CourtListener 10671775

Texte intégral

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
15-SEP-2025
07:46 AM
Dkt. 99 OP

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

---o0o---

JOHN RAPP, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
THOMAS F. SCHMIDT and LORINNA J. SCHMIDT,
Defendants-Appellants

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CC940000903)

SEPTEMBER 15, 2025

HIRAOKA, PRESIDING JUDGE, MCCULLEN AND GUIDRY, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY HIRAOKA, J.

This case is before us for the fourth time. Thomas F.

Schmidt and Lorinna J. Schmidt appeal from the post-judgment

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, entered by the

Circuit Court of the First Circuit on April 4, 2023.1 The

Schmidts' sole argument is that two Judgments against them became

1
The Honorable John M. Tonaki presided.
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

unenforceable in 2015. At that time, a federal bankruptcy stay

prevented execution of the Judgments against the Schmidts'

assets. We hold that the Bankruptcy Code's tolling provision, 11

U.S.C. § 108(c), preempts the 20-year repose date of Hawaii

Revised Statutes (HRS) § 657-5. The Schmidts do not otherwise

challenge the Order. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

This case began in 1994, when attorney John Rapp sued

the Schmidts (his former clients) to recover unpaid fees and

costs. On August 29, 1995, the Circuit Court entered a Judgment

on Special Verdict for Rapp and against the Schmidts. On

October 23, 1995, a Supplemental Judgment awarding Rapp

prejudgment interest, attorney fees, and costs was entered.

The Schmidts appealed. We vacated the award of

attorney fees and remanded for redetermination of the amount.

Rapp v. Schmidt, No. 19393, 1998 WL 35486 (Haw. App. Jan. 26,

1998) (SDO).

Rapp assigned his interest in the Judgments to

Turlington Corporation on October 15, 1998.

On December 29, 2000, the Circuit Court entered an

Amended Supplemental Judgment that redetermined Rapp's attorney

fee award.

On August 26, 2005, Turlington timely moved to extend

the Judgments under HRS § 657-5. The statute in effect at the

time provided:
Unless an extension is granted, every judgment and decree of
any court of the State shall be presumed to be paid and

2
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

discharged at the expiration of ten years after the 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.

HRS § 657-5 (Supp. 2004).

The Circuit Court granted the motion to extend. The

Schmidts appealed. We affirmed. Rapp v. Schmidt, No. 27883,

2008 WL 4001189 (Haw. App. Aug. 29, 2008) (SDO).

On January 14, 2015, Turlington moved to correct the

dates on the order granting its motion to extend. The Circuit

Court granted the motion.2 The Judgment on Special Verdict was

extended to August 29, 2015, and the Supplemental Judgment was

extended to October 23, 2015.

An Alias Writ of Execution on the Judgments was issued

on July 17, 2015. Thomas filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy

thirteen days later. That stayed proceedings to enforce the

Judgments against Thomas. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(2).3 The

Chapter 13 automatic stay also applied to Lorinna, Thomas's co-

debtor. 11 U.S.C. § 1301(a).4

2
The Honorable Karen T. Nakasone presided.
3
11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (eff. Dec. 22, 2010) provides that the filing
of a bankruptcy petition "operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of–"
. . . .

(2) the enforcement, against the debtor or against
property of the estate, of a judgment obtained before
the commencement of the case under this title[.]
4
11 U.S.C. § 1301 (eff. July 10, 1984) provides, in relevant part:

(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this
section, after the order for relief under this chapter, a
creditor may not act, or commence or continue any civil
action, to collect all or any part of a consumer debt of the
debtor from any individual that is liable on such debt with
the debtor, or that secured such debt, unless–
(continued...)

3
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Thomas's bankruptcy was converted to Chapter 11 on

December 3, 2015. The automatic stay then terminated as to

Lorinna. 11 U.S.C. § 1301(a)(2). On December 4, 2015,

Turlington executed the Judgments against real property owned by

Lorinna.

The bankruptcy court dismissed Thomas's case on

January 6, 2016. The dismissal terminated the automatic stay.

11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(B). On January 6, 2016, Turlington

executed the Judgments against real property owned by Thomas.

