CourtListener 10838910

Texto completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
07-APR-2026
07:51 AM
Dkt. 198 SO

NOS. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX AND CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

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

MARK MALAGODI and JANET JOHNSTON, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim
Defendants-Appellees,
v.
CAMERON E. NICE, MARTHA J. JACOBSEN, aka MARTHA J. JACOBSON-
NICE, Defendants/Counterclaimants-Appellants,
and
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., as nominee for
AMERICAN SAVINGS BANK, F.S.B., a Federal Savings Bank,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
JOHN DOES 1-20, JANE DOES 1-20, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-20, DOE
CORPORATIONS 1-20, and DOE ENTITIES 1-20, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 5CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Guidry, JJ.)

In this consolidated appeal,1 self-represented
Defendants-Appellants Cameron E. Nice and Martha J. Jacobsen

1 This court consolidated these related appeals on September 12,
2024.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(collectively, the Nices) challenge orders related to the
enforcement of a purchase contract for the sale of their
residential property to Plaintiffs-Appellees Mark Malagodi and
Janet Johnston (collectively, the Malagodis), after the circuit
court granted summary judgment on the Malagodis' claim for
specific performance. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
In CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, the Nices appeal from the October
11, 2023 "Order Denying [the Nices'] Motion for Stay of Order
and Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Supersedeas Bond) Filed
Herein on September 2 and 11, 2023" (Order Denying Stay) and the
December 13, 2023 "Order Denying [the Nices'] Motion for
Reconsideration to [the Nices'] Motion for Stay of Order and
Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Supersedeas Bond) Filed
Herein on October 23, 2023" (Order Denying Reconsideration),
both filed by the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit (Circuit
Court).2
In CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, the Nices appeal from the December
13, 2023 "Order Granting [the Malagodis'] Motion to Hold [the
Nices] in Contempt of Court Filed Herein on November 3, 2023"
(Contempt Order), filed by the Circuit Court.
The Nices' Opening Briefs in both cases substantially
fail to comply with Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP)
Rules 10, 28(b)(4) and (b)(7). The Malagodis' Answering Briefs
in each case challenge this court's jurisdiction. These
challenges have merit.
On November 1, 2022, the Circuit Court granted summary
judgment on the Malagodis' claim for specific performance, but
the Nices thereafter still refused to close the sale.

2 The Honorable Randal G.B. Valenciano presided.
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On March 10, 2023, the Malagodis filed a "Motion to
Compel [the Nices] to Sign Closing Documents," which was heard
and orally granted on August 8, 2023. The Circuit Court
compelled the Nices to sign closing documents by September 7,
2023, or post a supersedeas bond of $1,826,663.89 as a condition
to obtain a stay.
On September 7, 2023, the Circuit Court filed its
"Order Granting [the Malagodis'] Motion to Compel [the Nices] to
Sign Closing Documents Filed Herein on March 10, 2023" (Order
Granting Motion to Compel), which commanded the Nices to:

sign and execute all closing documents required by Old
Republic Title and Escrow to close the sale, including all
conveyance documents, the payment of all conveyance taxes,
the satisfaction of all liens and encumbrances, the payment
of all fees and commissions and the issuance of title
insurance to Plaintiffs Malagodi, for Defendants Nice's
[sic] [subject property] . . . pursuant to the terms of the
parties' Purchase Contract, as amended, including the As Is
Condition Addendum . . . by 4:30 p.m. Thursday, September
7, 2023.

The Nices did not appeal from the Order Granting
Motion to Compel. Instead, on September 11, 2023, the Nices
requested a stay of the Order Granting Motion to Compel, noting
their "low income status" and "financial stress of the
[Malagodis'] frivolous and fraudulent Notice of Pendency."
On October 11, 2023, the Circuit Court denied the
motion to stay in its Order Denying Stay, and the Nices filed a
motion for reconsideration on October 23, 2023.
On November 3, 2023, due to the Nices' continued
refusal to sign closing documents, the Malagodis filed a motion
to hold the Nices in contempt. At a November 16, 2023 hearing,
the Circuit Court orally granted the Malagodis' motion.
On December 13, 2023, the Circuit Court issued its
Contempt Order imposing a fine of $1,500.00 per day, effective
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

