Background
Dave and Michelle Haggland, trustees of the Haggland Revocable Trust, sued Shelby Wilson in the District Court of the Fifth Circuit, Līhuʻe Division. Wilson, proceeding self-represented, filed an appeal of that lower court proceeding before the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals.
Once docketed, Wilson was required to file a statement of jurisdiction by November 17, 2025, and an opening brief by December 17, 2025. Wilson failed to file either document and did not seek an extension of time from the court.
On December 23, 2025, the appellate clerk entered a default notice advising Wilson that the deadlines had passed, that the matter would be referred to the court for possible dismissal on January 2, 2026, and that Wilson could seek relief from default by motion. Wilson took no further action.
The Court’s Holding
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. Citing Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure Rules 12.1(e) and 30, the court found that Wilson’s complete failure to file a statement of jurisdiction and opening brief — and failure to respond even after receiving a formal default notice — warranted dismissal.
The panel, consisting of Chief Judge Nakasone and Associate Judges Wadsworth and Gluck, issued the dismissal by order on June 17, 2026. The opinion is designated not for publication in West’s Hawaiʻi Reports and Pacific Reporter.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant’s failure to file a statement of jurisdiction and opening brief by their respective deadlines can result in dismissal of the appeal under HRAP Rules 12.1(e) and 30.
- A formal default notice from the appellate clerk warning of potential dismissal does not toll deadlines or substitute for the required filings — the appellant must act affirmatively to seek relief.
- Self-represented litigants are held to the same procedural requirements as represented parties; pro se status alone does not excuse non-compliance with appellate rules.
Why It Matters
This disposition reinforces that Hawaii’s appellate courts will enforce briefing deadlines strictly, even against self-represented appellants. Attorneys advising clients who are appealing — or opposing an appeal — should note that the failure to file foundational appellate documents, without any request for an extension, provides clear grounds for dismissal.
The case also illustrates the significance of the appellate default-notice process: once the clerk issues a default notice under HRAP Rule 30, the clock is effectively running toward dismissal, and only an affirmative motion for relief from default can forestall that outcome.