Background
Self-represented Respondent-Appellant J.H. filed a notice of appeal on February 5, 2026, from a proceeding in the Family Court of the Third Circuit. On February 18, the family court clerk notified J.H. that the request to proceed in forma pauperis had been denied, that the filing fees needed to be paid, and that failure to pay could result in dismissal.
The record on appeal was due by April 6, 2026, but was not filed because J.H. neither paid the filing fees nor obtained a fee waiver. After the appellate clerk entered a default, the Intermediate Court of Appeals granted J.H.’s request for relief from default and extended the fee-payment deadline to July 29, 2026, while again warning that noncompliance could result in dismissal. J.H. took no further action.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. It explained that Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 11(b)(2) and (c)(2) permit dismissal when the record on appeal has not been prepared because an appellant failed to pay the required fees or obtain an order allowing the appellant to proceed in forma pauperis.
Because J.H. did not pay the filing fees or obtain a fee waiver even after receiving additional time and a warning about dismissal, the court ordered the appeal dismissed without addressing the merits of the underlying family-court dispute.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant’s failure to pay required filing fees or obtain authorization to proceed in forma pauperis can prevent preparation of the record and lead to dismissal under HRAP Rule 11.
- The court gave J.H. relief from the initial default and extended the payment deadline, but J.H. took no further action.
- The dismissal was procedural and did not resolve the merits of the underlying dispute.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that compliance with appellate filing-fee requirements is necessary to keep an appeal moving. An appellant who cannot pay must obtain an order permitting in forma pauperis status; simply requesting that status does not preserve an appeal after the request has been denied.
It also shows that an extension and relief from default do not eliminate the obligation to comply with the court’s new deadline, particularly when the court expressly warns that failure to do so may result in dismissal.