Armitage v. Takase

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0000122 07-MAR-2012 10:45 AM NO. SCPW-12-0000122 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I LANDISH K. ARMITAGE and ROBIN R. ARMITAGE, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE BARBARA T. TAKASE, JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I; and WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIVIL NO. 3RC-11-1-1142) ORDER (By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ. and Circuit Judge Ayabe, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused) Upon consideration of petitioners Landish K. Armitage and Robin R. Armitage's petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers in support, it appears that the February 9, 2012 judgment for possession is a final judgment of the district court appealable pursuant to HRS § 641-1(a). Petitioners can obtain appellate review of the denial of their motion to dismiss complaint by appealing from the February 9, 2012 judgment for possession and seeking a stay of the judgment pending appeal pursuant to HRAP Rule 8. to mandamus relief. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action. Such writs are not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures); Ciesla v. Reddish, 78 Hawai'i 18, 889 P.2d 702 (1995) (A judgment for possession is immediately appealable under the Forgay doctrine.). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, March 7, 2012. /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Bert I. Ayabe 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.