Case Title: In re Guardianship of Carlsmith. S.Ct. Order of Amendment, filed 01/24/2007 [pdf]. S.Ct. Motion for Reconsideration, filed 01/25/2007 [pdf].

Citation: 113 Haw. 211

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2006-10-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAW UGH.

*#0FOR PUBLICATION 19 WEST'S WAMAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'I

 

000.

 

IN THE MATTER
oF

‘THE GUARDIANSHIP OF

Gans

 

No. 27569

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(FC-G No.03-1-0350)

ocToBeR 18, 2006.
MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, “AND DUFFY, gg.

2 1B cot
We hold, in this appeal by Respondents-Appellants Edith
M. Carlsmith (Edith) and Carl Duane Carlemith (Duane)
[collectively Respondents], from the September 26, 2005 order
granting in part and denying in part the motion of Petitioner-
Appellee Cynthia Carlsmith-Crespi (Cynthia) for attorney's fees
and sanctions (order) of the family court of the first circuit
(the court), and its September 26, 2005 judgment (judgment),

which (a) sanctioned Edith to pay attorneys fees and expenses for

 

+ the Honorable Karen M. Radius presided over this matter
-FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAMAI'T REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERS+®

 

 

failure to make discovery? pursuant to Hawai'i Family Court Rules

(HECR) Rule 37 (2006), (b) precluded Edith and Duane from

presenting evidence to establish Edith’s alleged capacity until

she submits to an independent medical examination (IME),

{c) ordered Timothy Luria (Luria), as the duly-appointed
temporary guardian ad litem (TAL), to submit to the court nanes
of Licensed attorneys in the Republic of Panama who were
competent and willing to serve as Guardian of the Person over

Edith, and (d) denied Cynthia’s motion for sanctions to the

 

mich as the September 26, 2005 order and judgnent of the
he first cirevit (the court) ordered the payment of
Attorney's fees and expenses as sanctions, the matter of sanctions is
Immediately sppesiabie. See In re Adan, 109 Hawai't $07, 516, 100 P.36 77, 86
(app. 2004) {ercer and judgment sanctioning party to pay sttcrney's fees end
Gots in an unfinished guardianship proceeding Were immediately appealable) «

    

      

 

> Hawat"t Family Court Rules (MFCR) Rule 37 (2006), entities
“railure to aske discovery; sanctions," mandates the inpocition of sanctions
and award of reasonable expenses and attorney's fees, in pertinent part, se

follow

 

(b) Fasiure to comply with order.

2) SaliCTTONS BY COURT IN WHICH ACTION IS PENDING. rf
a party.

fails to obey an order to provice or permit
‘Court in whieh the action is pending
In regard to the faliure

3nd among others the following:
(Ai An order that the matters reaarding which the
order ah othe
for the purposes of the action in.
Secordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order;

it} here a party has failed to comply with an order
under Sule 35a] fequizing that party to produce enother for
Suamination, such orders aa are Listed in parearaph (Al,
4BL(C) of this subdivision, unless the party failing to
‘Gombly_showa_that the party {2 unable to produce such person
for sxamination.

In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition
thereto, the court ghsll require the perty failing to-ebey

the teasotable expenses, Including attorney's feet, caused
by the failure, unless the court finds thet the feilure was
substantially tustitied of that circusstances sake an suard
of expenses uniuse

(emphases added.)

   

 
s++POR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERS
extent that it requested all pleadings, declarations, and

evidence submitted by Edith and/or Duane, be stricken,‘ that
(2) the TRO herein is not void inasmuch as (a) the guardianship
proceeding in the instant matter was properly initiated, (b) the
TRO was accompanied by an appropriate action for further relief,
(c) Respondents waived any objection to the sufficiency of
service of the guardianship petition and TRO, and (a) the court
had subject matter Jurisdiction to issue a TRO in relation to a
guardianship matter: (2) sufficient evidence exists to support
the issuance of a TRO; (3) no error exists as to the retention of
a TGAL; (4) no error exists with respect to the court’s
Decenber 22, 2005 findings of fact (findings) and conclusions of
Jaw (conclusions); and (5) no reversible error exists as to the
court's Novenber 26, 2003 finding no. 4 that “[Edith) was served
with the (guardianship pletition through her Hawaii attorneys”
inasmich as Edith waived any objections to any defect in the
manner in which she was served. Accordingly, we affirm the
court's September 26, 2005 order and judgment, and renand this
case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I.

The following is gleaned from the record and the
parties’ briefs. Edith is 100 years old and currently a resident
of the Republic of Panama. Edith has a son, Duane, who also

Lives in Panama, and a daughter, Edith Gayle Carlsmith (Gayle).

+ petitioner-Appellee Cynthie Carlemith-Crespi (Cynthia) does not
appeal from this portion of the court's order.

 

3
 

'+FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'T REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Edith has two granddaughters, Annaliese Carlsmith (Annaliese),
who lives in southern California, and Cynthia, @ resident of the
island of Hawai'i, both of whom are Duane’s daughters.

