Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

County of Hawai'i v. Ito

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai'i

October 21, 2014

COUNTY OF HAWAI'I, a municipal corporation of the State of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LORNE R. ITO, LYRA R. KELIIPAAKAUA, RAGS PRIVATE AUTO CLUB, LLC, DOE AGENCIES 1-10, and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-100, Defendants-Appellees

Editorial Note:

This decision is published in table format in the Pacific and Hawai'i reporter

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT (NORTH AND SOUTH KONA DIVISION). (CIVIL NO. 3RC11-1-304K).

On the brief: Kimberly K. Angay, Deputy Corporation Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant.

By: Fujise, Presiding Judge, Leonard and Ginoza, JJ.

OPINION

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant County of Hawaii (County) appeals from the Order Dismissing Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to HRS § 604-5, which was entered on December 29, 2011, by the District Court of the Third Circuit, North and South Kona Division (District Court)[1]

On appeal, the County contends that the District Court erred when it dismissed this case, wherein the County sought to interplead a dispute concerning who was entitled to ownership and/or possession of an automobile, the value of which was within the jurisdictional limits of the district courts, as provided in HRS § 604-5.[2] In the County's complaint, in addition to requesting that the defendants " be ordered and commanded to interplead and settle among themselves their rights and claims" to the automobile, the County, in essence, sought an order broadly immunizing the County from any liability for its actions with respect to the seizure and continued possession of the car.

After carefully reviewing the record and the brief submitted by the County (no other briefs having been filed), and analyzing the law relevant to the arguments, we resolve the County's point of error as follows:

An interpleader is:

A suit to determine a right to property held by a usu[ally] disinterested third party (called a stakeholder ) who is in doubt about the ownership and who therefore deposits the property with the court to permit interested parties to litigate ownership.

Black's Law Dictionary 943 (10th ed. 2014).

It has been referred to as " a remedial joinder device that serves as a useful adjunct to the provision for the permissive joinder of parties[.]" Wright, Miller & Kane Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil 3d § 1702 (2001).

The principle of interpleader is that, where two persons are engaged in a dispute, and that which is to be the fruit of the dispute is in the hands of a third party, who is willing to give it up according to the result of the dispute, then, that third person is not obliged to be at the expense and risk of defending an action; but, on giving up the thing, he is to be relieved, and the Court directs ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.