Summary
The Hawaiʻi Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Crescent Custom Homes Maui LLC’s mechanic’s lien application. The court held that the dismissal became appealable upon entry of a final judgment and that Crescent’s notice of appeal was timely. It further held that the administrative rule requiring an exact dollar amount in a home-construction contract was invalid as inconsistent with the mechanic’s-lien statute, but that the contract was nevertheless unenforceable because it failed to identify the approximate percentage of subcontracted work and the subcontractors as required by the applicable rule.
Court
Intermediate Court of Appeals of the State of Hawaiʻi
Jurisdiction
Intermediate Court of Appeals of the State of Hawaiʻi
Decision date
May 27, 2026
Docket number
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
Disposition
affirmed
Questions Presented
- Whether an order dismissing a mechanic's lien application is appealable only upon entry of a final judgment.
- Whether Crescent's notice of appeal was timely.
- Whether Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules § 16-77-80(a)(2), requiring a home-construction contract to state the exact dollar amount due from the homeowner, is invalid because it conflicts with Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 507-42.
- Whether Crescent's contract was unenforceable for failing to comply with Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules § 16-77-80(a)(5), requiring identification of the approximate percentage of work to be subcontracted and the names and license numbers of subcontractors.
Holdings
- An order dismissing a mechanic's lien application is appealable upon entry of the separate final judgment required by Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 58.
- Crescent's notice of appeal was timely because it was deemed filed when the final judgment was entered.
- Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules § 16-77-80(a)(2) is invalid insofar as it requires a home-construction contract to state the exact dollar amount due from the homeowner, because that requirement is inconsistent with Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 507-42.
- Crescent's contract was unenforceable because it did not comply with HAR § 16-77-80(a)(5). The provision requires the parties, before execution, to agree on the approximate percentage of work to be subcontracted and identify the licensed subcontractors who will perform it.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…