Prior to her relocation to Panama sometime in November
2003, Edith lived in San Rafael, California at # retirenent
condominium community called Smith Ranch. Sometime in February
2003, Edith designated Annaliese and Cynthia as her agents in her
Advanced Health Care Directive to make treatment decisions on he!
behalf if necessary. Subsequent to that, Edith claims in her
opening brief that Annaliese asked her if she could borrow
$200,000 to buy @ house closer to Edith’s residence, but Edith
refused. In June 2003, Edith suffered a mild stroke and was
hospitalized. Following her hospitalization, she returned to her
home in California. duane later moved to Smith Ranch from Panama
to stay with Edith. A caregiver, Linda Manyisha (Linda), was
engaged to care for Edith. In August 2003, Duane also hired
Beverley Shungu-Omba (Beverley) to care for Edith.

Sometime in late Septenber or early October 2003,
Annaliese and Cynthia were contacted by Linda and Beverley, who
expressed their concern about Duane’s alleged plan to take Edith
with him to Panama, as well as for Edith's well-being. According
to Cynthia in her answering brief, it was related to her that
Duane took a number of steps to isolate Edith from her family,
including (1) removing Edith’s telephone from her bedroom despite
her desire to keep it there so she could remain in contact with

cynthia and other relatives, (2) berating other members of the

4
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERY+#

 

 

Carlsmith family, and (3) instructing Edith not to talk to Gayle,
Anneliese, or Cynthia.’ In addition, Cynthia avers that Duane
failed to care for Edith despite her having bruises, and that he
cancelled Edith’s appointments with her physical therapist,
massage therapist, and speech therapist until the bruises were
gone. Because of Linda’s and Beverley’s concerns, Annaliese and
cynthia contacted the police and the California Department of
Social Services (CDSS). After investigating the concerns brought
to their attention, the police and the CDSS declined to
intervene, apparently finding no abuse.

on October 8, 2003, Edith and Duane flew to Honolulu in
order to inter the ashes of her son, Donn, to consult with her
estate attorney, and to arrange for the donation of some of her
art objects. During this time, Respondents state that an
evaluation was performed to determine Edith’ s competency to
handle her estate affairs. the evaluation reported, inter alia,
that Edith had “hearing and visual difficulties that probably
Limit her communication skills but not her mental skills.”

on October 22, 2003, Cynthia filed a Petition for
Appointment of Guardian of the Person of an Incapacitated Person
with the court (the guardianship petition). It stated that Edith

was an “adult currently within the jurisdiction of t{he family

 

5 As noted, intya, the affidavite of Linds and Beverly support
cymthia's assertions against Dua

 

«According to RespondentsAppellant's Carl Ousne Carlenith (Duane)
ang Edith Carlssith (Edith), the braises were causes by aggrenos, blocs
thinner prescribed for Edith, which causes patients to bruise eaaily “by just
siteing dow e little herd, or even just coughing.”

5

 

 
+++70R PUBLICATION IN MEST'S HAWAI'S REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*#*

clourt” with “no current address.” The guardianship petition

 

alleged that the appointment of a guardian was necessary “because
[Edith] is incapable of making responsible decisions concerning
herself and her affairs." The guardianship petition added that
“(t]he degree of her incapacity cannot be assessed at this tine
because she has been isolated from her family members by . . «
Duane, who has deprived her of telephone use, prevented fanily
menbers from seeing her, and has renoved her from her hone with
the intent to move her to Penama, where Duane resides.” The
guardianship petition requested that the court find that Edith is
an incepacitated person 2s defined in Hawai'i Revised statutes
(Rs) § 560:5-102(2) (1993)” and that the appointment of a
guardian is necessary in order to provide continuing care and
supervision of Edith.

An Ex Parte Petition for [TRO] and Immediate
Appointment of Guardian (TRO petition) was also filed. Attached

to the TRO petition were affidavits of Cynthia, Linda, Beverley,

 

hawai's Revised Statutes (HRS) § 560:5-101(2) (1983) defined
“incapacitated person” ae

any person who is impaired by reason of mental illness,
nentel deficiency, physical illness or disability, advanced
‘chronic use of drugs, chronic intoxication, or other
Cause (except minority) to the extent that the person lacks
sufficient understanding or capacity to make or communicate
Fesponsible decisions concerning one's person[.]

 

       

RS § $60:5-102 (Supp. 2005} redefines “incapacitated person” as

fan individual who, for reasons other than being a minor, is
Unable to receive and evaluate information oF make oF
Communicate declesons to such an extent that. the individual
Sacks the ability to meet essentisi requirenents for
physical health, safety, or self-care, even with appropriate
End reasonably aveilabie technological sseistance.

 

 

haw, Sees. 1. Act 161, part of § 1, at 665
6
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST! § HANAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*++

 

 

and Cynthia’s counsel. Also appended was @ letter dated
october 21, 2003 (first letter) from Dr. Patricia Blanchette (Dr.
Blanchette) stating that, in her opinion, Linda's and Beverley's
affidavits raised the possibility of undue influence, ‘solation,
and physical abuse and that “urgent steps . . . be taken to
prevent Ouane . . . from further dsolating his mother{.1” or.
Blanchette recomended in the first letter that Edith “undergo an
evaluation to determine her competence to make her own decisions
regarding her person and her healthcare.” Cynthia requested that
an IME of Edith be performed by a board-certified geriatrician.
According to Respondents, “[nJo attorney signed either the
[guardianship petition) of the [TRO petition].

