to obtain foreclosure and a deficiency judgment, Appellants were required to appeal in a timely fashion from the September 29,1997 final judgment on the order granting CMI’s motion for summary judgment and decree of foreclosure. Because they did not, their first appeal from the deficiency judgment must be dismissed. We further note that Appellants’ June 16, 1998 HRCP Rule 60(b) motion to reconsider did not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal. Although a HRCP Rule 60(b) motion may be considered a HRCP Rule 59(e) motion which suspends the finality of the judgment and tolls the time to appeal, such a HRCP Rule 60(b) motion must be made within ten days of entry of the subject judgment. See Simpson v. Dep’t of Land & Natural Resources, 8 Haw.App. 16, 21, 791 P.2d 1267, 1272 (1990) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). Appellants’ June 16, 1998
holding that a motion filed as a rule 59e was not a motion to alter or amend the judgment and did not toll the time to file an appeal because the motion for costs was wholly collateral to thejudgment on the merits holding that an appeal from a denial of a rule 59e motion should have been construed as seeking review of the underlying judgment holding that a motion to reconsider filed after the entry of final judgment must be considered a motion to correct error holding that any motion made within ten days of entry of judgment which seeks a substantive change in the judgment will be considered a rule 59e motion which suspends the finality of the judgment and tolls the time to appeal holding that a second motion to reconsider served within ten days of the denial of the first motion does not extend the time period for filing a notice of appeal from the underlying judgment