*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
NO. 24314
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
JOYCE KAWAMAE and REID KAWAMAE, Plaintiffs-Appellees
vs.
EUN
JOO LEE, Defendant-Appellant
and
JOHN
DOES 1-20, JANE DOES 1-10, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, DOE
PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, DOES 1-10, DOE
ENTITIES 1-10, and DOE
GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-10, Defendants
APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. NO.
99-4403)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Moon,
C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)
Defendant-appellant Eun Joo Lee ("Lee") appeals from the April 30, 2001
judgment of the circuit court of the first circuit,
the Honorable Virginia Lea Crandall presiding, granting in part
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and imposing a
constructive trust on $783,801.57 (plus accrued interest) in life
insurance proceeds of Ronald
Kawamae ("Ronald") (deceased) in favor of plaintiffs Joyce Kawamae
("Joyce") and
Reid Kawamae ("Reid"), Ronald's first wife and their son, which funds
had been
paid to Lee as Ronald's beneficiary. The court determined that Ronald
was legally
obligated to retain the plaintiffs as beneficiaries of certain life
insurance
policies pursuant to a property settlement agreement (PSA) incorporated
in the
1979 decree granting Joyce a divorce from Ronald and awarding her
custody of Reid. Lee argues that the court misconstrued the PSA.
Specifically, Lee argues: (1)
that Ronald and Joyce intended that the beneficial interest Joyce and
Reid
("appellees") enjoyed in Ronald's life insurance would revert to Ronald
when
Ronald was no longer obligated to pay child support; (2) that the
appellees'
interest in Ronald's life insurance, if any, should be valued as of the
time of
the divorce, at which time the PSA described the value of the specified
policy as
approximately $120,000; and (3) that the court erred in awarding to the
appellees
the proceeds of a travel accident insurance policy. Lee also argues
that the
court's summary resolution of the dispute was inappropriate because the
intent of
the parties to the arguably ambiguous PSA is a question of fact. The
appellees
argue: (1) that the court did not err in construing the PSA; and (2)
that the
court did not err in summarily resolving the dispute because there was
no genuine
issue of material fact.
Upon carefully
reviewing the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, and
having given due consideration to the
arguments advanced and the issues raised, we hold that: (1) with
respect to the first two issues raised by the appellant, the
trial court did not clearly err in construing the PSA; (2) the trial
court did not clearly err in its finding with respect to the
travel accident insurance policy; and (3) the trial court did not err
in granting the appellees' motion for summary judgment. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the judgment from which the appeal is taken is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu,
Hawai`i, March 9, 2006.
On the briefs:
Louis K. Wai and
David
Allan Feller for the
defendant-appellant
Eun Joo Lee
Darwin L.D. Ching, for
the plaintiffs-appellees
Joyce and Reid Kawamae