Summary
The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi held that Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 481K-5(c) authorizes an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in appellate proceedings under the Assistive Technology Warranty Act. The court determined that Rapozo was the prevailing party on the principal appellate issues, despite the opposing party prevailing on a secondary issue concerning potential damages under Hawaiʻi’s consumer-protection statute. The court awarded $8,819.45, including attorney fees, general excise taxes, transcript costs, and intrastate travel costs, while denying unsupported copying and postage costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the term "action" in HRS § 481K-5(c) encompasses appellate proceedings and authorizes recovery of appellate costs and attorney fees.
- Whether Rapozo or Better Hearing was the prevailing party for purposes of awarding appellate costs and attorney fees.
- Which requested costs were recoverable under HRS § 481K-5(c) and HRAP Rule 39, including transcript, copying, postage, and intrastate travel costs.
- Whether Rapozo was entitled to the requested attorney fees and general excise taxes.
Holdings
- The term "action" in HRS § 481K-5(c) encompasses appellate proceedings that continue the original action, so a prevailing consumer may recover authorized costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred in those appellate proceedings.
- Rapozo was the prevailing party because he prevailed on the principal issues concerning whether the hearing aids were nonconforming and whether Better Hearing had a reasonable opportunity to repair them, notwithstanding Better Hearing's success on the secondary chapter 480 damages issue.
- The ICA decision did not limit Rapozo's recovery to costs and fees incurred after certiorari was accepted because the Supreme Court's decision was the final decision on appeal and superseded the ICA decision except as to the chapter 480 issue.
- Rapozo was entitled to $27.45 in transcript costs and $134 in documented intrastate travel costs, but not to $121.80 in copying costs or $25.52 in postage costs because the latter requests lacked the itemization and supporting documentation required by HRAP Rule 39(d)(1).
- Rapozo was entitled to $8,325 in attorney fees and $333 in general excise taxes because HRS § 481K-5(c) authorizes reasonable attorney fees for appellate proceedings and Better Hearing did not specifically challenge the requested amounts.
Key quotations
“Therefore, the term "action," as used in HRS § 481K-5, is properly construed as encompassing appellate proceedings that are a continuation of the original proceedings at the trial level.” (479)
“Respondent's success on the secondary HRS chapter 480 claim is not enough to make it a "prevailing party" on the "principal issues raised by the pleadings and proof[.]"” (481)
Factual background
Rapozo purchased hearing aids from Better Hearing and alleged that the devices contained a statutory "nonconformity" that Better Hearing failed to correct after a reasonable opportunity to repair. The trial court found a violation of HRS chapter 481K, and the prior appellate proceedings ultimately determined that the hearing aids were nonconforming and that Better Hearing had a reasonable opportunity to repair them. Rapozo requested $308.77 in appellate costs and $8,658 in attorney fees, including general excise taxes.
Procedural history
Rapozo sued Better Hearing in the district court of the fifth circuit, which found a violation of Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes chapter 481K and awarded statutory relief, costs, and attorney fees. The Intermediate Court of Appeals reversed, but the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court reversed the ICA on the chapter 481K issues while affirming the denial of a remand for chapter 480 damages. Rapozo then requested appellate costs and attorney fees in the present proceeding; the court allowed some costs and awarded attorney fees and taxes.