Wong v. Wong
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
*** NO T FO R PUBLICATION ***
NO. 25949
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
CHRISTINE M. WONG, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs.
DERRICK K.H. WONG, Defendant-Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(FC-D NO. 02-1-2233)
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)
Upon review of the record, it appears that we do not
have jurisdiction over Defendant-Appellant Derrick K.H. Wong’s
(Appellant Wong) appeal from the April 3, 2003 divorce decree,
because Appellant Wong did not file his July 3, 2003 notice of
appeal within thirty days after entry of the May 7, 2003 order
denying Appellant Wong’s motion to set aside the April 3, 2003
divorce decree, as Rule 4(a)(3) of the Hawai#i Rules of Appellate
Procedure (HRAP) required under these circumstances.
Furthermore, even if we apply Appellant Wong’s notice of appeal
to the May 13, 2003 amended divorce decree, Appellant Wong did
not file his July 3, 2003 notice of appeal within thirty days
after entry of the May 13, 2003 amended divorce decree, as
HRAP Rule 4(a)(1) required.
Pursuant to HRAP Rule 4(a)(4)(B), Appellant Wong filed
a July 1, 2003 motion to extend the time to file a notice of
appeal.
Nevertheless, on July 14, 2003, the family court denied
Appellant Wong’s July 1, 2003 motion, and, thus, Appellant Wong’s
July 3, 2003 notice of appeal was untimely.
Appellant Wong filed a September 11, 2003 motion to set
aside the July 14, 2003 order, and on September 26, 2003, the
family court granted Appellant Wong’s September 11, 2003 motion.
However, Appellant Wong’s September 11, 2003 motion was, in
effect, a second motion to extend time to file a notice of
*** NO T FO R PUBLICATION ***
appeal.
HRAP Rule 4(a)(4)(B) required Appellant Wong to file any
motion to extend time to file a notice of appeal “not later than
30 days after the expiration of the time prescribed by
subsections (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this rule.”
With respect to
an appeal from the April 3, 2003 divorce decree, the last day on
which Appellant Wong could have moved for an extension pursuant
to HRAP Rule 4(a)(4)(B) and HRAP Rule 26(a) was July 7, 2003.
With respect to an appeal from the May 13, 2003 amended divorce
decree, the last day on which Appellant Wong could have moved for
an extension pursuant to HRAP Rule 4(a)(4)(B) and HRAP Rule 26(a)
was July 14, 2003.
Therefore, Appellant Wong’s September 11,
2003 motion was untimely under HRAP Rule 4(a)(4)(B), and,
consequently, the family court erred when it granted Appellant
Wong’s September 11, 2003 motion.
Accordingly, Appellant Wong’s
appeal is untimely.
The failure of Appellant Wong to file a timely notice
of appeal is a jurisdictional defect that the parties cannot
waive and an appellate court cannot disregard in the exercise of
judicial discretion.
Bacon v. Karlin, 68 Haw. 648, 650, 727 P.2d
1127, 1129 (1986); HRAP Rule 26(b) (“[N]o court or judge or
justice thereof is authorized to change the jurisdictional
requirements contained in Rule 4 of [the HRAP].”).
lack jurisdiction over this appeal.
Therefore, we
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed for
lack of appellate jurisdiction.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 7, 2004.
2
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.