Bank of Hawaii v. Lasham — Appeal dismissed for failure to comply with appellate filing requirements

Case
Bank of Hawaii v. Tara Lasham, Colleen Lasham
Court
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
Date Decided
June 30, 2026
Docket No.
CAAP-25-0000800
Topics
Appellate Procedure, Sanctions, Default, Civil Procedure

Background

Bank of Hawaii filed suit against Tara Lasham and Colleen Lasham in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit. Colleen Lasham appealed the adverse judgment to the Intermediate Court of Appeals. As a self-represented appellant, Lasham was required to file a statement of jurisdiction by January 2, 2026, and an opening brief by April 20, 2026, pursuant to Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Lasham failed to file either document or request an extension of time. On June 16, 2026, the appellate clerk entered a default notice informing Lasham that the time for filing had expired and that the matter would be called to the court’s attention on June 26, 2026 for appropriate action, which could include dismissal of the appeal. The notice also informed her that she could request relief from default by motion.

The Court’s Holding

The court dismissed the appeal. Because Lasham failed to timely file the statement of jurisdiction and opening brief, did not request additional time to file, and did not respond to the default notice by requesting relief from default, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with appellate rules.

Key Takeaways

  • Appellants must strictly comply with appellate filing deadlines or risk dismissal of their appeal.
  • Failure to file required documents (statement of jurisdiction and opening brief) is grounds for dismissal even without further notice.
  • Self-representation does not excuse non-compliance with appellate procedure rules.
  • Appellants may request relief from default, but only if they do so before dismissal is entered.

Why It Matters

This case illustrates the strict enforcement of appellate procedure requirements in Hawaiʻi. The court will dismiss appeals without further opportunity to cure defaults if the appellant fails to timely file required documents and ignores default notices. Self-represented parties are held to the same procedural standards as represented parties.

For practitioners and pro se litigants, the decision underscores the critical importance of meeting appellate filing deadlines and promptly responding to clerk notices. Missing a single deadline can result in loss of the right to appeal, making procedural compliance essential in appellate practice.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top