman by KFG Props., Inc. v. Gonsalves, No. CAAP-21-
0000536, 2024 WL 244468 (Haw. App. Jan. 19, 2024) (SDO), recon. denied sub
nom. Glauberman v. Gonsalves, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2024 WL 413981 (Haw. App.
Feb. 5, 2024), cert. denied sub nom., Glauberman v. Gonsalves, No. SCWC-21-
0000536, 2024 WL 2669093 (Haw. May 24, 2024), recon. denied sub nom.
Glauberman v. Gonsalves, No. SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX, 2024 WL 3451872 (Haw. July 18,
2024), cert. denied sub nom. Gonsalves v. Glauberman, 145 S. Ct. 1083 (2025),
reh'g denied sub nom. Gonsalves v. Glauberman by KFG Props., Inc., 145 S. Ct.
1895 (2025).

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

Federal HUD Mandatory Eviction Rules that all landlords must
follow for valid, legal evictions," and she cites to various
provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations. She argues that
the 2021 eviction did not comply with federal regulations; that
the court lacked jurisdiction over the 2021 proceedings; that
she was denied due process; and that "the judgment is void for
violating mandatory federal HUD law." (Formatting altered.)
The District Court heard, and orally denied, the Rule
60(b)(4) Motion on July 25, 2025. The District Court entered a
written order denying the motion on September 4, 2025.
Meanwhile – on August 4, 2025 – Gonsalves filed a motion for
reconsideration (Motion for Reconsideration), which the District
Court denied on August 7. Gonsalves now appeals to this court.
Jurisdiction: As an initial matter, we have
jurisdiction over this appeal. "An order denying a motion for
post-judgment relief under HRCP 60(b) is an appealable final
order under HRS § 641–1(a)," Ditto v. McCurdy, 103 Hawaiʻi 153,
160, 80 P.3d 974, 981 (2003), "if the order ends the
proceedings, leaving nothing further to be accomplished." Id.
at 157, 80 P.3d at 978. This court has jurisdiction to consider
the appeal from the denial of those motions: the District Court
denied Gonsalves' Rule 60(b)(4) Motion and her Motion for
Reconsideration, and there is nothing left for the District
Court to accomplish. We also note that, although Gonsalves
filed her notice of appeal on August 8, 2025 (and her notice of
appeal refers only to the August 7, 2025 denial of her Motion
for Reconsideration), we will consider the District Court's
denial of the Motion for Reconsideration and the District
Court's September 4, 2025 Order denying Gonsalves' Rule 60(b)(4)
Motion. See Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(2) (eff.
2020) ("If a notice of appeal is filed after announcement of a

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

decision but before entry of the judgment or order, such notice
shall be considered as filed immediately after the time the
judgment or order becomes final for the purpose of appeal.").
Standard of Review: "The trial court has a very large
measure of discretion in passing upon motions under HRCP Rule
60(b) and its order will not be set aside unless we are
persuaded that under the circumstances of the particular case,
the court's refusal to set aside its order was an abuse of
discretion." PennyMac Corp. v. Godinez, 148 Hawaiʻi 323, 327,
474 P.3d 264, 268 (2020) (cleaned up). However, "under HRCP
Rule 60(b)(4), an order is void only if the court that rendered
it lacked jurisdiction of either the subject matter or the
parties or otherwise acted in a manner inconsistent with due
process of law. As such, a denial of a HRCP Rule 60(b)(4)
motion is reviewed de novo." James B. Nutter & Co. v. Namahoe,
153 Hawaiʻi 149, 162, 528 P.3d 222, 235 (2023) (citations and
internal quotation signals omitted); accord Matter of Hawaiian
Elec. Co., Inc., 149 Hawaiʻi 343, 362–63, 489 P.3d 1255, 1274–75
(2021).
"The appellate court reviews a trial court's ruling on
a motion for reconsideration under the abuse of discretion
standard. An 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." Namahoe, 153 Hawaiʻi at 162, 528 P.3d at 235
(cleaned up).
Gonsalves' arguments: Turning to the merits of
Gonsalves' appeal, the District Court did not err in denying the
Rule 60(b)(4) Motion. Once again, the prior judgment is void
only if the District Court lacked jurisdiction or if the

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

District Court "otherwise acted in a manner inconsistent with
due process of law." Id. Neither condition is present here.
First, as to jurisdiction, Gonsalves argues that "the
court lacked jurisdiction to enter a judgment in violation of
federal law." (Formatting altered.) However, this is not a
cognizable argument regarding the District Court's jurisdiction
for purposes of a Rule 60(b)(4) motion: Gonsalves is not
attacking the District Court's jurisdiction to hear and consider
the eviction proceedings (or her counterclaims); instead, she
argues that the District Court erred in applying (or failing to
apply) federal law to her case. This is not a valid
jurisdictional argument. As the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court explained
in Cvitanovich-Dubie v. Dubie, 125 Hawaiʻi 128, 141, 254 P.3d
439, 452 (2011), in the context of Rule 60(b)(4) of the Hawaiʻi
Family Court Rules:
In the sound interest of finality, the concept of a
void judgment must be narrowly restricted. The principles
of judicial economy and judicial finality operate as
constraining influences upon the generosity of the courts
in declaring judgments void. . . .
. . . .
In brief, then, except for the rare case where power
is plainly usurped, if a court has the general power to
adjudicate the issues in the class of suits to which the
case belongs then its interim orders and final judgment,
whether right or wrong, are not subject to collateral
attack. . . .

(Cleaned up.) Similarly, here, Gonsalves does not present any
argument that the District Court lacked jurisdiction of the
subject matter (a landlord/tenant dispute) or the parties.
Second, as to due process, Gonsalves argues that she
was deprived of "federally guaranteed due process rights under
the Section 8 program." (Formatting altered.) Once again,
Gonsalves is not arguing that the District Court failed to
provide her with due process (i.e., notice and an opportunity to
litigate the District Court proceedings); she is arguing that
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the District Court's decision was wrong. That is not a proper
basis on which to void a judgment. To the contrary, "[i]t is
the denial of opportunity to defend which renders a judgment
void." Stafford v. Dickison, 46 Haw. 52, 59, 374 P.2d 665, 670
(1962). The record in this case is clear that Gonsalves had a
full opportunity to litigate her case – Gonsalves either made or
could have made her Section 8 arguments in the previous phases
of this litigation; indeed, Gonsalves' Rule 60(b)(4) motion
itself notes that she "quot[ed] Federal Section 8 Rules and
laws" in opposing the 2021 motion for summary judgment. 3
The District Court already ruled against Gonsalves.
This court affirmed that ruling, and both the Hawaiʻi Supreme
Court and United States Supreme Court declined to overturn those
decisions. "'A fundamental precept of common-law adjudication
is that an issue once determined by a competent court is
conclusive.'" PennyMac Corp. v. Godinez, 148 Hawaiʻi at 331, 474
P.3d at 272 (quoting Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 619
(1983) (brackets omitted)). Gonsalves seeks to relitigate the
validity of the 2021 eviction, but she has not presented a
cognizable basis under Rule 60(b) on which to do so.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the District Court's
August 7, 2025 "Order Denying Defendant's Non-Hearing Motion for
Reconsideration" and the September 4, 2025 "Order Denying
Defendant's Non-Hearing Motion to Vacate Final Judgment Order
\\
\\

3 It is unclear whether Gonsalves was attempting to rely upon HRCP
Rule 60(b)(2) (eff. 2006) in her Rule 60(b)(4) Motion, given her reference to
"new evidence." However, her Rule 60(b)(4) Motion does not present any
"newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b)." HRCP Rule
60(b)(2).
6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Filed October 4, 2021 Per HRCP 60(b)(4)." Gonsalves' May 28,
2026 Motion for Retention of Oral Argument is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, June 10, 2026.
On the brief:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Celeste M. Gonsalves,
Presiding Judge
Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Associate Judge

/s/ Daniel M. Gluck
Associate Judge