Ho v. Law Offices of Craig K. Furusho

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 28, 2025
• Docket: CAAP-23-0000019
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 28-NOV-2025 08:02 AM Dkt. 78 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

GLENN K.C. HO AND OHK SOOK HO, CO-TRUSTEES OF THE GLENN K.C. HO REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST DATED APRIL 4, 2003 AND THE OHK SOOK HO REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST DATED APRIL 4, 2003, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG K. FURUSHO; CRAIG K. FURUSHO, ESQ., Defendants-Appellants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CIVIL NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.) Defendants-Appellants Law Offices of Craig K. Furusho

and Craig K. Furusho, Esq., (collectively, Furusho) appeal from

the October 31, 2022 Order Denying [Furusho's] Motion to Set

Aside Entry of Default and Default Final Judgment [(Motion to Set

Aside)] (Order Denying Set Aside) and the January 4, 2023 Order

Denying [Furusho's] Motion For a New Trial and For

Reconsideration of [Order Denying Set Aside] (Order Denying

Reconsideration), entered in favor of Plaintiffs-Appellees

Glenn K.C. Ho and Ohk Sook Ho, Co-Trustees of the Glenn K.C. Ho

Revocable Living Trust Dated April 4, 2003 and the Ohk Sook Ho NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Revocable Living Trust Dated April 4, 2003 (collectively, the

Hos) by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court).1

Furusho raises three points of error on appeal,

contending that the Circuit Court erred in: (1) finding that

Furusho did not have a meritorious defense; (2) finding no good

cause to set aside the default; and (3) denying Furusho's motion

for reconsideration.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we

resolve Furusho's points of error as follows:

The crux of this appeal is whether the default judgment

and default entered against Furusho should be set aside, so that

he can defend this legal malpractice suit on the merits.

A party moving to set aside a default judgment must

show three things: (1) the nondefaulting party will not be

prejudiced by the reopening; (2) the defaulting party has a

meritorious defense; and (3) the default was not the result of

inexcusable neglect, or a wilful act. Chen v. Mah, 146 Hawai i

157, 160, 457 P.3d 796, 799 (2020). Each of these factors is

grounded in equity principles, and a merits-oriented outcome is

favored over preserving the finality of a judgment. See JK v.

DK, 153 Hawai i 268, 274-75, 533 P.3d 1215, 1221-22 (2023).

Regarding the issue of prejudice to the Hos, the

Circuit Court pointed to the underlying case, New Bangkok v. Ho,

Civ. No. 1CC181001575, wherein a default judgment was entered

1 The Honorable Lisa W. Cataldo presided.

2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

against the Hos (the New Bangkok Case). It is unclear how

allowing Furusho to defend the Hos' claims that he should be held

entirely responsible for the default judgment would prejudice the

Hos, and they point to no specific prejudice associated with

proceeding on the merits. In addition, we take judicial notice

of this court's Summary Disposition Order in New Bangkok v. Ho,

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-19-000822, wherein this court vacated

the default judgment against the Hos. Upon remand, no further

judgment has been entered against the Hos to date in the New

Bangkok Case. On July 24, 2024, the Hos filed an answer and

counterclaim in the New Bangkok Case. On July 25, 2024, the

parties filed a joint stipulation to pursue settlement and no

further substantive action appears in the record of the New

Bangkok Case.

Regarding the issue of a meritorious defense, Furusho's

primary contention is that he was never engaged as counsel in the

New Bangkok Case. Even assuming that the Hos ultimately might

prevail on this argument notwithstanding the lack of any

engagement agreement between Furusho and the Hos, in light of the

fact that the default judgment against the Hos has been vacated

and that the Hos have filed an answer and counterclaim, at the

very least, it appears that Furusho has a meritorious defense to

the extensive money damages awarded to the Hos in the default

judgment entered in this case, which was based solely on the now-

defunct default judgment in the New Bangkok Case.

Regarding the issue of inexcusable neglect, Furusho's

main contentions pertain to notice and service on him in this

case, starting with the complaint and summons. The Hos' lawyer

3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

averred that she mailed the complaint and summons to Furusho by

certified mail and he signed for the envelope on some unspecified

date. This was not proper service under Rule 4 of the Hawai i

Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP). While Furusho later

acknowledged signing for certified mail of some sort, he does not

recall it being a complaint and summons, he did not waive this

defective service or enter a general appearance until, perhaps,

the filing of the Motion to Set Aside. 2 See generally HRCP Rule

12(h)(1). Furusho further points to the fact that subsequent

discovery and motions, including the Hos' motion for entry of

default were "served" on him at a downtown Honolulu address that

Furusho averred that he vacated in May of 2016, and not at the

new address that he provided to the Hawai i Supreme Court and

Hawaii State Bar Association (and appearing in the bar

directory).3 After Furusho received electronic notification of

the motion for entry of default judgment on May 18, 2021, he took

steps to engage counsel who agreed to represent him, but that

attorney was apparently gravely ill at the time, unbeknownst to

Furusho, and died on July 5, 2021. Furusho offers further

explanation of numerous events and circumstances occurring

thereafter, which are thin grounds for not acting sooner to seek

to set aside the default judgment. However, particularly in

light of the lack of proper service of process, the record does

2 We express no opinion as to whether the filing of the Motion to Set Aside waived the defense of insufficiency of service of process. 3 Furusho denies registering as a JEFS User, denies authorizing someone to register him on his behalf, and denies even knowing that he was so registered until he received a JEFS email notification of the motion for entry of default judgment against him on May 18, 2021. We note, however, that as a licensed Hawai i attorney, unless exempted, Furusho was required to register as a JEFS User. See Hawai i Electronic Filing & Service Rules Rule 4.1(a).

4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

not support a conclusion that Furusho's default itself was a

result of inexcusable neglect.

Based on the above, and in light of the overarching

equitable principles applicable here, and the merits-oriented

outcome favored in Hawai i courts, we conclude that Furusho

should be granted relief from the default and default judgment

entered against him.

Accordingly, the Circuit Court's October 31, 2022 Order

Denying Set Aside and January 4, 2023 Order Denying

Reconsideration are vacated. This case is remanded to the

Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this

Summary Disposition Order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, November 28, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Presiding Judge Mark S. Kawata, for Defendants-Appellants. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge John Rhee (Dentons US LLP), /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Associate Judge