Dade v. Kuhta
Docket: NO. 7922
Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals; March 8, 1982; Hawaii; State Appellate Court
An appeal was made regarding an order taxing $75 as costs, which was paid by the appellees for a bond related to the attachment of the appellant's property. The appellant previously made an offer of judgment for $760.15, which the appellees accepted, leading to a judgment being entered. The dispute arose when the appellees sought to recover their costs, specifically the $75 attachment bond fee. The court upheld the taxation of this fee, prompting the appeal. The appellant argued that under HRS § 651-19, all attachment-related expenses should be borne by the plaintiff, asserting that the statute's language applies generally and is not limited to discharges or releases of attachment. Historical context was provided, indicating that the current statute evolved from a prior version and that changes made in the revision process did not alter its intended meaning. Ultimately, the court determined that the relevant provision in HRS § 651-19 only applies when an order discharging an attachment has been made, which was not the case here as the attachment was still in effect at the time of the order on costs. As such, the taxation of the bond fee fell under HRCP Rule 54(d) and HRS § 607-9, which grant trial courts discretion in awarding costs. The court found no abuse of this discretion in allowing the bond fee, affirming the lower court's order.