Aguiar v. Aguiar
CourtHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
Date FiledAugust 27, 2026
DocketCAAP-26-0000360
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
27-AUG-2026
07:47 AM
Dkt. 28 OGMD
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
SPENCE B. AGUIAR, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
KYLE B. AGUIAR, Defendant-Appellant,
and
DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendants.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 5CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Guidry and Gluck, JJ.)
Upon consideration of Plaintiff-Appellee Spence B.
Aguiar's (Spence) July 1, 2026 Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Lack
of Appellate Jurisdiction, the papers in support, the record,
and there being no opposition filed, it appears that Spence
seeks dismissal of self-represented Defendant-Appellant Kyle B.
Aguiar's (Kyle) appeal from the Circuit Court of the Fifth
Circuit's April 9, 2026 Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to
Confirm Defendant's Intention to Buyout Plaintiff's Interest in
Subject Properties for Proof of Funds and Deadline to Close
(Buyout Order).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
The court lacks appellate jurisdiction because the
Circuit Court has not entered a final, appealable order or
judgment, see Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 641-1(a) (2016);
Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 54(b), 58; Jenkins v.
Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawaiʻi 115, 119, 869 P.2d
1334, 1338 (1994). The Buyout Order does not fully resolve any
of the claims raised in the complaint, is not independently
appealable under the collateral order or Forgay1 doctrines, and
the Circuit Court has not granted leave for an interlocutory
appeal under HRS § 641-1(b). See Greer v. Baker, 137 Hawaiʻi
249, 253, 369 P.3d 832, 836 (2016) (setting forth the
requirements for appealability under the collateral-order
doctrine and the Forgay doctrine); HRS § 641-1(b) (specifying
requirements for leave to file interlocutory appeal).
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is
granted, and this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, August 27, 2026.
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Presiding Judge
/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Associate Judge
/s/ Daniel M. Gluck
Associate Judge
1 Forgay v. Conrad, 47 U.S. 201 (1848). "[T]he Forgay doctrine
permits a direct appeal from a non-final, interlocutory order or decree that
commands the immediate transfer of property, where the losing party will be
subjected to undue hardship and irreparable injury if appellate review must
wait until the final outcome of the litigation." Lambert v. Teisina, 131
Hawaiʻi 457, 461, 319 P.3d 376, 380 (2014).
2