On October 24, 2003, the court entered a TRO requiring
that Edith remain in the State of Hawai'i for 90 days and
prohibited any person from removing her from Hawai'i without
first informing the court. The basis for the TRO is stated as

follows:

jased upon the [TRO] Petition... , the affidavits
of... cynthia... and others, and the opinion of Dr.

.."slanchette, and gursuant to (HECK) Rule €5(b) sy
the jclourt finds there is probable cause to believe that &
past act or acts of mental or physical abuse against, oF
fundve influence over, . . Edith... , have occured, and
that she may be at risk Of being taken out of the country
ageinst her will or that she ney lack capacity to make any
Gecisions regarding her health care and domicil

 

 

 

‘The court also appointed Luria as TGAL, ordered that Ouane
deliver Edith’s passport to the clerk of that court, and ordered
all parties to appear in court on October 28, 2003. on

October 24, 2003, the TRO and guardianship petitions were
delivered to Edith’s counsel. According to Respondents, however,

7
 

‘/*4F0R PUBLICATION IN KEST'S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTE
[a] copy was delivered to the Carlsmith Ball LLP (the Carlsmith

firm) offices a few minutes before $:00 p.m. on Friday,
October 24, 2003. [Mary Jane Connell}, to whom it was addressed,
was already gone for the weekend.”

On October 28, 2003, Edith appeared before the court
represented by counsel and Luria, Also present were Duane,
appearing pro se, and Dr. Charman J. Akina (Dr. Akina). Prior to
proceeding with the hearing, the court questioned Edith to
confirm that she had received a copy of the TRO and guardianship
petitions, Edith’s counsel indicated that Edith had, and
represented to the court that he had read both petitions fo her
because she was legally blind. He then declared that Edith
desired to proceed with an evidentiary hearing. Duane indicated
that he had not received copies of the TRO or guardianship
petitions but he informed the court that he would obtain a copy
from the Carlsmith firm and that he knew what the case was about.

on October 29, 2003, Cynthia’s counsel served a copy of
the TRO and guardianship petitions on Duane, through his counsel.

on October 31, 2003, Edith filed a Motion to Vacate the
‘TRO and Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem and to Dismiss the
Petition for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to vacate)." On the
same day, Duane filed his response to the TRO and guardianship
petitions. Duane’s response contested factual allegations, but

raised no procedural arguments.

 

* An amended motion was subsequently filed on Decenber 1, 2003, in
nich Duane Joined.
 

sesfoR PUBLICATION IN WEST! § HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*
OO
on November 5, 2003, the TGAL submitted @ report

indicated he had spoken with Edith’s primary treating physician
in California, Dr. Janes D. Taylor, who reported to him thet
during his visite with Edith, he did not notice any signs of
abuse, ‘The TGAL also spoke with Dr. George Seberg, who examined
Edith at his office in Honolulu on October 13, 2003, br. Seberg
expressed Edith’s ability to make informed decisions but did not
discuss any opinion as to whether Edith was subject to undue
influence.

on Novenber 5, 2003, the court heard, inter alia, the
parties’ jurisdictional arguments. After oral arguments, the

court ruled that it had jurisdiction over Edith and that

jurisdiction was concurrent with the State of California. the

court stated that Duane was free to return to Panama, but
explained the reasons for disallowing Edith from leaving. It

said:

TRE COURT: I’m going te make the following order:
‘the record this (c]oure [sic] took jurisdiction esed upon
the petition and affidavits which as set forth in those
Gifigavite appear to hie (court that there might, whether
there war a possibility of « danger to an elderly wonan who
ies within the state, and pursuant to [HRS c)hapter 960, the
{elourt does have Juriediction if persons are within the
state of Haval't

The question, and in addition, this {clourt under the
adult abuse statutes has wide jurisdiction to be able to
prevent adult abuse if and when it’s suspected to be
Eicurring, and those statutes have been passed after 1991,
Bot they all exist and give this [cJourt wide jurisdiction,
wide power, wide discretion with regaré to elderly people,

‘The {clourt ia net prohibiting Duane - . . from going
to,tanana. "that's totally within Me fight af 30-8
Eo-be able te nave af independent evaluation of was she
‘Siapetent, was there abuse aoing on, would shere be any

mutha Hea: she

 

 

 

 

(Emphasis added.) At the hearing’s conclusion, the court
‘+POR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER**

 

indicated that it would be issuing a further written order
regarding its concurrent jurisdiction and the logistics for an
IME.
on November 7, 2003, Edith exhibited symptoms of a

stroke and was adnitted to the Queen’s Medical Center (Queen's
Hospital) where she remained under observation for approximately
one week. On or about Novenber 24, 2003, following her discharge
from the hospital, Duane took Edith to Panama. On Novenber 26,
2003, Edith’s counsel filed a document with the court indicating

“that EDITH M. CARLSMITH may have left the jurisdiction of the

 

State of Hawaii.” (Capitalization in original. .

on November 26, 2003, the court entered an order
finding that Edith was subject to the jurisdiction of the court
and relating that [Edith] vas served with the Petition through
her Hawaii attorneys.” The court ordered that an IME be

performed by @ court-appointed physician. The court also entered

the following orders:

 

2. the {eloure
24, 2003 chat (Edith) shall not leave
the ext 90 days. (Edith) shail not leave the United states
for the next 90 days. (Eaith] may return to her home in San
Rafael, California of other United States location as long
5 she’ informs the [IGAL] of her travel itinerary and
Sddress ond telephone nunber.

