The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal filed by Central Pacific Bank concerning a foreclosure case involving multiple parties. The court ruled that the appeal was not valid due to a lack of jurisdiction, as the orders Central Pacific Bank sought to appeal were deemed interlocutory and not appealable at this stage. This decision impacts the bank and the defendants involved in the case, which includes trustees and the U.S. government.
The case, Central Pacific Bank v. Alcos, was filed under docket number CAAP-25-0000414. It revolved around a foreclosure matter where the bank sought a summary judgment against several defendants, including David Augustine Alcos, III, and Ralena P.B. Alcos, who are trustees of various trusts. The court's decision to dismiss the appeal highlights important legal principles regarding the appealability of certain court orders.
Background
Central Pacific Bank initiated the case against David Augustine Alcos, III, and Ralena P.B. Alcos, among others, in an effort to secure a foreclosure on property linked to the Alcos family trusts. The dispute arose when the bank filed a motion for summary judgment, which the circuit court denied on May 31, 2023. The bank later sought to appeal this denial, along with an order denying its motion for reconsideration issued on April 22, 2025.
The case reached the Intermediate Court of Appeals after the bank filed its appeal. However, the court found that the orders being appealed were not final judgments. This situation is not uncommon in legal proceedings, where parties may attempt to appeal decisions that do not conclude the case.
The Ruling
The court ruled that the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Chief Judge Karen T. Nakasone, along with Associate Judges Keith K. Hiraoka and Clyde J. Wadsworth, stated, "The Orders are interlocutory and not appealable." They noted that the circuit court had not entered an appealable judgment and that the orders did not involve issues completely separate from the merits of the action.
The court further explained that the orders would be reviewable on appeal from a final judgment, emphasizing that the bank's attempts to appeal were premature. The judges referenced previous cases to support their ruling, stating that the orders did not meet the criteria for collateral appeal or fall under the Forgay doctrine, which allows certain appeals in limited circumstances.
Impact
The dismissal of Central Pacific Bank's appeal underscores the importance of understanding the nature of court orders and the appropriate timing for appeals. This ruling means that the bank must wait until a final judgment is issued in the lower court before it can challenge the decisions made regarding its motion for summary judgment and reconsideration.
This decision affects not only Central Pacific Bank but also the defendants in the case, who include various trusts and the U.S. government. The ruling may delay the resolution of the foreclosure case, as the bank will need to continue its litigation in the circuit court before pursuing any further appeals.
What's Next
Central Pacific Bank can potentially pursue its claims in the circuit court, but it cannot appeal the current orders until a final judgment is entered. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or further actions planned by the parties involved.