THC Financial Corp. Ex Rel. Osborne v. Bank of Hawaii

Hawaii Supreme Court

THC Financial Corp. Ex Rel. Osborne v. Bank of Hawaii

653 P.2d 789, 65 Haw. 477, 1982 Haw. LEXIS 241

Hawaii Supreme Court·Decided November 16, 1982·No. NO. 6988·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from two orders. One order granted a motion to dismiss an amendment to a third-party complaint and the other assessed attorney’s fees in favor of the third-party defendant against the third-party plaintiff. The order dismissing the amendment to the third-party complaint contained the appropriate recitals under Rule 54(b), HRCP, and thus was a final and appealable order. On a review of the record, we see no error in the granting of that order.

As to the order granting attorney’s fees, numerous cases hold that attorney’s fees cannot be granted unless authorized by statute, rule of court, agreement, stipulation or Hawaiian precedent. Dress Mfg. Co. v. Cadinha, 33 Haw. 456, 478 (1935); Welsh v. Campbell, 42 Haw. 490, 498 (1958); Brown v. Tokuda, 49 Haw. 311, 417 P.2d 636 (1966); Salvador v. Popaa, 56 Haw. 111, 530 P.2d 7 (1974); Cain v. Cain, 59 Haw. 32, 575 P.2d 468 (1978).

*478 Richard H. Lachmann (Kelso, Spencer, Snyder & Sterling of counsel) on the brief for appellants. John Rapp (Goodsill Anderson Quinn of counsel) on the brief for appellee.

It is apparent in the record that the court below granted attorney’s fees because it felt that the amendment to the third-party complaint was brought in bad faith. The order below, however, was entered in 1978. There was not then any statute, rule of court or Hawaiian judicial precedent for such an award. Cuerva & Associates v. Wong, 1 Haw. App. 194, 616 P.2d 1017 (1980). In 1980, by Act 286, the legislature added § 607-14.5, HRS, which permits an award of attorney’s fees against á party whose claim is found to be completely frivolous. Since that statute was not yet in effect when the order was entered, we reverse the award of attorney’s fees.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from two orders. One order granted a motion to dismiss an amendment to a third-party complaint and the other assessed attorney’s fees in favor of the third-party defendant against the third-party plaintiff. The order dismissing the amendment to the third-party complaint contained the appropriate recitals under Rule 54(b), HRCP, and thus was a final and appealable order. On a review of the record, we see no error in the granting of that order.

As to the order granting attorney’s fees, numerous cases hold that attorney’s fees cannot be granted unless authorized by statute, rule of court, agreement, stipulation or Hawaiian precedent. Dress Mfg. Co. v. Cadinha, 33 Haw. 456, 478 (1935); Welsh v. Campbell, 42 Haw. 490, 498 (1958); Brown v. Tokuda, 49 Haw. 311, 417 P.2d 636 (1966); Salvador v. Popaa, 56 Haw. 111, 530 P.2d 7 (1974); Cain v. Cain, 59 Haw. 32, 575 P.2d 468 (1978).

*478 Richard H. Lachmann (Kelso, Spencer, Snyder & Sterling of counsel) on the brief for appellants. John Rapp (Goodsill Anderson Quinn of counsel) on the brief for appellee.

It is apparent in the record that the court below granted attorney’s fees because it felt that the amendment to the third-party complaint was brought in bad faith. The order below, however, was entered in 1978. There was not then any statute, rule of court or Hawaiian judicial precedent for such an award. Cuerva & Associates v. Wong, 1 Haw. App. 194, 616 P.2d 1017 (1980). In 1980, by Act 286, the legislature added § 607-14.5, HRS, which permits an award of attorney’s fees against á party whose claim is found to be completely frivolous. Since that statute was not yet in effect when the order was entered, we reverse the award of attorney’s fees.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

THC Financial Corp. Ex Rel. Osborne v. Bank of Hawaii, 653 P.2d 789, 65 Haw. 477, 1982 Haw. LEXIS 241 (haw 1982).

Pincite

653 P.2d 789 (THC Financial Corp. Ex Rel. Osborne v. Bank of Hawaii) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related