3. "rhe [FOAL] shell arcange for appropriate access
for family members to (Eaith]

fe | The [TGAL} shall arrange for (an IME] as to the
competency of (Edith). Said examination shall be conducted
Gither in Honolulu or in California depending upon. (Edith)
Jecation and the availability of (Edith) and the physician.

 

 

  

On December 8, 2003, Edith, through present counsel,
filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's November 26,

2003 order. The motion for reconsideration raised issues related

10
“++A7OR PUBLICATION IN MEST’§ HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERY#*
to the court’s findings and order, but did not contend that Edith

was not properly served or that process or service was defective.
Innediately prior to the court-scheduled hearing on December 17,
2003, Edith’s counsel filed an “amended” Motion to Vacate and
Dismiss, this time challenging service of process.

At the hearing on the motion for reconsideration, the

 

court ruled on the issue of service in the following mann

As to iesues of service of (Edith and (Duane), Edith
clearly bed 2 copy. I eressed out that she could be served
by thes leaving it with the Carlmith firm because quite
f¥ankly{,) given the pleadings, I wasn't certain whether the
Cetienith firm would have access to [Edith], and therefore,
Paid not want chat to be considered service, but when

Ss
LE ET ae amend te deca ase
gas ee ae a ee a
bee

(Emphasis added.)

on Decenber 11, 2003, the court issued orders to show
cause directed at Edith and Duane regarding their apparent
failure to comply with the TRO. Edith was served with the order
to show cause thorough her present counsel and her former
counsel. Duane was served through his counsel.

on January 15, 2004, Duane filed a Motion for
“competency Examination” of Edith in Panama. Attached to this
motion was @ declaration from Or. Akina opining that, based on

his observations of Edith, Edith did not display any signs of

n
 

s++70R PUBLICATION IN WEST! § HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER*'
mental incompetence and that Edith had scored highly on a mental

competency test performed by a doctor in Panama. On January 23,
2004, the court issued an order finding Duane and Edith in civil
contempt for violating the TRO, That order reiterated that the
November 26, 2003 order requiring an IME remained in effect and

1) she must undergo

 

that upon Edith’s return to the United sta
an INE, That order also imposed a fine of $10,000 per day
against Duane until he returned with Edith to Hawai'i.

on February 23, 2004, Dr. Blanchette wrote a second
letter (second letter) to Cynthia's counsel which included her
assessment of Edith’s medical records. An affidavit by Dr,.
Blanchette accompanied the second letter along with her
curriculum vitae (Cv). In the affidavit Dr. Blanchette stated
that she was “authorized and competent to make this declaration
based on personal knowledge.” In addition, Dr. Blanchette
declared that “[alttached hereto . . . is a true and correct copy
of my Curriculum Vitae” as well as a “true and correct copy of a
letter from me to Rhonda L. Griswold, dated February 23, 2004,
setting forth opinions T have reached, based upon documents
submitted to me.” In the second letter, Dr. Blanchette states

2 have been an expert in Alzheimer's disease and other forms
Of denentsa for the past twenty years, I have done research
Gnd published in peer reviewes Journais on this topic, Tam
Consigeres a national expert on the subject, and have been
affizeed as an expert in competence in both state and
Federel court

 

 

Dr. Blanchette noted that Edith’s medical records
included a discharge summary from Dr. Seberg reporting that

following admission, Edith “could not remember (three (3)]

2
‘s+4POR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER‘*#

objects, and she could no lenger name (six (6)] utensils in the
kitchen or [six (6) objects in the hospital room).” Dr.
Blanchette further recounted that in a progress report dated
Novenber 13, 2003, or a day prior to Edith's discharge, it was
reported that Edith’s condition was “ASOx1." According to Dr.
Blanchette, “AsOxl" means that @ person is alert and oriented
only to person, place, or time and the word “*alert’ in @ medical
sense means the person is awake, not sleepy or obtunded. It does
not mean the person is mentally competent.” Finally, Dr.
Blanchette opined that “t]he record provides strong evidence of
2 physically frail, mentally incapacitated person whose
“baseline” is seriously impaired to the point she simply knows
who she is, [and] does not recognize others even when informed of
who they are.” It appears that there were no objections raised
as to the second letter.

on March 14, 2004, a hearing was held before the court
on Duane’s motion for a “competency examination.” Duane’s motion
was granted and it was ordered that the parties submit Cvs as to
the proposed physicians to complete the competency examination.
on April 23, 2004, a written order was entered to that effect.

