First Hawaiian Bank v. Radomile
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 24475 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI» I FIRST HAWAIIAN BANK, Plaintiff vs. MARCO A. RADOMILE, in his individual capacity, Defendant/Crossclaim Defendant-Appellant; JAMES & CECILE, INC., Defendant/Crossclaimant-Appellee and COLONY SURF DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; COLONY WEST, INC; CHARLES J. BARKHORN, JR., also known as CHARLES JOHN BARKHORN, JR., JOHN BARKHORN, and CHARLES JOHN BARKHORN; MARCO A. RADOMILE, as Trustee of the Charles J. Barkhorn III Trust dated August 3, 1994; MARIA JUAREZ MEDEIROS; MARIE Y. OKAMURA,1 in her official capacity as Director of Taxation of the State of Hawai» i; LIBERTY HOUSE, INC.; CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, STATE OF HAWAI» I; BANK OF HAWAII; TOUCHSTONE MANAGEMENT, INC.; RAINEE BARKHORN; STRAWBERRY CONNECTION OF HAWAII, INC.; JOHN DOES 2-20; JANE DOES 1-20; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-20; DOE CORPORATIONS 3-20; DOE ENTITIES 1-20; and DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-20, Defendants APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT (CIV. NO. 95-3848) ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil, and Acoba, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears that: (1) the circuit court s November 29, 2000 judgment, the Honorable Gary W. B. Chang, presiding, which purports to be the final judgment on 1 Pursuant to Hawai » Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 43(c)(1), Marie i Y. Okamura, the current Director of the Department of Taxation of the State of Hawai » i, has been substituted for Ray K. Kamikawa, the Director at the time this case was decided by the first circuit court. the cross-claims of James & Cecile, Inc., does not identify the cross-claims for which the judgment of $163,509.20 is entered against the cross-claim defendants and does not enter judgment on the cross-claims that were resolved against James & Cecile, Inc. and on the cross-claims that were dismissed, as required by HRCP 58; see Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai» i 115, 119-20, 869 P.2d 1334, 1339-39 (1994) (In a multiple claim, multiple party circuit court case, a judgment that purports to be the final judgment is not appealable unless the judgment identifies the claims for which the judgment is entered and on its face, shows finality as to all claims against all the parties. A statement that declares outstanding claims there are no other is not a judgment. ); and thus, (2) this appeal is premature and we lack jurisdiction. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai» i, November 30, 2001.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
