Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-12-0000731, Thursday, March 24, 2016, 10 a.m.
PROBATE NO. 6664
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SAMUEL M. DAMON, Deceased.
EQUITY NO. 2816-A
TRUST CREATED UNDER THE WILL OF SAMUEL MILLS DAMON, Deceased.
The above-captioned case was set for argument on the merits at:
Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Attorneys for Appellant/Cross-Appellee MYRNA B. MURDOCH:
Thomas R. Sylvester and Stephanie L. Marn of Bickerton Lee Dang & Sullivan
Attorneys for Appellee/Cross-Appellant CHRISTOPHER DAMON HAIG:
A. Bernard Bays, Michael C. Carroll, and Adrian L. Lavarias of Bays Lung Rose & Holma, and Frederick G. Riecker
Attorneys for Petitioners/Appellees/Cross-Appellees TRUSTEES UNDER THE WILL AND OF THE ESTATE OF SAMUEL M. DAMON, DECEASED:
J. Thomas Van Winkle, Duane R. Miyashiro, and Melissa H. Lambert of Carlsmith Ball LLP
Attorney for Beneficiaries BRENDAN DAMON ETHINGTON AND JOHN PHILIP DAMON:
George W. Van Buren of Van Buren Campbell & Shimizu LLP
COURT: Nakamura, C.J., Foley and Ginoza, JJ.
Appellant Myrna B. Murdoch (Murdoch) and Cross-Appellant Christopher Damon Haig (Haig)(collectively Appellants) appeal from a Judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (probate court), which entered judgment on an order granting a Petition for Approval of 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 Income and Principal Accounts (1999-2003 Accounts Petition) and other underlying orders. The 1999-2003 Accounts Petition was filed by Petitioners-Appellees the Trustees Under the Will and of the Estate of Samuel M. Damon, Deceased (Trustees) for final approval by the probate court.
Appellants challenge the probate court’s approval of the 1999-2003 Accounts Petition, asserting that the probate court erred: (1) in retaining the matter on the probate calendar rather than assigning the case to the civil trials calendar of the circuit court pursuant to Hawai`i Probate Rules, Rule 20; (2) by denying Appellants’ petitions to compel discovery and other requests for information and documents from the Trustees; (3) by not affording Appellants the opportunity to review documents and exhibits provided to the Master or to participate in hearings conducted by the Master; (4) in approving the Master’s recommendations without meaningful review; (5) by approving the 1999-2003 Accounts Petition when there was spoliation of evidence by the Trustees; (6) by denying objections to the sale of BancWest stock; and (7) by denying objections to the sale of real estate assets.