Background
Uladzimir Redzko filed a petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition in the Hawaii Supreme Court on January 22, 2026, arising out of underlying family court divorce proceedings in the District Family Court of the Third Circuit (Case No. 3FDV-24-0000547). The petition was directed at the presiding family court judge, the Honorable Jeffrey W. Ng. Redzko simultaneously filed a motion for stay on the same date.
The dispute concerned Hawaiʻi real property and, specifically, whether respondent Tatsiana Redzko would execute a buyout of Uladzimir Redzko’s share of those properties. Uladzimir Redzko filed an additional motion on March 13, 2026, while the petition remained pending before the Supreme Court.
The Court’s Holding
The Hawaii Supreme Court, in a brief order signed by Chief Justice Devens and Justices McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, along with Circuit Judge Soong sitting by assignment, denied the petition for writ of mandamus and the motion for stay as moot. The court’s stated basis was that respondent Tatsiana Redzko did not complete the buyout of petitioner’s share of the Hawaiʻi properties, rendering the relief sought in the petition unnecessary.
The court also separately denied the motion filed on March 13, 2026, without further elaboration. No writ of mandamus or prohibition issued, and no stay was granted.
Key Takeaways
- A petition for extraordinary writ relief will be denied as moot when the underlying event the petitioner sought to compel or prevent no longer presents a live controversy.
- The non-occurrence of the respondent’s anticipated property buyout eliminated the practical basis for the mandamus petition, even though the underlying family court case (3FDV-24-0000547) presumably continued.
- All three pending filings — the original petition, the motion for stay, and the March 13 motion — were resolved against the petitioner in a single order.
Why It Matters
This brief order illustrates the mootness doctrine’s application in extraordinary writ proceedings in Hawaii: when the circumstance giving rise to the petition resolves on its own — here, through a respondent’s failure to act — the Supreme Court will decline to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction and deny relief without reaching the merits. Practitioners seeking emergency writ relief in family court property disputes should be prepared for the possibility that changed facts can moot a petition before the high court acts.