from November 4, 2023 and until the Nices closed the sale of,
and vacated, the property.
On December 13, 2023, the Circuit Court also filed its
Order Denying Reconsideration.
On January 8, 2024, the Nices filed their Notice of
Appeal of the October 11, 2023 Order Denying Stay and the
December 13, 2023 Order Denying Reconsideration, generating
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX.
On January 9, 2024, the Nices filed their Notice of
Appeal of the December 13, 2023 Contempt Order, generating CAAP-
XX-XXXXXXX.
1. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
In their jurisdictional challenge, the Malagodis argue
that the October 11, 2023 Order Denying Stay is not a final
order, and not appealable as a collateral order or appealable
under the Forgay doctrine.3 We agree that the Order Denying Stay
is not a final order or an appealable collateral order. See
Siangco v. Kasadate, 77 Hawaiʻi 157, 161, 883 P.2d 78, 82 (1994)
(holding that under the collateral order doctrine, an
interlocutory order may be appealable if the order "[(1)]
conclusively determine[s] the disputed question, [(2)]
resolve[s] an important issue completely separate from the
merits of the action, and [(3)] [is] effectively unreviewable on
appeal from final judgment" (citations omitted)). The Malagodis
argue the Order Denying Stay is not appealable under Forgay
because it "does not command the immediate transfer of property,
but only denies the Appellant Nice's [sic] request to stay the
court's previous [Order Granting Motion to Compel]."

3 See Forgay v. Conrad, 47 U.S. 201 (1848).
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

"The existence of jurisdiction is a question of law
that this court reviews de novo under the right/wrong standard."
Uyeda v. Schermer, 144 Hawaiʻi 163, 170, 439 P.3d 115, 122 (2019)
(citation omitted).
Under the Forgay doctrine, an interlocutory order may
be appealable if it "commands the immediate transfer of
property, where the losing party will be subjected to undue
hardship and irreparable injury if appellate review must wait
until the final outcome of the litigation." Lambert v. Teisina,
131 Hawaiʻi 457, 461, 319 P.3d 376, 380 (2014) (citations
omitted).
Here, while the underlying September 7, 2023 Order
Granting Motion to Compel was an appealable interlocutory order
because it "command[ed] the immediate transfer of property" and
arguably would have subjected the Nices "to undue hardship and
irreparable injury if appellate review" was delayed to the end
of the litigation,4 the appealed-from order is the October 11,
2023 Order Denying Stay. The October 11, 2023 Order Denying
Stay denies the request for a stay, and does not command an
immediate transfer of property or order the sale of the
property, and is not appealable. See id. For the same reason,
the December 13, 2023 Order Denying Reconsideration is also not
appealable under Forgay. We conclude we lack jurisdiction over
the appeal in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX. See Uyeda, 144 Hawaiʻi at 170,
439 P.3d at 122.

4 "Foreclosure decrees, writs of possession, and orders for the
sale of specific property are examples of orders and decrees that [the Hawaiʻi
Supreme Court] has held to be appealable under the Forgay doctrine."
Lambert, 131 Hawaiʻi at 461, 319 P.3d at 380 (citations omitted).
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

2. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
The Malagodis also challenge this court's jurisdiction
over the December 13, 2023 Contempt Order, arguing that it is
not a final appealable order, and not appealable as a collateral
order or under Forgay.
Here, the Contempt Order is not a final order, and is
not an appealable interlocutory order because it did not
"conclusively determine the disputed question," where it imposed
fines that would accrue daily until the Nices complied, did not
direct payment of a sum certain by a date certain, and was not
enforceable through contempt proceedings. Siangco, 77 Hawaiʻi at
161, 883 P.2d at 82 (citations omitted) (holding that "the
collateral order doctrine [did] not apply" because the "circuit
court's order did not fully and finally dispose of the sanctions
issue" where "it did not specify the amount" of attorney's fees
the appellant would have to pay); see Harada v. Ellis, 60 Haw.
467, 480, 591 P.2d 1060, 1070 (1979). The fact that the total
fine amount was subsequently finalized in a separate order on
January 12, 2026 does not alter this analysis.5 See Siangco,
77 Hawaiʻi at 161, 883 P.2d at 82. The Contempt Order is also
not appealable under Forgay because the Nices were permitted to
pay the accrued fines as a credit to the purchase price on
closing, such that the order did not command an "immediate
transfer of property[.]" See Lambert, 131 Hawaiʻi at 461, 319
P.3d at 380 (citations omitted). We conclude we lack
jurisdiction over the appeal in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX. See Uyeda,
144 Hawaiʻi at 170, 439 P.3d at 122.

5 We take judicial notice of this order in the underlying case,
5CCV-XX-XXXXXXX. The Nices are not precluded from challenging this order
once a final appealable order or judgment is entered.
6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this
consolidated appeal. As this is an order of dismissal, no
judgment will be filed.
All related pending motions are also dismissed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, April 7, 2026.
On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Cameron E. Nice and
Chief Judge
Martha J. Jacobson-Nice,
Self-represented Defendants/
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Counterclaimants-Appellants.
Associate Judge
Jonathan J. Chun,
/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
for Plaintiffs/Counterclaim
Associate Judge
Defendants-Appellees.

Bradford J. Dang,
for Defendant-Appellee
AMERICAN SAVINGS BANK, F.S.B.