Meanwhile, on April 29, 2015, Lorinna moved to vacate

the order extending the Judgments. Thomas joined. The Circuit

Court denied the motion and joinder. The Schmidts appealed. We

affirmed the extension, but remanded for the Circuit Court to

decide whether the Schmidts had satisfied the Judgments. Rapp v.
Schmidt, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2019 WL 4899210 (Haw. App. Oct. 4,

2019) (mem. op.).

On remand, the Schmidts filed a memorandum arguing they

satisfied the Judgments; they also argued the Judgments "are now
extinguished or dead" under HRS § 657-5.5 The Circuit Court

conducted an evidentiary hearing. The Order (from which this

appeal is taken) was entered on April 4, 2023. The Circuit Court

found the Schmidts lacked credibility. It concluded that

4
(...continued)
. . . .
(2) the case is closed, dismissed, or converted to a
case under chapter 7 or 11 of this title.
5
The version of the statute applicable at that time, HRS § 657-5
(2016), was materially identical to HRS § 657-5 (Supp. 2004).

4
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Turlington owned the Judgments; $668,293.22 was owed on the

Judgments as of February 2, 2016; and the Schmidts did not prove

they satisfied the Judgments. The Order did not address the

Schmidts' argument that the Judgments were "extinguished or dead"

under HRS § 657-5.

This appeal followed.

II. POINTS OF ERROR

The Schmidts state three points of error: (1) the

Circuit Court should have ruled that the Judgments expired before

they were executed against the Schmidts' properties; (2) the

Order is moot because the Judgments expired in 2015; and (3) the

Order violated the Schmidts' constitutional rights to due process

and equal protection.

III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A. Statutory Interpretation

Interpretation of a statute is a question of law

reviewed de novo. Kauai Springs, Inc. v. Plan. Comm'n of Cnty.
of Kaua#i, 133 Hawai#i 141, 163, 324 P.3d 951, 973 (2014). Giving

effect to the statute's plain language is our foremost

obligation. Id.

B. Federal Preemption

"Questions of federal preemption are questions of law

reviewable de novo under the right/wrong standard." City & Cnty.

of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP, 153 Hawai#i 326, 340, 537 P.3d 1173,

1187 (2023) (cleaned up), cert. denied sub nom. Shell PLC v. City

5
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

& Cnty. of Honolulu, 145 S. Ct. 1111, 220 L. Ed. 2d 413 (2025),

and cert. denied sub nom. Sunoco LP v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,

145 S. Ct. 1111, 220 L. Ed. 2d 413 (2025).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. The HRS § 657-5 20-year repose date is
preempted by 11 U.S.C. § 108(c)(2).

The Schmidts argue the August 29, 1995 Judgment on

Special Verdict became unenforceable on August 29, 2015, and the

October 23, 1995 Supplemental Judgment became unenforceable on

October 23, 2015, under HRS § 657-5.6 That is the result called

for by the plain language of the statute.

Turlington counters: "It would be manifestly unfair if

a debtor subject to a judgment which was about to expire could

simply file a bankruptcy petition to prevent creditors from

enforcing the judgment and then wait until the judgment expired

to dismiss the bankruptcy petition." The remedy, Turlington

contends, is provided by section 108 of the Bankruptcy Code.

11 U.S.C. § 108 (eff. Oct. 17, 2005) provides, in
relevant part:

(c) Except as provided in section 524 of this title
[("Effect of discharge")], if applicable nonbankruptcy law
. . . fixes a period for commencing or continuing a civil
action in a court other than a bankruptcy court on a claim
against the debtor, or against an individual with respect to
which such individual is protected under section . . . 1301
of this title, and such period has not expired before the
date of the filing of the petition, then such period does
not expire until the later of–

6
The parties make no argument concerning the December 29, 2000
Amended Supplemental Judgment. See generally Est. of Roxas v. Marcos, 121
Hawai#i 59, 72-73, 214 P.3d 598, 611-12 (2009) (discussing when amended
judgment is "original judgment" for purposes of HRS § 657-5).

