Wells Fargo Bank v. Erum

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-15-0000742 21-MAR-2018 01:22 PM SCWC-15-0000742 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. THEODORICO ERUM, JR., Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant, and CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY—KAUAI BRANCH, COUNTY OF KAUAI, KOLOA MARKETPLACE, LLC, STATE OF HAWAII–DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, and KAUAI CREDIT ADJUSTERS LIMITED, Respondents/Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________________________________________ CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-15-0000742; CIV. NO. 13-1-0288) ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Upon consideration of Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Theodorico Erum, Jr.’s (Erum) application for writ of certiorari, and the record herein, it appears that Erum’s application was due on January 16, 2018, which was 60 days after the Intermediate Court of Appeal’s November 17, 2017 Order Granting Intervenor Robert Rosen’s Motion (1) For Reconsideration of Summary Disposition Order Filed September 5, 2017 and (2) To Dismiss the Appeal As Moot. See Hawai#i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 602-59(c) (Supp. 2017); Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 40.1(a) (2017). It further appears that Erum timely filed and was granted an extension of time to file his application, which extended the deadline from 30 to 60 days. Erum’s second request for an extension of time filed on February 23, 2018 was denied. See HRS § 602-59(c); HRAP Rule 40.1(a). Erum’s application was filed on February 22, 2018. The application is untimely and thus, this court lacks appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application for writ of certiorari is dismissed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 21, 2018. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson 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.