 |
 |
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
st nor shall the premium serve as an acknowledgment by the State of Hawaii that a comparable rate of interest is in any way applicable in actions brought pursuant to Chapter 661, Hawaii Revised Statutes; and, the parties further agree that the aforesaid premium of ten percent (10%) per annum is the negotiated consideration for the stay of injunction.
6. This Stipulation, when approved by a justice of either the Hawaii Supreme Court or the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, whichever the case may be, shall have the full force and effect of a Court order and shall be enforced as such. If this Stipulation and Order must be enforced in a court of competent jurisdiction, then the prevailing party shall be awarded all costs, incurred in enforcing or defending said stipulation and order, including but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees. (Emphases added.) The stipulation was signed by counsel for the Principals and Vice-Principals and the ERS, but was not signed by a justice of this court or a judge of the ICA.
Even if we were to construe the foregoing stipulation as a contract, it would be a contract between only two parties -- the ERS, on the one hand, and the Principals and Vice Principals, on the other. None of the authorities cited by the Retirees in their opening brief stand for the proposition that a private stipulation between two parties is extended to parties added to litigation by consolidation. Thus, notwithstanding the Retirees' argument that the ERS Board's consolidation of the Principals' and Vice Principals' lawsuit with the Teachers' lawsuit should somehow allow the Teachers to recover prejudgment interest without some underlying contract with the ERS which "expressly stipulat for the payment of interest," see supra note 9, the Teachers are barred from receiving any award of prejudgment interest by HRS § 661-8.
We therefore hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in "finding that the consolidation did not nor could it expand the stipulation and further finding that to do so would be tantamount to imposing prejudgment interest, which by law is not allowed against the State, because the eachers did not even obtain final judgment until March 11, 1996." See supra section I.B.
G. The Circuit Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Not Requiring The ERS To Pay Postjudgment Interest As A Condition Of The Stay Because Sovereign Immunity Bars Such A Condition
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." In light of our holding supra in section III.A that the State is immune from awards of HRS § 478-3 postjudgment interest in HRS § 661-1 actions, we further hold that the circuit court could not have erred in refusing to order the ERS to pay postjudgment interest on the ordered fees and interest as a condition of staying the execution of that order. See supra notes 6 and 8.
IV. CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing analysis, 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.
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.
|
|