6
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(1) the end of such period, including any suspension
of such period occurring on or after the commencement
of the case; or

(2) 30 days after notice of the termination or
expiration of the stay under section 362 . . . or 1301
of this title, as the case may be, with respect to
such claim.

The Judgments were enforceable when Thomas filed his

Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. Turlington could not execute the

Judgments against Thomas's or Lorinna's assets because the

Chapter 13 automatic stay protected both Thomas and Lorinna. The

Judgments became unenforceable under HRS § 657-5 before the

automatic stays were terminated — unless the state statute was

preempted by 11 U.S.C. § 108(c)(2)'s tolling provision.

One type of preemption is express preemption, where

Congress preempts local law through express language in a

statute. Sunoco, 153 Hawai#i at 356, 537 P.3d at 1203 (citing

Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 575 U.S. 373, 376, 135 S. Ct. 1591,

191 L. Ed. 2d 511 (2015)). That is what 11 U.S.C. § 108(c)(2)

does. Under the federal statute, if state law fixes a 20-year

period for enforcing a judgment in state court and the judgment

debtor files for bankruptcy before the period expires, then the

20-year period doesn't expire until the later of twenty years

after entry of the original judgment (including any suspension)

or thirty days after the bankruptcy stay terminates or expires.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second

Circuit applied 11 U.S.C. § 108(c) to a New York statute similar

to HRS § 657-5, albeit without engaging in a formal preemption

analysis. It was presented with the following question:

7
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Does a judgment lien, normally valid under New York law for
a period of ten years, remain enforceable after expiration
of the ten-year period when during that period the property
subject to the lien becomes part of a bankrupt estate
protected by the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C.
§ 362(a)?

In re Morton, 866 F.2d 561, 561 (2d Cir. 1989).

The Second Circuit held "the tolling provisions of [11

U.S.C.] § 108(c) apply to New York's ten-year period governing

judgment liens on real property." Id. at 566. The court noted

Congress recognized that filing bankruptcy could give a debtor an

unfair advantage over a judgment creditor by allowing the debtor

to remain protected by the automatic stay until the judgment lien

period expired. Id. So "congress acted to solidly preserve the

rights of a party 'stayed from commencing or continuing an action

against the debtor because of the bankruptcy case'." Id.

(quoting S.R.Rep. No. 95–989, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 30 (1978);

H.R. No. 95–595, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 318 (1978), U.S.Code

Cong. & Admin. News 1978, p. 5787). "It did so by extending the

period for 'commencing or continuing a civil action' against the

debtor to, at a minimum, 30 days after termination or expiration

of the automatic stay." Id. at 566-67 (quoting 11 U.S.C.

§ 108(c)).

We agree with the Second Circuit's analysis. We hold

that 11 U.S.C. § 108(c)(2) expressly preempts HRS § 657-5 under

the circumstances of this case. Cf. United Public Workers,

AFSCME, Local 646 v. Houghton, 139 Hawai#i 138, 144, 384 P.3d

914, 920 (App. 2016) (supreme court's stay of circuit court

8
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

judgment pending appeal tolled running of deadline to extend

judgment until stay was lifted).

The bankruptcy stay terminated as to Lorinna on

December 3, 2015, when Thomas's bankruptcy was converted to a

Chapter 11 case. Under 11 U.S.C. § 108(c)(2), Lorinna's repose

date was extended to Monday, January 4, 2016. See Hawai#i Rules

of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 6(a).7

The bankruptcy stay terminated as to Thomas on

January 6, 2016, when his case was dismissed. 11 U.S.C.

§ 362(c)(2)(B). Under 11 U.S.C. § 108(c)(2), Thomas's repose

date was extended to February 5, 2016.

B. The Circuit Court's Order is not moot.

"A case is moot if the reviewing court can no longer

grant effective relief." Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB v.
Domingo, 155 Hawai#i 1, 13, 556 P.3d 347, 359 (2024).

The Circuit Court complied with our mandate "to conduct

an evidentiary hearing to resolve the issue of whether the Rapp

Judgments have been satisfied." 2019 WL 4899210, at *4. Its

Order concluded the Judgments had not been satisfied and the

Schmidts owed $668,293.22 on them as of February 2, 2016.

