G.B. v. J.B.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
16-JUN-2026
08:17 AM
Dkt. 17 ODSLJ

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

G.B., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
J.B., Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1DV201007550)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and Gluck, JJ.)

Upon review of the record, it appears that self-
represented Defendant-Appellant J.B. (J.B.) appeals from the
following orders entered in the Family Court of the First
Circuit:
1. an October 10, 2025 "Order Denying in Part Defendant's
Motion for Discovery, Filed September 19, 2025
[Dkt. 332]" (10/10/25 Order), entered at docket 401;

2. a March 11, 2026 "Order Granting in Part and Denying in
Part [J.B.]'s Motion and Declaration for Post-Decree
Relief, Filed 09/26/25 (Dkt. 354)" (3/11/26 Order),
entered at docket 643;
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

3. a March 19, 2026 "Scheduling Order for Motion and
Declaration for Post-Decree Relief" (3/19/26 Order),
entered at docket 666;

4. an April 21, 2026 "Order Denying Defendant's Motion for
Reconsideration or New Trial Filed March 23, 2026
[Dkt. 679]" (4/21/26 Order), 1 entered at docket 722; and

5. a May 8, 2026 "Order Denying [J.B.]'s Motion for
Discovery Filed 3/12/26 (Dkt. 649)" (5/8/26 Order),
entered at docket 783.

"An appellate court has an independent obligation to
ensure jurisdiction over each case and to dismiss the appeal sua
sponte if a jurisdictional defect exists." In re Doe, 107
Hawaiʻi 12, 15, 108 P.3d 966, 969 (2005) (citation, ellipses, and
quotation marks omitted). We address each Order in turn.

1. 10/10/25 Order: The time to appeal from the 10/10/25
Order expired on November 10, 2025. Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate
Procedure (HRAP) Rule 4(a)(1). The record does not reflect that
the time to appeal was tolled under HRAP Rules 4(a)(3) or (4).
Therefore, the appeal is untimely as to the 10/10/25 Order.

1
J.B. identified multiple motions and orders in her April 13, 2026
notice of appeal. As the motions identified are not themselves appealable,
we liberally construe the notice of appeal as seeking to appeal from the
respective orders resolving the identified motions. See Erum v. Llego, 147
Hawaiʻi 368, 391, 465 P.3d 815, 838 (2020) ("[T]he pleadings of pro se
litigants should be liberally interpreted in order to promote access to
justice.").
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

2. 3/11/26 Order: J.B. has already appealed from the
3/11/26 Order in case number CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX. 2 Thus, the instant
appeal is duplicative, in part, as to the 3/11/26 Order.

3. 3/19/26 Order: The 3/19/26 Order is not appealable
under Hawaiʻi Revised Statues §§ 571-54 (2018) and 641–1 (2016)
because it merely sets scheduling on a separate motion filed at
docket 657. Accordingly, the 3/19/26 Order does not finally
determine all issues raised in a post-decree proceeding. See
Hall v. Hall, 96 Hawaiʻi 105, 111 n.4, 26 P.3d 594, 600 n.4 (App.
2001) (post-divorce decree orders are appealable if they finally
determine all issues raised in a post-decree proceeding),
affirmed in part, and vacated in part on other grounds, 95
Hawaiʻi 318, 22 P.3d 965 (2001).

4. 4/21/26 Order: The Family Court entered the 4/21/26
Order after the appeal was filed, and the record indicates a
decision on the merits of the motion the 4/21/26 Order resolves
was not previously announced. As the appeal was prematurely
filed before announcement of a decision, the premature appeal
exception does not apply. See HRAP Rule 4(a)(2) ("If a notice
of appeal is filed after announcement of a 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.") (Emphasis added.)
Thus, the court lacks jurisdiction over the 4/21/26 Order.

5. 5/8/26 Order: Likewise, the Family Court both announced
its decision and entered the corresponding 5/8/26 Order after
the appeal was filed. As the appeal was prematurely filed

2 See id. In CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, J.B. purports to appeal from docket
354, which is a motion, and which was resolved via the 3/11/26 Order.

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

before announcement of a decision, the premature appeal
exception in HRAP Rule 4(a)(2) does not apply. Thus, the court
lacks jurisdiction over the 5/8/26 Order.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is
dismissed in part as duplicative of the appeal in CAAP-26-
0000329 and in part for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are
dismissed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, June 16, 2026.
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Chief Judge

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge

/s/ Daniel M. Gluck
Associate Judge

4