NO. 22936

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I


MAUI COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., a Hawai`i corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

RENEE U. ELABAN, Defendant-Appellant.


APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(CIV. NO. W99-557)
 
 

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama,
Ramil, and Acoba, JJ.)

Upon carefully reviewing the record and the brief submitted by the defendant-appellant Renee U. Elaban and having given due consideration to the arguments made and the issues raised by her, it is apparent that the Elaban has failed to comply with the requirements of Hawai`i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b), which, in itself, provides a sufficient basis for affirming the judgment of the district court. See Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai`i 225, 228, 909 P.2d 553, 556 (1995). However, this court has consistently adhered to the policy of affording litigants the opportunity to have their cases heard on the merits, where possible. Id. at 230, 909 P.2d at 558. The only point of error discernible from Eleban's opening brief is the contention that the district court, the Honorable Barclay E. MacDonald presiding, did not have personal jurisdiction over her. However, Elaban does not support this contention with any relevant legal argument or reference to facts in the record. Accordingly, we must disregard her point of error. See State v. Hoang, 93 Hawai`i 333, 336, 3 P.3d 499, 502 (2000); Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. v. Bartolome, 94 Hawai`i 442, 435, 16 P.3d 827, 840 (App. 2000).

Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the district court of the second circuit, filed on October 21, 1999, from which the appeal is taken, is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, August 23, 2001.
 

On the brief:

Renee U. Elaban,
defendant-appellant,
pro se