Leslie v. Estate of Tavares
| Decision Date | 28 November 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 24553.,24553. |
| Citation | 122 P.3d 803 |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
| Parties | Howard K. LESLIE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, and Leimomi Leslie Fresch, individually, and as next friend for Howard K. Leslie, Jr., and Howard K. Leslie, Sr., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The ESTATE OF Jamie K. TAVARES, Deceased, Defendant-Appellee, and John Does 1-10; Jane Does 1-10; Doe Partnerships 1-10; Doe Corporations 1-10; and Doe Entities 1-10, Defendants. State of Hawai`i, Department of Human Services, Lien Holder-Appellee, and Joseph L. Wildman and Sibilla & Wildman, Intervenors-Appellees. Howard K. Leslie, Jr., Megan Leslie and Malyssa Leslie, minors, through their Guardian Ad Litem Marlene L. Anduha, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jeffrey K. Kanui, personal representative of The Estate of Jamie K. Tavares, Defendant-Appellee, and John Does 1-10; Jane Does 1-10; Doe Partnerships 1-10; Doe Corporations 1-10; and Doe Entities 1-10, Defendants. Jeffrey K. Kanui, personal representative of The Estate of Jamie K. Tavares, Third-Party Plaintiff v. Leimomi L. Fresch and Howard K. Leslie, Sr., Third-Party Defendants. |
Frederic W. Rohlfing III and Lorrie Lee Stone, Honolulu, of Rohlfing & Stone, on the briefs, for the plaintiff-appellant Howard K. Leslie, Jr.
Cynthia A. Farias, on the briefs, for the plaintiffs-appellants Megan and Malyssa Leslie.
Milton S. Tani, Honolulu, of Matsui Chung Sumida & Tsuchiyama, on the briefs, for the defendant-appellee/third-party plaintiff Jeffrey K. Kanui.
Jeffrey S. Portnoy, Honolulu, of Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, on the briefs, for the intervenors-appellees Joseph L. Wildman and Sibilla & Wildman.
In this consolidated appeal (Nos. 24553 and 24746), the plaintiffs-appellants Howard K. Leslie, Jr., Megan Leslie, and Malyssa Leslie [hereinafter, collectively, "the Appellants"] appeal from the following judgment and orders entered by the circuit court of the first circuit, the Honorable Eden Elizabeth Hifo presiding: (1) the November 9, 2001 judgment; (2) the "findings of fact [(FOFs)], conclusions of law [(COLs)], and order" filed August 22, 2001; (3) the February 26, 2001 order granting Leslie, Jr.'s January 17, 2001 motion to compel and for conditional sanctions; (4) the circuit court's January 8, 2001 order granting the November 15, 2000 motion to intervene submitted by the intervenor-appellees attorney Joseph L. Wildman and law firm Sibilla & Wildman [hereinafter, collectively, "the Intervenors"]; and (5) the January 12, 2001 order denying Leslie, Jr.'s November 15, 2000 motion for approval and confirmation of settlement.
On appeal, the Appellants contend that the circuit court erred in: (1) granting Wildman and Sibilla & Wildman leave to intervene in the fairness hearing of February 27 and 28, 2001 [hereinafter, "the fairness hearing"], "because there are no common questions of law or fact between any claimed `defense' of [the] Intervenors and the fairness hearing" and "because that, in effect, allowed them to carry [the plaintiff-appellee/third-party defendant Leimomi Leslie] Fresch's burden of proof"; (2) finding that the settlement proceeds were fairly allocated; (3) entering judgment against Leslie, Jr. in favor of parties against whom Leslie, Jr. had no claims and in favor of the defendant-appellee Estate of Jamie K. Tavares, against whom Leslie, Jr.'s claims had not been adjudicated; (4) entering judgment against Megan and Malyssa inasmuch as their claims in Civ. No. 98-5468 had never been adjudicated; (5) finding that Megan and Malyssa were in foster care when Leslie, Jr. was injured; and (6) finding that Leslie, Jr. controls Megan's and Malyssa's funds.
