Oral Argument Before the Intermediate Court of Appeals
Nos. 29454 and 29589 (Consolidated), Wednesday, February 11, 2015, 9 a.m.
THOMAS FRANK SCHMIDT and LORINNA JHINCIL SCHMIDT, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, vs. HSC, INC., a Hawaii corporation, RICHARD HENDERSON, SR., ELEANOR R. J. HENDERSON, JOHN DOES 1-10, JANE DOES 1-10, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, and DOE UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS, INCLUDING PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:
Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Attorney(s) for Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees THOMAS FRANK SCHMIDT and LORINNA JHINCIL SCHMIDT:
R. Steven Geshell and Thomas P. Dunn
Attorney(s) for Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants HSC, INC., RICHARD HENDERSON, SR., and ELEANOR R. J. HENDERSON:
Paul Alston and Stephen M. Tannenbaum of Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing
COURT: Fujise, Leonard, and Ginoza, JJ.
This case involves allegations by Appellants that Appellees participated in certain fraudulent transfers and that Appellants are entitled to remedies against them as a result of those transfers. Appellees maintain, inter alia, that the statute of limitations has run on Appellants’ claims. In an August 30, 2013 Memorandum Opinion, on an appeal from a bench trial wherein it was determined that Appellants failed to prove their claims, this court agreed with Appellees that Appellants’ claims are time-barred and did not reach the merits of Appellants’ contentions that the trial court erred in ruling against them. However, on January 15, 2014, the Hawai`i Supreme Court issued an Opinion, on certiorari review, holding that the applicable statute of limitations begins to run, not when a claimant discovers the purportedly fraudulent transfer, but when the fraudulent nature of the transfer was or could reasonably have been discovered by the claimant.
On remand from the supreme court, this court has been directed to address the merits of Appellants’ contentions that the trial court erred in rejecting their claims, regardless of whether the statute of limitations has run on their claims, as that statute has now been interpreted by the supreme court. As the supreme court noted in its Opinion, however, the trial court did not issue any findings or conclusions regarding when the Appellants discovered or reasonably could have discovered the fraudulent nature of the transfers. Thus, we will hear argument from the parties on whether this court may further consider whether Appellants’ claims are time-barred, absent such findings, in addition to argument on the merits of Appellants’ claims.