Coward v. Director of Department of Customer Services
This text of Coward v. Director of Department of Customer Services (Coward v. Director of Department of Customer Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 11-MAY-2026 07:50 AM Dkt. 75 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
WILLIAM J. COWARD, Appellant-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMER SERVICES, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Appellee-Appellee
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION (CASE NO. 1DRC-XX-XXXXXXX)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)
William J. Coward asked the City and County of Honolulu's Department of Customer Services (DCS) for duplicate certificates of ownership for five motor vehicles. The City denied his requests. Representing himself, he filed a notice of appeal under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 286-58. The notice of appeal described only a 1989 Cadillac and its vehicle identification number (VIN). The District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division, granted the appeal for the Cadillac.1 Coward moved for reconsideration. He wanted duplicate ownership certificates for all five cars, not just the Cadillac. The district court orally denied the motion.2 Coward appealed. We temporarily remanded for entry of a written order denying reconsideration. The Order Denying Appellant William J. Coward's
1 The Honorable Alvin K. Nishimura presided. 2 The Honorable Miriah E. Holden presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Motion for Reconsideration or New Trial was entered on April 27, 2026. Denial of a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Haw. 85, 114, 839 P.2d 10, 26 (1992). HRS § 286-58 (2020) allows an appeal from a DCS decision. The notice of appeal must contain "a description of the motor vehicle involved, with the serial or motor number or both, if available." Coward's notice of appeal provided the description and VIN for the Cadillac; it did not describe or provide the VIN for any other vehicle. The district court thus acted within its discretion by denying Coward's motion for reconsideration. The April 27, 2026 Order Denying Appellant William J. Coward's Motion for Reconsideration or New Trial is affirmed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 11, 2026.
On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard William J. Coward, Presiding Judge self-represented Appellant-Appellant. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge Dana M.O. Viola, Corporation Counsel, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Gabriele V. Provenza, Associate Judge Deputy Corporation Counsel for Appellee-Appellee.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Coward v. Director of Department of Customer Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coward-v-director-of-department-of-customer-services-hawapp-2026.