NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 12-APR-2024 07:57 AM Dkt. 165 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

KENNETH Y. KAI and TAE K. KAI, TRUSTEES OF THE KAI FAMILY 1998 TRUST, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants/Third- Party Defendants-Appellees, v. HAWAIIAN RIVERBEND, LLC, Defendant/Counterclaimant/Third-Party Complainant-Appellant, and MICHAEL MIROYAN, Defendant-Appellant, and COUNTY OF HAWAII, Defendant-Appellee, and JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES 1-10; and DOE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 3CC15100164K)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Nakasone, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Michael Miroyan (Miroyan) appeals from the Judgment (Re: Amended Order Granting Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment and for Interlocutory Decree of Foreclosure Filed December 17, 2015) (Judgment), filed on September 26, 2019, by the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER (circuit court).1 The Judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants/Third-Party Defendants- Appellees Kenneth Y. Kai and Tae K. Kai, Trustees of the Kai Family 1998 Trust (Kai Trust).

Miroyan argues two points of error on appeal. Upon careful review of the record and relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve Miroyan's points of error as follows:2 (1) Miroyan contends that the "Circuit Court erred by failing to rule on HRB/Miroyan's counterclaims and third[-]party plaintiff's claims that directly relate to [the Kai Trust's] foreclosure claim." The record reflects that neither HRB nor Miroyan argued below that the circuit court could not grant the Kai Trust's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment unless it

A party has standing to appeal an order that directly binds them by name. See NationStar Mortg. LLC v. Balocon, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2018 WL 3114474, at *2 (Haw. App. June 25, 2018) (SDO). In April 2019, the circuit court granted the Kai Trust's motion to certify Miroyan as John Doe Defendant No. 1, and ordered that Miroyan "shall be deemed to have notice of the institution of this action for all purposes, and shall be bound by all prior orders, decrees, or judgments rendered herein[.]" Thus, the circuit court's Judgment, which was entered "against all Defendants," binds Miroyan, and Miroyan has standing to appeal the Judgment.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER resolved all of HRB and Miroyan's counterclaims and third-party claims; HRB argued only that, if the Kai Trust was to prevail on its Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, the counterclaims and cross-claims "must still survive." This argument is therefore deemed to have been waived on appeal, and we decline to address Miroyan's first point of error. State v. Moses, 102 Hawaiʻi 449, 456, 77 P.3d 940, 947 (2003) (citation omitted) ("As a general rule, if a party does not raise an argument at trial, that argument will be deemed to have been waived on appeal; this rule applies in both criminal and civil cases.").3 (2) Miroyan contends that the circuit court erred by "not allowing [Miroyan] to represent his limited liability company HRB, of which he was the sole member and 100% owner solely on the basis of not hiring licensed counsel." Miroyan contends that his due process rights were violated because he was prevented from "voic[ing] his concerns at the June 3, [2019]4 judicial proceeding" regarding the Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions (June 2019 hearing).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER It appears that Miroyan failed to properly preserve this point of error. Miroyan fired HRB's attorney at the June 2019 hearing. The circuit court instructed that Miroyan would not be allowed to represent HRB at the hearing, but gave HRB twenty-one days to retain a new attorney. It appears Miroyan did not present any argument as to why he should be able to represent HRB, and that his only objection was to state, "[o]bject, did not see motions." But assuming arguendo that Miroyan's second point of error was not waived, we further conclude that it lacks merit.

The law in our jurisdiction is clear that "natural persons are not permitted to act as 'attorneys' and represent other natural persons in [t]heir causes[,]" and "non-attorney agents are not allowed to represent corporations in litigation[.]" Oahu Plumbing and Sheet Metal, Ltd. v. Kona Const., Inc., 60 Haw. 372, 377, 590 P.2d 570, 573-74 (1979); see also Alexander & Baldwin, LLC v. Armitage, 151 Hawaiʻi 37, 47, 508 P.3d 832, 842 (2022) (reaffirming Oahu Plumbing), and HRS §§ 605-14 (2016) and 605-2 (2016).5 Miroyan is not an attorney; HRB is a corporate entity. "The procedure requiring a corporation to appear

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court's Judgment.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, April 12, 2024.

On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Margaret Wille Presiding Judge for Defendant-Appellant Michael Miroyan. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Associate Judge Sharon Paris for Plaintiffs/Counterclaim /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Defendants/Third-Party Associate Judge Defendants-Appellees.