on April 6, 2004, Edith’s other counsel filed a
Petition for Writ of Prohibition or, in the Alternative, for Writ
of Mandamus (writ of prohibition) before this court. duane
joined in that petition. ‘They argued that the TRO issued by the
court on October 24, 2003 was invalid because, anong other

arguments, (1) the TRO was not properly initiated, (2) the TRO

13
‘+ePOR PUBLICATION IN WEST! § HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER***
OO
was not accompanied by an appropriate application for further

relief, (3) Edith was never served with the guardianship petition
so that the court never acquired jurisdiction over her person,
and (4) there was insufficient evidence to justify issuance of a
restraining order. On August 27, 2004, this court issued an
order Denying the Writ of Prohibition, dismissing that petition
“without prejudice to any eventual remedy (Petitioners) may have
by way of eppeal."? Carlemith v, Radius, Nos. 26942 6 26943
(aug. 27, 2004). Subsequently, Duane and Edith submitted names
and CVs of proposed physicians who could perform the IME.

cn December 22, 2004, an Order Appointing Physician for
Examination was filed by the court, designating Dr. Hernando
Porice (Dr. Ponce), @ physician whose practice is located in
Panama City, Panama, to perform the IME of Edith in Panama,
unless Duane returned Edith to California or Hawai'i by January
10, 2005, and allowing her to then be examined by the physician
Duane wished to designate as an IME doctor. Duane did not return
‘Edith to California or Hawai'i by that date. Dr. Ponce then
attempted to arrange for an IME of Edith in Panama but was
unsuccessful in his attempts to do so. The court, in its
December 22, 2005 finding no. 24 determined that Edith “did not

submit to an IME by Dr. Ponce nor did Duane make (Edith)

+ mhig court stated that a writ of prohibition “is an extraordinary
remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner denonstrates « clear and
[Efshotebie’ sight to relief end a lack of other means ro adequately redress
the sileged wrong of obtain the requested action.” Carlsmith y, Radius, Nos
besd2 & No. 26693 (Aug. 27, 2004)

 

 

 

4
 

s+4POR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER:
_

available for an IME by Dr. Ponce in Panama.”!

 

on March 4, 2005, Luria filed an Ex Parte Motion for
(2) order to Show Cause Why Court-Appointed Physician Has Been
Denied Access to Edith to Conduct Examination as Ordered, and
(2) Order Scheduling Hearing of Guardian Ad Litem’s Motion for
Further Extension of TRO and Order for Payment of $400.00 to
court Appointed Physician Concurrently With Order to Show Cause
and Before [sic] March 15, 2005 (order to show cause motion).

At the March 30, 2005 hearing on Luria’s order to show
cause motion, the court orally ruled, inter alia, that the IME in
Panama be completed by April 15, 2005. On June 2, 2005, the

court entered its written Order Regarding Order to Show Cause,

 

ruling as follows:

2. [tine (clourt finds that insufficient
evidence had been presented in support of any contention
that the [eloure violated Panensnisn law or any
International treaty in the [elourt’s Order (filed April 20,
2008) “Granting (Duane]"'s Motion for [a] Competency
Examination filed on December 22, 2004. Further, the
[clourt finds that since no objections (orl azguments by any
fatty or interestea person were made during the pendency of
[buane]’s Motion for'a “Competency Examination” of Edith

nin Fonams, filed on danuary 15, 2004, and at the
hearing of said motion on March 17, 2004, on the grounds
that, Se the said motion were granted, [Edith] "s Fights
would be violated under Panamanian law (or) any
Ynternational treaty, those objections and arguments heve
been waives

3.

 

 

As to Edith... , the [elourt continves to
have setious concerne regarding her competency based on the
Fecord and file of this case. The (clourt finds that there
iz no evidence that either [Cynthia] or the Guardien Ac
Eitem has traveled to Panans to try to contact (Edith) or
that (Cynthia} caused emotional, mental, or physical stress
te (edith). Had (Ouane] not left Oahu with his mother,
[edith], and net procured « new passport for her, traveling
ith het to Panama, all contrary to the (court's order,
{Edith} would have been exonined in Hawai'i as ordered, and
idence “subject te erose-examination would have been
Sdcuced instead of a series Of Declarations [or] Affidavits

 

 

Respondents do not challenge thie finding by the court.

as
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*
OO
from individuals not subject te cross-exanination
Te. The “competency exasination” of Edith an
Panana as ordered pursuant to the (clourt's Order Granting
Notion for [al Competency Exeaination filed on April 30,
Boa, and Order Appointing Physician for Examinaticn filed
Gn técenber 22, 2604, shall be completed by April 15, 2005.

 

 

 

 

 

The court noted that Edith was not made available for an IME by
April 15, 2008, ox any other date.

on April 19, 2005, Cynthia filed her Motion for
Attorney's Fees and Sanctions Against Edith and duane (the
motion). ‘The motion requested an order (1) establishing that
Edith is an incapacitated person who lacks sufficient
understanding or capacity to make or communicate decisions
regarding her person, (2) prohibiting duane and Edith from,
opposing such established fact or presenting any evidence s to
Edith’s alleged capacity, (3) striking any and all pleadings,
declarations and evidence submitted by Edith and/or Duane to
establish Eéith’s alleged capacity, and (4) granting Cynthia an
award of attorney's fees and expenses and judgment thereon
against Edith and Duane, jointly and severally, on the grounds
that they violated the TRO as amended by the court's November 26,
2003 order, and failed to make Edith available for the IME as
mandated in the court’s Novenber 26, 2003 order and its April 23,
2004 order granting buane’s motion for a competency examination
in Panama, Cynthia requested that the amount of $208,196.57 in
attorney's fees and $13,202.01 in costs be sanctioned against
Respondents.

