NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NO. 25780
IN
THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
IN
THE MATTER OF THE PROTECTION OF THE PROPERTY
OF ELIZABETH A. ELSTNER, Protected Person
(Guardianship No. 97-0177)
and
IN
THE MATTER OF THE RICHARD C. ELSTNER
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST DATED JUNE 16, 1992, AS AMENDED
(Trust No. 99-0036)
and
IN
THE MATTER OF THE ELIZABETH A. ELSTNER
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST DATED JUNE 16, 1992,
(Trust No. 99-0037)
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Lim, Acting C.J., Nakamura and Fujise, JJ.)
After diligently reviewing the record and the briefs submitted and carefully considering the issues raised, arguments advanced, and the applicable law, we resolve Rick's points of error as follows:
The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by deciding the instant proceedings without a hearing. The circuit court is statutorily empowered, inter alia, to make orders and judgments in trust proceedings, and furthermore to use discretion in its exercise of power. Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 560:1-302(a)(3), (b) (1993); 560:7-201 (1993). The reasonable exercise of its discretion to appoint a master constituted, in this case, an implicit finding that these petitions would be more efficiently adjudicated by it, rather than transferring the matter to the civil trials calendar. Hawai`i Probate Rules (HPR) Rules 20, 28 and 29. Rick's request for transfer of these proceedings was made after the master submitted his report and after a majority of the hearings had already been held in this case. Under the circumstances, it would have been an inefficient use of judicial resources to grant Rick's request for transfer. HPR Rule 20(a).
The record does not support Rick's claim that the circuit court relied "solely" on the master's report in rendering its decision in the instant proceedings. The circuit court clearly considered the submissions and arguments of the parties, including affidavits submitted by Rick's accountants, in reaching its decision. Moreover, Rick has failed to identify any evidence that was proffered or submitted by him that the circuit court refused to consider. On this record, we cannot conclude that the manner in which the circuit court conducted its fact finding was an abuse of discretion.
Finally, Rick has failed to show that the procedures employed by the circuit court constituted a denial of due process. The record shows that Rick was afforded numerous opportunities to be heard and present arguments before the circuit court. In re Adams Estate, 257 Mich. App. 230, 234, 667 N.W. 2d 904, 906-07 (2003). For example, Rick filed memoranda, responded to the master's reports, and made arguments before the circuit court at several hearings. Accordingly, the circuit court did not deny Rick due process of law.
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the circuit court's April 15, 2003 "Amended Judgment for Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Petition for Order Approving Final Account, Distribution of Trust Estate and Discharge of Trustees Filed Herein on May 24, 2002" is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, January 24, 2006.
On the briefs:
Daniel H. Case and
Frank T. Kanemitsu,
(Case Bigelow & Lombardi),
for Petitioners-Appellees.
1. The Petition for Instruction and Approval of Final Accounts in the Matter of the Richard C. Elstner Revocable Living Trust, T. No. 99-0036; In the Matter of the Elizabeth A. Elstner Revocable Living Trust, T. No. 99-0037 and the Petition for Approval of Final Accounts in the Matter of the Protection of the Property of Elizabeth A. Elstner, G. No. 97-0177.
2. The Honorable
Colleen K. Hirai presided.