We agree with the Appellants insofar as the circuit court's November 9, 2001 judgment prematurely disposed of Civ. No. 98-5468. Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to address the remaining points of error at this time. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the circuit court for further proceedings, with instructions to (1) vacate the November 9, 2001 judgment and (2) reinstate Civ. No. 98-5468.
This case arose out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on December 22, 1996, involving Leslie, Jr. and Tavares. The accident killed Tavares and severely injured Leslie, Jr., placing him in a coma for approximately two months. On February 3, 1997, through the Intervenors, Fresch and the plaintiff-appellee/third-party defendant Howard K. Leslie, Sr. (Leslie, Jr.'s parents) sued Tavares's estate for damages. Fresch sued as Leslie, Jr.'s next friend as well as in her individual capacity.
On June 2 and 10, and July 8, 1997, after Leslie, Jr. regained consciousness, he and his parents signed settlement agreements that provided for payouts totaling $320,000. On July 18, 1997, Fresch and Leslie, Sr. voluntarily dismissed Civ. No. 97-0448 with prejudice. On April 1, 1998, Leslie, Jr. moved to vacate the dismissal, reopen the action, and rescind the settlement, on the grounds, inter alia, that the settlement distribution was unfair to Leslie, Jr. as a ward of the court.
On May 13, 1998, the circuit court denied the motion. On July 10, 1998, Leslie, Jr. timely filed a notice of appeal to this court. In a published opinion filed on August 31, 1999, we held that
[a]bsent an order from the trial court removing the next friend, the represented party remains presumptively incompetent for purposes of the litigation.
. . . .
. . . It is unclear whether [Fresch] meant to [sign and approve the settlement] in her capacity as next friend or merely in her capacity as coplaintiff. Assuming, arguendo, that Fresch did purport to execute the agreements in her capacity as Leslie's next friend . . . her "authorization" was insufficient to validate the agreements with regard to Leslie[, Jr.] in the absence of the circuit court's approval.
Leslie v. Estate of Tavares [hereinafter, "Leslie I"], 91 Hawai`i 394, 401-02, 984 P.2d 1220, 1227-28 (1999) (emphasis in original). Accordingly, we ordered as follows:
[W]e vacate the circuit court's order . . . and remand for further proceedings, consistent with this opinion, concerning the fairness of the apportionment. Fresch, as Leslie[, Jr.]'s next friend, will bear the burden of demonstrating to the circuit court that the apportionment was fair to Leslie[, Jr].
91 Hawai`i at 405, 984 P.2d at 1231.
On December 22, 1998, while Leslie I was pending on appeal, Leslie, Jr. and his minor daughters Megan and Malyssa, by their guardian ad litem (and mother) Marlene L. Anduha, filed Civ. No. 98-5468, another negligence action arising out of the same automobile accident, against Tavares1 and various unidentified "Doe" parties.
On June 27, 2000, on motion by Tavares's estate, the circuit court consolidated Civ. No. 98-5468 with the recently remanded Civ. No. 97-0448, pursuant to Hawai`i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 42(a).2 The circuit court did not expressly circumscribe the duration or effect of the consolidation. On November 15, 2000, the Intervenors moved to intervene "for the limited purpose of participating in the Fairness Hearing and advocating in favor of the fairness of the initial apportionment of the settlement proceeds." On January 8, 2001, the circuit court granted the motion.
