This case centers around the Helen Hobron Jones (Helen) Trust [hereinafter, the Trust], created in Helen's last will and testament, which named her three children as beneficiaries, to wit: Cornelia Jones Slaten; Betty Jones Walsh; and Peter C. Jones, III (Peter). Respondent-appellant Carolyn Courtney Jones Lehman, Peter's daughter, appeals from the July 17, 2003 judgment of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, the Honorable Colleen K. Hirai presiding, entered pursuant to Hawai‘i Probate Rules (HPR) Rule 34 (2003) (1) and Hawai‘i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 54 (2003) (2), granting the trustee's "Petition for Instructions to Include or Exclude Adopted Persons from the Definition of 'Issue' and for Entry of Judgment" [hereinafter, the petition for instructions]. Therein, the circuit court determined that Lehman, who had been "adopted out" of the beneficiary's family, was not entitled to a share of the trust assets.
On appeal, Lehman essentially contends that the circuit
court erred by failing: (1) to apply the law in effect when the
Trust terminated, thereby resulting in its conclusion that her
adoption by her stepfather precludes her from being the "issue"
of her natural father, Peter, for purposes of distribution of the
trust assets; and (2) to give effect to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes
(HRS) § 560:2-114 (Supp. 2004), the Hawai‘i "ohana adoption"
statute (3), under which she is
considered Peter's "issue" for
purposes of construing the Trust. Lehman also challenges the
circuit court's August 18, 2003 order denying her "Petition for
Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs" [hereinafter, the petition
for fees].
A legally adopted child shall be considered to be a natural child of the whole blood of the adopting parent or parents. . . relating to the descent of property, and the former parent or parents of an adopted child . . . shall not be considered to be related to such child under such provisions[.]
(Emphasis added.) Lehman, therefore, is not entitled to a share in the trust assets;(2) the circuit court did not err in declining to retroactively apply the ohana adoption statute to this case. See Medeiros, 105 Hawai‘i at 292, 96 P.3d at 1106 (concluding that "[t]here is nothing in the language or legislative history of HRS § 560:2-114 or of its predecessor HRS § 560:2-109 (1992), or in any other provision of Hawai‘i Uniform Probate Code (UPC), to indicate that the legislature intended for the ohana adoption statute to apply retroactively") (footnote omitted); and
(3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lehman's petition for fees on the ground that Lehman's participation in the proceedings "did not result in a benefit to the trust estate of the Helen Hobron Jones Trust." See Bishop Trust Co. v. Cooke Trust Co., Ltd., 39 Haw. 641, 651 (1953) ("As a general rule each party to litigation must pay his own counsel fees and such fees are not allowable in the absence of a statute, agreement or stipulation. . . . If any fee is allowable in this case it would be under the rule that those who perform services beneficial to a trust estate will be compensated therefor."); In re Dumaine, 600 A.2d 127, 132 (N.H. 1991) ("The inquiry is whether her primary motive was the benefits of the trusts as a whole or her own benefit."). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the July 17, 2003 judgment of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit granting the petition for instructions and the August 18, 2003 order denying the petition for fees are affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, January 6, 2006.
On the briefs:
1.
HPR Rule 34 provides in pertinent part:
(a) Entry of Judgment. All formal testacy orders . . . shall be reduced to judgment and the judgment shall be filed with the clerk of the court. Such judgments shall be final and immediately appealable as provided by statute. Any other order that fully addresses all claims raised in a petition to which it relates, but that does not finally end the proceeding, may be certified for appeal in the manner provided by [HRCP] Rule 54 (b)[.]
2. HRCP Rule 54 provides in relevant part:
(b) Judgment upon multiple claims or
involving multiple parties. When
more than one claim for relief is presented in an action . . . or when
multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of final
judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties
only
upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay
and upon
an express direction for the entry of judgment. In the absence of such
determination and direction, any . . . forms of decision . . . which
adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of
fewer
than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the
claims or
parties [.]
3. The "ohana adoption" statute was originally codified in HRS § 560:2-109 (1993) of the Hawai'i Uniform Probate Code (UPC), allowing an adopted child to take through both of the child's adopted and natural parents by intestate succession. 1992 Haw. Sess. L. Act 148, §2 at 266. The current ohana adoption statute, HRS § 560:2-114, effective January 1, 1997, contains the same language as its predecessor, HRS § 560:2-109. HRS § 560:2-114 provides in pertinent part: