CourtListener 10810068

Testo completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
17-MAR-2026
08:08 AM
Dkt. 102 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

JAMES YEE MARN, JR., as a limited partner of
McCully Associates, a Hawaii registered limited
partnership, for and on behalf of McCully Associates
and its limited partners; and JAMES K.M. DUNN, as
Successor Trustee of the Annabelle Y. Dunn Revocable
Trust Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants-Appellees,
v.
MCCULLY ASSOCIATES, a Hawaii registered limited
partnership; ALA WAI INVESTMENT, INC., a Hawaii corporation, as
general partner of MCCULLY ASSOCIATES; ALEXANDER Y. MARN,
individually and as officer and agent for ALA WAI INVESTMENT,
INC.; ERIC Y. MARN, individually and as officer and agent for
ALA WAI INVESTMENT, INC.; ERNESTINE L. MARN,
Defendants/Counterclaimants-Appellees,
and
THOMAS T. UENO, Intervenor-Appellant,
and
SAKAI IWANAGA SUTTON LAW GROUP, Attorneys at Law, a
limited liability law company, Intervenor-Appellee,
and
JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE
CORPORATIONS 1-10; and DOE ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CC980005371)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

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

Intervenor-Appellant Thomas T. Ueno (Ueno) appeals

from the April 5, 2023 Final Judgment, and challenges the

September 9, 2020 "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and

Order Regarding Lien Claims" (September 9, 2020 Order),

October 23, 2020 "Order Denying [Ueno's] Motion for

Reconsideration of the [September 9, 2020 Order], or in the

Alternative, for Leave to Initiate Interlocutory Appeal, Filed

September 21, 2020" (October 23, 2020 Order), and November 17,

2020 "Order Regarding Priority and Timing of Payment of Liens"

(November 17, 2020 Order), entered by the Circuit Court of the

First Circuit (circuit court). 1

In the underlying proceeding, Ueno intervened as a

purported secured creditor, and asserted a lien against any

distributions by the court-appointed liquidating receiver that

would otherwise go to self-represented Defendant/

Counterclaimant-Appellee Eric Y. Marn (Eric). In the present

appeal, Ueno challenges the circuit court's ruling that grants

Intervenor-Appellee Sakai Iwanaga Sutton Law Group, Attorneys at

Law, LLLC (Sakai Iwanaga) an attorney's lien on any future award

in favor of either Eric or self-represented Defendant/

Counterclaimant-Appellee Alexander Y. Marn (Alexander).

1 The Honorable James H. Ashford presided.

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

Ueno asserts three points of error on appeal,

contending that the circuit court erred: (1) in its conclusions

of law (COLs) 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, and 14; (2) "in denying Ueno's

motion for reconsideration of the [September 9, 2020 Order]";

and (3) "in establishing the timing and payment of the [Sakai

Iwanaga] lien."

Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and

relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration

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

we resolve Ueno's points of error as follows:

(1) At the outset, we conclude that Ueno's challenge

to COLs 4 and 13 is waived because the opening brief does not

provide any argument to contest COLs 4 and 13. See Hawaiʻi Rules

of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(7) ("Points not argued

may be deemed waived.").

The remaining COLs that Ueno challenges on appeal are

as follows:

1. Hawaii's attorney lien statute (the "Lien
Statute") is set forth in [Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)]
§ 507-81[ (2018)]. It provides that an attorney "has" a
lien upon actions, judgments, decrees, orders, settlements,
awards, etc. in favor of the attorney's client. HRS § 507-
81(a) [(2018)].

2. Nothing in the Lien Statute limits an
attorney's lien to benefit only those attorneys who
represent plaintiffs, or to benefit only attorneys who
represent parties asserting an affirmative claim. Stated
differently, the Lien Statute benefits not only plaintiff's
counsel, but also defense counsel.

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

3. Nothing in the Lien Statute limits an
attorney's lien to benefit only an attorney whose client
prevailed in the action or prevailed on any particular
claim, defense, or issue in the action. Stated
differently, an attorney's lien attaches to all judgments,
decrees, orders, settlements and other items specified in
the Lien Statute that are made in favor of the attorney's
client, regardless of whether that client prevailed.

. . . .

[Sakai Iwanaga's] Claim

14. [Sakai Iwanaga] has an attorney's lien upon any
future Court Award issued in this lawsuit in favor of
either or both of [Eric] and [Alexander]. The lien is in
the amount of $882,131.25 as of September 2, 2019, plus
daily interest accruing thereafter at the rate of $96.28
per day.

Ueno does not dispute the circuit court's conclusion

that "Ueno has no lien on any future Court Award that might be

issued in favor of [Alexander] or [Eric] in this lawsuit."

Instead, he challenges only the circuit court's determination

that a separate party, Sakai Iwanaga, had a valid attorney's

lien pursuant to HRS § 507-81. Under these circumstances, we

conclude that Ueno lacks standing to challenge the ruling as to

Sakai Iwanaga's lien. See Honolulu Constr. & Draying Co. v.

Terrace Devs., Ltd., 48 Haw. 68, 74, 395 P.2d 691, 696 (1964)

("[T]he mere circumstance that intervention was allowed without

objection is not decisive of the question whether [a party]

presently has a justiciable interest as a party aggrieved."

(citations omitted)); Waikiki Disc. Bazaar, Inc. v. City & Cnty.

of Honolulu, 5 Haw. App. 635, 640, 706 P.2d 1315, 1319 (App.

1985) ("The question of whether the plaintiff has standing to

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

bring the action or to appeal its dismissal may be raised sua

sponte by the court having jurisdiction over the case."

(citations omitted)).

Moreover, this court could not provide an effective

remedy with regard to this point of error that Ueno raises.

Ueno has no lien and is therefore challenging the distribution

of funds that he is not entitled to. See Wilmington Sav. Fund

Soc'y, FSB v. Domingo, 155 Hawaiʻi 1, 9, 556 P.3d 347, 355 (2024)

("The mootness doctrine is properly invoked where events have so

affected the relations between the parties that the two

conditions for justiciability relevant on appeal – adverse

interest and effective remedy — have been compromised."

(citation omitted)).

(2 & 3) It appears that point of error (2) challenges

the October 23, 2020 Order, and point of error (3) challenges

the November 17, 2020 Order. We conclude that points of error

(2) and (3) are waived because Ueno's opening brief does not

present any argument in support of any alleged errors with

regard to either the October 23, 2020 Order or the November 17,

2020 Order. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(7).

In light of the above, we decline to address Ueno's

arguments as to HRS § 507-81.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

For the foregoing reasons, the September 9, 2020

Order, October 23, 2020 Order, November 17, 2020 Order, and

April 5, 2023 Final Judgment are affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, March 17, 2026.
On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Presiding Judge
Carl H. Osaki,
for Intervenor-Appellant. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Associate Judge
Michiro Iwanaga,
for Intervenor-Appellee. /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Associate Judge