 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Chun v. Board of Trustees of the Employees' Retirement System of State of Hawaii1/31/2005
d to grant judgment interest to [the Teachers] on the basis of the existence of a private stipulation entered between the ERS and the retired principals' and vice principals' class." (Emphasis in original.)
In their appeal from the order granting stay of proceedings, seesupra note 2, the Retirees allege that "the [circuit] court erred in not requiring the to pay postjudgment interest upon the monetary award issued by the [circuit] court on October 18, 2000 as a condition of staying the operation of said October 18, 2000 monetary award." The ERS responds (1) that " he circuit court was correct in declining to award interest as a condition of the stay pending appeal, because such an award would violate § 478-3 [(1993) ]," and (2) that, "even if the circuit court could have awarded interest upon interest under § 478-3, it is within the court's discretion to have decided not to condition the stay pending appeal on payment of interest."
For the reasons discussed infra in section III, we hold: (1) that the State is immune from awards of HRS § 478-3 postjudgment interest in HRS § 661-1 (1993) actions, such that the circuit court erred in awarding postjudgment interest to the Retirees; (2) that, based on the foregoing holding, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding postjudgment interest from calculation of attorneys' feesbecause the ERS is immune from the assessment of postjudgment interest; (3) that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the "offset" from calculation of attorneys' fees because the March 4, 1996 final order expressly limited attorneys' fees by excluding the offset; (4) that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that attorneys' fees be set at twenty-five percent of the common fund because no controlling precedent required the circuit court to award a specific amount; (5) that the circuit court did not err in failing to address investment income because to do so would have exceeded the scope of this court's mandate on remand; (6) that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in failing to award the Teachers prejudgment interest because the Teachers are barred from such an award by HRS § 661-8 (1993); and (7) based on our holding that the State is immune from awards of HRS § 478-3 postjudgment interest in HRS § 661-1 actions, the circuit court did not err in refusing to order the ERS to pay postjudgment interest upon the order granting fees and interest as a condition of staying the execution of that order.
Accordingly, we (1) affirm the portion of the October 18, 2000 order as to the granting of attorneys' fees, i.e., paragraphs one through thirteen of the order and paragraph two of the decree, (2) reverse the portion of the October 18, 2000 order granting postjudgment interest, i.e., paragraphs fourteen through twenty of the order and paragraph one of the decree, and (3) affirm the February 14, 2001 order granting stay of proceedings.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Chun I through Chun III
As a preliminary matter, we note the following background, set forth in Chun v. Board of Trustees of Employees' Retirement Sys. of State of Hawaii, 92 Hawaii 432, 992 P.2d 127 (2000) (Chun III):
A. Chun I
Prior to retiring, the Retirees (as public school principals, vice principals, or teachers) were all "ten-month" employees of the Department of Education (DOE). The present appeal arises out of two class action lawsuits -- one (Chun) brought on behalf of retired principals and vice principals and the other (Southwood) on behalf of retired teachers -- filed in the first circuit court. Each complaint sought relief based upon the allegation that the ERS had unde
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|