on August 4, 2005, Edith filed 2 menorandum in

opposition arguing that (1) the TRO was void and unenforceable,

16
‘sesoR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ HAWAS'T REPORES AND FACIFIC REFORTERS*+#
(2) the Order for an IME was procedurally defective, void, and
unenforceable, (3) the court lacked jurisdiction to order a
medical examination in Panama or, in the alternative, had not
taken the steps necessary to render its order enforceable, and
(4) HFCR Rule 37 sanctions are available only for violations of a
discovery order.

on September 26, 2005, the court issued the order and
Judgment from which Respondents appeal. It was ordered, inter

alia, that (1) Respondents “are precluded from presenting any

evidence to establish [Edith’s] alleged incapacity until such
time as she submits to an [IMB] by (Dr. Ponce] or by any other
physician chosen by the [c]ourt,” (2) under HRS § 560:5-303(b)

(1993), “the person alleged to be incapacitated is entitled to

 

SRS § $60:5-303(b) (1993), entitled “Procedure for court
appointment of 2 guardian of the person of an incapacitated person,” provides,
in’ pertinent part!

(b) Upon the filing of a petition, the family court
shall get a date for hearing on the issues of incopacity

fond, if at any time in the proceeding, the court detersines
that the interests of the allecedly incapacitated person are
‘Guardian ad Litem. The person alleaed tobe incapacitated

 

be exesned sed pavenoli

anoolnied by the family couxt wio-shall submit a renors in
fiting tothe court and may be interviawes bye family

EtuEt. If t0 ordered by the family court, the Family court
Sificer or other perscn also shall interview the person
Seeking appointment as guardian of the person, shall visit
the present place of abode of the person alleged to be
incapacitated and the place it is proposed that the person
Will be detained or reside if the Fequested appointment is
fede, and shall aubeit’a report in writing co the. family

is eneieied ©

 

son sini et in

EenoLt aid the family court officer or other person
(continued...)

rt

 
“s++70R PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'Z REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERS

be represented by an attorney to present evidence [and] to cross

 

examine-witnesses” but that those safeguards exist in full “if
[Respondents]. comply with the (clourt’s order that [Edith]
undergo the [IME,]" (3) Edith is an incapacitated person and that
appointment of a guardian is necessary in order to provide her
with continuing care, and (4) the request for attorney's fees and
costs by Cynthia be granted in full and that said fees and costs
were to be paid from Edith’s funds, in the amount of $239,125.07.
on October 25, 2005, Edith timely filed her notice of appeal and
Duane filed his notice of cross-appeal pursuant to Hawai'i Rules
of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 4.1 (2006).¥* .
on December 22, 2005, following the filing of Bdith’s
notice of appeal and Duane’s notice of cross-appeal, the court
entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order
Granting Petitioner's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Sanctions
Against Edith and Duane (December 22, 2005 order).
In.
A
on appeal, Respondents raise as points of error that
(2) the October 24, 2003 TRO was void inasmuch as (a) the action

was not properly initiated, (b) the TRO action “was not

(continued)
The iseue

Bay be determined at @ closed nearing
(Emphases added.)

% — Hawas't Rules of Appediate Procedure Rule 4.1(a) (2006), entitled
vcross-Appeals," provides the right to cross-appeal to any other party in
Civil cases involving multipie-party plaintiffs or defendants, "whether on the’
Sane of opposite side 2s the party first eppealing(.)"

18

 

 
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’§ HAWAI'T REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERY+#
accompanied by an appropriate application for further relief, in

violation of HFCR Rule 65” and. . . was never served on edith
« . {or Duane},” (c) “Edith . . . as never served with the
petition, so the [clourt never acquired jurisdiction over her
person,” and (d) the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to
issue the TRO because HRS § 346-221 (1993)"* applies and cynthia
lacked standing to invoke its (2) insufficient evidence exists
“to justify the issuance of the TRO depriving (Bdith) of her
Liberty without notice and an opportunity to be heard”; (3) the
appointment of @ TGAL “should have been terminated’ on October 28,
2003, as a matter of law"; (4) HECR Rule 65 “is unconstitutional
on its face or as applied in this case because, in violation of
the due process clause [of the Hawai'i Constitution], it creates
subjective, standardless discretion authorizing drastic relief
without notice, without any of the constitutionally necessary

procedural safeguards”; and (5) the definition of an

 

neapacitated person” pursuant to HRS § 560:5-101 is
unconstitutionally vague, overly broad, and not sufficiently

definite." As its sixth point of error, Respondents challenge

ECR Rule 65(6) (2006), entitled “injunctions, provides in
pertinent part that "(e)very restraining order granted without notice shall be
Eflee forehwien in the clerk's office and entered of record, shall be

fesring, and with upon am fected
fheordar-”(emprasi= added.)
an general, HRS § 346-221 (1993), entitled "Purposes

construction,” provides for the protection of elderly citizens who are
mentally or physically impaired from abuse, neglect, or exploitation.