On February 27 and 28, 2001, the circuit court conducted the fairness hearing. Fresch did not appear. On August 22, 2001, the circuit court (1) entered FOFs and COLs, (2) ordered, pursuant thereto, "[t]hat no reallocation of the settlement funds is warranted," and (3) "affirm[ed] the allocation as fair and equitable as to each of the claimants, including. . . Leslie[,] Jr." On September 19, 2001, Leslie, Jr. timely filed a notice of appeal, which initiated No. 24553. On November 9, 2001, the circuit court entered a judgment "in favor of [the][d]efendant[-appellee] Jeff[rey K.] Kanui as Personal Representative for the Estate of . . . Tavares[,][the] Intervenors,. . . Leslie[,] Sr., [and] . . . Fresch; and against . . . Leslie, Jr., Megan . . . and Malyssa . . . as to all claims asserted in the above-captioned action." On December 6, 2001, the Appellants timely appealed from that judgment, thereby initiating No. 24746. On February 22, 2002, this court consolidated Nos. 24553 and 24746 under No. 24553.
Hawai`i appellate courts review conclusions of law de novo, under the right/wrong standard. "Under the right/wrong standard, this court `examine[s] the facts and answer[s] the question without being required to give any weight to the trial court's answer to it.'"
Leslie I, 91 Hawai`i at 399, 984 P.2d at 1225 (quoting Robert's Hawaii Sch. Bus, Inc. v. Laupahoehoe Transp. Co., 91 Hawai`i 224, 239, 982 P.2d 853, 868 (1999)) (internal citations omitted) (brackets in original).
[I]t is axiomatic that we are "under an obligation to ensure that [we have] jurisdiction to hear and determine each case and to dismiss an appeal on [our] own motion where [we] conclude [we] lack[ ] jurisdiction." BDM, Inc. v. Sageco, Inc., 57 Haw. 73, 73, 549 P.2d 1147, 1148 (1976). "When we perceive a jurisdictional defect in an appeal, we must, sua sponte, dismiss that appeal." Familian N[.W.], Inc. v. Cent[.] Pac. Boiler & Piping, Ltd., 68 Haw. 368, 369, 714 P.2d 936, 937 (1986). . . .
Bacon v. Karlin, 68 Haw. 648, 650, 727 P.2d 1127, 1129 (1986).
A. The Circuit Court Erred In Entering Judgment Against Leslie, Jr., Megan, And Malyssa, And In Favor Of Kanui, Fresch, Leslie, Sr., And The Intervenors, Inasmuch As Civ. No. 98-5468 Was Not Adjudicated On The Merits.
We will first address the Appellants' fifth and sixth points of error, because their resolution gives rise to a threshold jurisdictional question.
The Appellants argue that the circuit court should not have entered judgment in favor of Kanui, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spence v. Sloan
...by the trial court. Matter of Doe , 128 Idaho 144, 911 P.2d 140, 143 (1996) (citations omitted); see also Leslie v. Est. of Tavares , 109 Hawai'i 8, 122 P.3d 803, 807-08 (2005) ; Spraytex, Inc. v. DJS&T , 96 F.3d 1377, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ; Mission Viejo Co. v. Willows Water Dist. , 81......
-
Meyer v. Kennedy, No. 26620 (Haw. App. 4/23/2007)
...Familian N[.W.], Inc. v. Cent[.] Sac. Boiler & Piping, Ltd., 68 Haw. 368, 369, 714 P.2d 936, 937 (1986). Leslie v. Estate of Tavares, 109 Hawai`i 8, 11, 122 P.3d 803, 806, reconsideration denied, 109 Hawaii 423, 127 P.3d 83 (2005) (ellipsis omitted) (quoting Bacon v. Karlin, 68 Haw. 648, 65......
-
Kokualani v. Way of Salvation Church
...over any order or judgment by which we might presently address Church's first point of error.7Leslie v. Estate of Tavares, 109 Hawai‘i 8, 12–14, 122 P.3d 803, 807–09 (2005) (alleged points of error for which the court lacks appellate jurisdiction will be dismissed). Although we retain juris......
-
Justo v. Evans
...than all claims among all parties, is not appealable in the absence of [HRCP] Rule 54(b) certification." Leslie v. Estate of Tavares, 109 Hawai'i 8, 13, 122 P.3d 803, 808 (2005). Whenever HRCP Rule 54(b)-certification is necessary, "a party cannot appeal from a circuit court order even thou......