The Circuit Court's ruling was not moot because the

7
HRCP Rule 6 (eff. 2000) provides, in relevant part:

(a) Computation. In computing any period of time
prescribed or allowed by . . . any applicable statute, the
day of the act, event, or default after which the 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.

9
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Judgments remained enforceable against Lorinna on December 4,

2015, when Turlington executed them against Lorinna's real

property. Similarly, the Judgments remained enforceable against

Thomas on January 6, 2016, when Turlington executed them against

Thomas's real property. The Circuit Court's Order could — and

did — grant Turlington effective relief.

C. The Schmidts' argument about violation of
their constitutional rights is not properly
before us.

The Schmidts make a conclusory argument that "the

Circuit Court violated [the] Schmidts' constitutional rights to

due process and equal protection by denying their motion to

vacate the 4 April 2023 decisions thereby exposing their property

and ownership interests therein to a void expired judgment."

The Schmidts' Motion to Vacate the April 4, 2023 Order

was filed on April 13, 2023. The Schmidts did not state the

authority upon which the motion was made. The only argument made

was that the Order "is absolutely void since the Judgment expired

in 2015 per HRS § 657-5[.]" The Motion to Vacate thus had to

have been made under HRCP Rule 60(b)(4) (allowing relief if "the

judgment is void"), and cannot be construed as an HRCP Rule 59(e)

motion to alter or amend the Order.

HRCP Rule 60(b) motions are not tolling motions.

Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Amasol, 135 Hawai#i 357, 360 n.1,
351 P.3d 584, 587 n.1 (2015) (Nakayama, J. concurring in part).

"HRCP Rule 60(b) motions do not become appealable until after the

court enters a written order disposing them." Id. The Schmidts

10
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

filed the notice of appeal creating this case before the Circuit

Court announced a decision on their Motion to Vacate.8 See HRAP

Rule 4(a)(2) (about notice of appeal filed after announcement of

decision but before entry of written order). The Schmidts'

challenge to the (eventual) denial of their Motion to Vacate is

not properly before us.

V. CONCLUSION

The Schmidts do not challenge the Circuit Court's

findings of fact or its conclusions of law. The April 4, 2023

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order is affirmed.

On the briefs:
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
R. Steven Geshell, Presiding Judge
for Defendants-Appellants
Thomas F. Schmidt and /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Lorinna J. Schmidt. Associate Judge

Jerry A. Ruthruff, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
for Turlington Corp., as Associate Judge
Assignee for Plaintiff-
Appellee John Rapp.

8
We take judicial notice under Rule 201, Hawaii Rules of Evidence,
Chapter 626, Hawaii Revised Statutes (2016), that the Circuit Court entered a
minute order denying the Motion to Vacate on July 12, 2023 (more than two
months after the Schmidts' notice of appeal was filed). No written order has
been entered.

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
15-SEP-2025
07:46 AM
Dkt. 99 OP

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

---o0o---

JOHN RAPP, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
THOMAS F. SCHMIDT and LORINNA J. SCHMIDT,
Defendants-Appellants

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CC940000903)

SEPTEMBER 15, 2025

HIRAOKA, PRESIDING JUDGE, MCCULLEN AND GUIDRY, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY HIRAOKA, J.

This case is before us for the fourth time. Thomas F.

Schmidt and Lorinna J. Schmidt appeal from the post-judgment

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, entered by the

Circuit Court of the First Circuit on April 4, 2023.1 The

Schmidts' sole argument is that two Judgments against them became

1
The Honorable John M. Tonaki presided.
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

unenforceable in 2015. At that time, a federal bankruptcy stay

prevented execution of the Judgments against the Schmidts'

assets. We hold that the Bankruptcy Code's tolling provision, 11

U.S.C. § 108(c), preempts the 20-year repose date of Hawaii

Revised Statutes (HRS) § 657-5. The Schmidts do not otherwise

challenge the Order. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

This case began in 1994, when attorney John Rapp sued

the Schmidts (his former clients) to recover unpaid fees and

costs. On August 29, 1995, the Circuit Court entered a Judgment

on Special Verdict for Rapp and against the Schmidts. On

October 23, 1995, a Supplemental Judgment awarding Rapp

prejudgment interest, attorney fees, and costs was entered.