% ye noted, infra, Respondents, in their reply brief, concede that
the constitutionality of AFCR Rule 65 and HRS § 5€0-5'101 (2) need not be
reached

a9
 

{S**FOR PUBLICATION IN MEST’S HAWAI'I REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

the court's December 22, 2005 findings and conclusions in the

 

following manner

F. the (court erred in making the following
(£inaings) and. [conclusions] in the [Findings],

 

  

[Conclusions], ena Order Granting Petitioner's Motion for
Attorney's Fees and Sanctions Against Edith . «= (and)
Buane filed (Decenber 22, 2005]

i." Im For Si" "*feaith’s counsel) stated that

(Edith) hag received a copy of the TRO ane
represented to the (cJourt that he had read the
igjusrdianship petition and 780 te (eaithl
2. FOR S:. “*On October 23, 2003, (Cynthia's
Counsel) served file-sarked copies of the
(Guardianship] Petition, TRO Motion and Ex Pert
Petitions to, shorten Tine upon [Ovane) through
(eaitn’s counsel].
3. for ig: "Ae about. the ‘tine that she ws
Felessed fron Queen’s Hospital, [Edith] was
eriented to her name only. [Edith] gid not know
here she was, nor could she recall the day,
Gate, or tine. .
in FOF 13: "on or about November 24, 2003,
Duane and (Eaith] went to Panama in violaticn of
the RO ss
5. COL i: “sthis"[elourt has jurisdiction te hear
tne Petition for Guaraian(shipl.”
6, COL 8: “[Bgith) vielatea the TRO entered on
October 24, 2003 by leaving for Panama prior ‘te
the completion of an INE.” Duane sseisted
[edith] in vielating the TRO. [Edith] and Duane
violated the First and Second IME Orders.”

  

 

 

 

 

7, TncoL tor” *.""" “Teaten) "and Duane were
precluded from presenting evidence of (Edith s)
Capacity.”

8. COL Ii: | “Based on evidence that wae before the

court, the lelourt finds (Edith) sncapacitated
and in need of a guaraian to provide for her
Continuing care.”

Finally, Respondents, in their seventh point of error, argue that
the court erred in its Novenber 26, 2003 finding no. 4 that
“{Edith] was served with the Petition through her Hawaii
attorneys.” Respondents request that this court (1) vacate the
judgment, 2) declare void ab initio the October 24, 2003 TRO and

all subsequent findings, orders and sanctions, (3) order the

 

% Respondents note that the court's Decenber 22, 2005 order uss
fled after their respective notices of appeal had already been filed with
this court. Accordingly, they state that they had no opportunity to tinely
object to the findings and conclusions in that order

20

 
 

‘+470R PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER®

 

court to dismiss the guardianship petition, (4) award Respondents
their attorneys’ fees and costs, and (5) grant such other relief
as is just and equitable under the circumstances.

In her answering brief, cynthia argues that (1) the TRO
petition and guardianship petition were properly initiated,
(2) the guardianship petition constituted the “appropriate
application for further relief reguired under HFCR Rule 65 and
Respondents had notice of the TRO, (3) Respondents waived

personal service of the TRO petition and guardianship petition by

 

appearing at the October 28, 2003 hearing and by failing to
timely raise an objection regarding improper service, (4) ,the

court had jurisdiction to issue the TRO, ($) ample evidence was

 

submitted to support the issuance of the TRO, (6) the court w
not required to terminate the TGAL on October 28, 2003 when
Edith’s own testimony established the need for an INE, (7) HFCR
Rule 65 passes constitutional muster, and (8) Edith’s medical
records from Queen’s Hospital were properly obtained by the TGAL
land admissible as evidence showing Edith’s lack of capacity.

In their reply brief, Respondents aver that (1) Edith
was never served with the guardianship petition, “and because
service is jurisdictional, the [c]ourt never acquired
jurisdiction over her, rendering the [TRO] and all subsequent
extensions, orders, findings and sanctions void{,]”" (2) the court
“lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue the TRO" under HRS
§ 346-221, and (3) sufficient expert opinion was presented to

show that Edith does not lack mental capacity and that Cynthia

21
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ JAKAT'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER*#

had the opportunity to depose and cross-examine these experts but

 

failed to do so. Respondents conclude that the court never had
in personam jurisdiction and lacked subject matter jurisdiction
when it issued the TRO. Respondents also concede that the

d not be

 

constitutionality of HFCR 65 or HRS § 560:5-101(2) 1
reached in order to (1) vacate the judgment, 2) declare void ab
initio the October 24, 2003 TRO and all subsequent findings,
orders and sanctions, (3) order the court to dismiss the
guardianship petition, and (4) award Respondents their attorneys’
fees and costs.

