 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ditto v. McCurdy12/3/2003
1(a) if the order ends the proceedings, leaving nothing further to be accomplished. Familian Northwest, 68 Haw. at 370, 714 P.2d at 937. Correlatively, an order is not final if the rights of a party involved remain undetermined or if the matter is retained for further action. Id. at 370, 714 P.2d at 937-38.
In this case, McCurdy and PCT's November 16, 1999 motion for return of garnished funds and for attorneys' fees and costs constituted a post-judgment proceeding in civil case number 89-2262, the underlying malpractice action. As previously noted, the March 24, 2000 order granted in part and denied in part McCurdy and PCT's motion, ordering return of the $65,910.00 in garnished funds, awarding costs, and denying McCurdy and PCT's request for attorneys' fees. Because it disposed of all issues raised in McCurdy and PCT's November 16, 1999 motion, the March 24, 2000 order ended the post-judgment proceeding regarding the request for return of the $65,910.00 in garnished funds and for attorneys' fees and costs. The March 24, 2000 order left nothing further to be accomplished and was, therefore, final. See Familian Northwest, 68 Haw. at 370, 714 P.2d at 937; Chun v. Board of Trustees of Employees' Retirement Sys. of State of Hawaii, 92 Hawaii 432, 448, 992 P.2d 127, 143 (2000). Accordingly, the March 24, 2000 order was appealable under HRS ยง 641-1(a).
As previously indicated, on September 28, 2000, the circuit court entered a purported "final judgment" (to wit, the September 28, 2000 judgment) based on the March 24, 2000 order. The record evinces that it is from the September 28, 2000 judgment that the parties measured the time from which to appeal the matters finally and fully disposed in the March 24, 2000 order. Ditto's October 30, 2000 notice of appeal and McCurdy and PCT's December 19, 2000 notice of cross-appeal (both in appeal No. 23851) each listed the March 24, 2000 order and the September 28, 2000 judgment as the matters appealed. In this regard, the parties erred.
The separate document rule of HRCP Rule 58 (2000) provides in pertinent part that " very judgment shall be set forth on a separate document." There is no question that the separate document rule applies to post-judgment orders inasmuch as HRCP Rule 54 (2000) defines "judgment" to include "a decree and any order from which an appeal lies." We point out, however, that the separate judgment requirement articulated in Jenkins is inapposite in the post-judgment context.
In Jenkins, this court held that:
(1) An appeal may be taken from circuit court orders resolving claims against parties only after the orders have been reduced to a judgment and the judgment has been entered in favor of and against the appropriate parties pursuant to HRCP 58; (2) if a judgment purports to be the final judgment in a case involving multiple claims or multiple parties, the judgment (a) must specifically identify the party or parties for and against whom the judgment is entered, and (b) must (i) identify the claims for which it is entered, and (ii) dismiss any claims not specifically identified; (3) if the judgment resolves fewer than all claims against all parties, or reserves any claim for later action by the court, an appeal may be taken only if the judgment contains the language necessary for certification under HRCP 54(b); and (4) an appeal from any judgment will be dismissed as premature if the judgment does not, on its face, either resolve all claims against all parties or contain the finding necessary for certification under HRCP 54(b).
These holdings are intended to establish bright line rules so there will be little doubt in most cases about when an appeal may be taken. . . . Thus, after March
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|