The Schmidts appealed. We vacated the award of

attorney fees and remanded for redetermination of the amount.

Rapp v. Schmidt, No. 19393, 1998 WL 35486 (Haw. App. Jan. 26,

1998) (SDO).

Rapp assigned his interest in the Judgments to
Turlington Corporation on October 15, 1998.

On December 29, 2000, the Circuit Court entered an

Amended Supplemental Judgment that redetermined Rapp's attorney

fee award.

On August 26, 2005, Turlington timely moved to extend

the Judgments under HRS § 657-5. The statute in effect at the

time provided:
Unless an extension is granted, every judgment and decree of
any court of the State shall be presumed to be paid and

2
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

HRS § 657-5 (Supp. 2004).

The Circuit Court granted the motion to extend. The

Schmidts appealed. We affirmed. Rapp v. Schmidt, No. 27883,

2008 WL 4001189 (Haw. App. Aug. 29, 2008) (SDO).

On January 14, 2015, Turlington moved to correct the

dates on the order granting its motion to extend. The Circuit

Court granted the motion.2 The Judgment on Special Verdict was

extended to August 29, 2015, and the Supplemental Judgment was

extended to October 23, 2015.

An Alias Writ of Execution on the Judgments was issued

on July 17, 2015. Thomas filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy

thirteen days later. That stayed proceedings to enforce the

Judgments against Thomas. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(2).3 The

Chapter 13 automatic stay also applied to Lorinna, Thomas's co-

debtor. 11 U.S.C. § 1301(a).4

3
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Thomas's bankruptcy was converted to Chapter 11 on

December 3, 2015. The automatic stay then terminated as to

Lorinna. 11 U.S.C. § 1301(a)(2). On December 4, 2015,

Turlington executed the Judgments against real property owned by

Lorinna.

The bankruptcy court dismissed Thomas's case on

January 6, 2016. The dismissal terminated the automatic stay.

11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(B). On January 6, 2016, Turlington

executed the Judgments against real property owned by Thomas.

Meanwhile, on April 29, 2015, Lorinna moved to vacate

the order extending the Judgments. Thomas joined. The Circuit

Court denied the motion and joinder. The Schmidts appealed. We

affirmed the extension, but remanded for the Circuit Court to

decide whether the Schmidts had satisfied the Judgments. Rapp v.

Schmidt, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2019 WL 4899210 (Haw. App. Oct. 4,

2019) (mem. op.).

On remand, the Schmidts filed a memorandum arguing they

satisfied the Judgments; they also argued the Judgments "are now

extinguished or dead" under HRS § 657-5.5 The Circuit Court

conducted an evidentiary hearing. The Order (from which this

appeal is taken) was entered on April 4, 2023. The Circuit Court

found the Schmidts lacked credibility. It concluded that

4
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Turlington owned the Judgments; $668,293.22 was owed on the

Judgments as of February 2, 2016; and the Schmidts did not prove

they satisfied the Judgments. The Order did not address the

Schmidts' argument that the Judgments were "extinguished or dead"

under HRS § 657-5.

This appeal followed.

II. POINTS OF ERROR

The Schmidts state three points of error: (1) the

Circuit Court should have ruled that the Judgments expired before

they were executed against the Schmidts' properties; (2) the

Order is moot because the Judgments expired in 2015; and (3) the

Order violated the Schmidts' constitutional rights to due process

and equal protection.

III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A. Statutory Interpretation

Interpretation of a statute is a question of law

reviewed de novo. Kauai Springs, Inc. v. Plan. Comm'n of Cnty.

of Kaua#i, 133 Hawai#i 141, 163, 324 P.3d 951, 973 (2014). Giving

effect to the statute's plain language is our foremost

obligation. Id.

B. Federal Preemption

"Questions of federal preemption are questions of law

reviewable de novo under the right/wrong standard." City & Cnty.

of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP, 153 Hawai#i 326, 340, 537 P.3d 1173,
1187 (2023) (cleaned up), cert. denied sub nom. Shell PLC v. City