Background
Jose Balon Ona and Marlene Espinosa Ona appealed from a judgment in a case brought by Bank of New York Mellon in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit. On April 13, 2026, the self-represented appellants filed a notice of appeal. The circuit court clerk immediately notified them that filing fees had not been paid and warned that failure to pay the fees or request a waiver could result in dismissal of the appeal.
The record on appeal was due on or before June 12, 2026, pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 11(b)(1), but was never filed. The appellants failed to pay the required filing fees or obtain an order allowing them to proceed in forma pauperis (without paying fees due to financial hardship). On June 17, 2026, the appellate clerk entered a default of the record on appeal, informing the Onas that the matter would be brought to the court’s attention on June 29, 2026 for potential dismissal.
The Court’s Holding
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals issued an order dismissing the appeal. Under HRAP Rule 11(b)(2) and (c)(2), an appeal may be dismissed where the record on appeal has not been prepared because the appellant failed to pay required fees or failed to obtain an order allowing the appellant to proceed in forma pauperis.
The court found that the Onas had been given proper notice of the fee requirement and warned of the consequences of non-payment. Despite having received this notice and a reasonable opportunity to comply or request a fee waiver, the Onas took no further action in the appeal. The court therefore exercised its discretion to dismiss for procedural default.
Key Takeaways
- Appeals are subject to mandatory filing fee requirements that apply even to self-represented litigants.
- Failure to pay filing fees or obtain an order to proceed in forma pauperis constitutes grounds for dismissal of an appeal.
- Notice of fee requirements and warning of dismissal consequences does not waive the requirement—appellants must actually pay or formally request a fee waiver.
Why It Matters
This decision underscores that appellate procedure requirements are not waived by self-representation. Even pro se litigants must comply with filing fee obligations and cannot proceed by simply ignoring payment demands. The court’s dismissal demonstrates that procedural defaults resulting from non-compliance are enforceable.
For appellants unable to pay fees, the decision highlights the importance of affirmatively requesting in forma pauperis status rather than assuming non-payment is permissible. The Onas’ failure to take this step—despite explicit warning—resulted in loss of their appeal on purely procedural grounds.