8.

k review of the court's

 

Respondents also
September 26, 2005 Order Denying Duane’s Motion to Delay
Rendering Decision: Notion to Reopen filed, and'“all other
rulings adverse to Respondent(s t]herein.” In addition, Duane
challenges the court’s January 23, 2004 Order re: Orders to Show
Cause Filed December 11, 2003 finding Respondents in civil
contempt of court. Hawai'i Probate Rules (HPR) Rule 34, entitled
“entry of judgment, interlocutory orders, appeals{,]" provides
for appeals of certain orders and judgments in the following
(a) Entry of Judgment. All formal testacy orders,

orders of intestacy and determination of heirs, orders

establishing guardianship of the property, and orders

establishing protective arrangements shali be reduced to

Judgment and the Judgment shall be filed with the clerk of

the court. ‘Such Judgnents shall be fins! and immediately

appealable az provided by statute, Any other order thet

fully addresses all clains raised in a petition to which it

Felates, but that does not finally end the proceeding, may,

be certified for sppeal in the manner provided by Rule S¢(b)
of the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure

 

 

22
 

‘s*+F0R PUBLICATION IN WEST’ § HAMAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER®

 

(b) Interlocutery Orders

An cider to ances) fron any
other order prior to the conclusion of the preceeding, the’
: ified for n decordance

SEE). OT

(G] Fine! Judgment Closing Proceeding. At the
conclusion of the proceeding, « final judgment closing the
proceeding shall be entered end filed with the clerk of the
Eourt, at which tine all prior uncertified interlocutory
orders Shall becone immediately appealable.

(a) Appeals. Final judgrents as to all claims and
parties, certified judgments, certified orders, and other
Srders appealable a2 provised by law may be appealed
pursuant. to the Hawail Rules of Appellate Procedure
Epplicable to civil sctions

 

  

 

None of these orders fit within the classes of appealable orders
under HPR Rule 34 and HRS § 641-1(b). We note that the
guardianship proceeding has not been concluded, final judgment
terminating the proceeding has not been entered, and these orders
were not certified for appeal. Hence, those orders are not
before us.

Appellate jurisdiction in the instant matter is limited
to the correctness of the court's imposition of sanctions in its
September 26, 2005 order and judgment, which implicates the
issues of personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and
Personal service. Accordingly, we need only decide the issues
relating to the court's jurisdiction over Respondents, its
jurisdiction to issue the TRO, the propriety of the court’s

assessment of attorney's fees in the amount of $239,125.07, and

© Rs § G41-2(b) (1993), entitled “Appeals as of right or
interlocutory, civil matters,” states in full ss follow

 

() Upon application made within the time provides by
the rules of court, an appeal ina civil matter may be
allowed by a circuit court in its discretion from en order
Genying a motion to dismiss or from any interlocutory
Susgnent, order, or decree whenever the circuit court may
think the same advisable for the speedy termination of
Lfeigation before it. the refusal of the circuit court to
allow an appeal from lecutory judgrent, order, oF
decree shal not be reviewable by any other court

23

 

   
‘s+8POR PUBLICATION IN MEST’ HANAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER'#*
imposition of sanctions against Respondents in the September 26,

See Ince Adam, 105 Hawas't 507, 516,

100 P.3d 77, 86 (App. 2004) (ruling that “[iJmmediate appeal is

 

2005 order and judgment

allowed of a sanction order against a party that is immediately
enforceable through contempt proceedings and that places the
sanctioned party in immediate jeopardy of being found in contempt
of court for failure to comply” (citing Harada v. Ellis, 60 Haw.
467, 480, 591 P.2¢ 1060, 1070 (2979)))+ Kukui Nuts of Hawaii,
Inc. v. R. Baird & Con, 6 Haw. App. 431, 435, 726 P.2d 268, 271
(1986) (holding that immediate appeal is permissible as to a
sanction order against a party that is reduced to an enforceable
judgment) .

ut.

Whether @ court has jurisdiction over a case is a
question of law reviewed under the right or wrong standard.
Korean Buddhist Dae Hon Sa Tenple of Hawai'i v. Concerned citizens
of Palolo, 107 Hawai'i 371, 380, 114 P.3d 113, 122 (2005).
Findings of fact will not be disturbed unless “clearly
erroneous.” Kienker v, Bauer, 110 Hawai'i 97, 105, 129 P.3¢ 1125,
1133 (2006) (quoting Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Ros, 96
Hawai'i 1, 11, 25 P.3d 60, 70 (2001). “A finding of fact is

clearly erroneous when (1) the record lacks substantial evidence

% go reiterate, the court’s September 26, 2005 order and judonent.
sanctioned Respondents under HFCR Rule 37 by (1) ofdering that Edith pay
Epnehio's attorneys fees and expenses, (2) fuling that Respondents be
precluded from disputing Eaith's incapacity until Edith submits to an IME, and
13) finding that Edith is an incopacitated person as defined in HRs § 56
101 (2i-

 

 

    

24
//FOR PUBLICATION IN| WEST’ § HAMAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

 

to support the finding or determination, or (2) despite
substantial evidence to support the finding or determination, the
appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been made.” Id. (brackets and ellipses
omitted).

With respect to the issuance of a TRO, a relief in
equity, “[t]he relief granted by a court [in] equity is
discretionary and will not be overturned on review unless the
1s. Court abused its discretion.” Ueoka v. Syzmanski, 107
Hawai'i 386, 393, 114 P.3d 692, 899 (2005) (quoting AIG Hawaii
Ins. Co. v. Bateman, 82 Hawai'i 453, 457, 923 P.2d 395, 399
(1996)). Similarly, @ “‘court’s imposition of a discovery abuse

1 for abuse of discretion. A

 

sanction is reviewable on apps
ss + court abuses its discretion whenever it exceeds the bounds
of reason or disregards rules or principles of law or practice to
the substantial detriment of a party./” Kawamata Farms, Inc, vy.
United Agri Prods.,/ 86 Hawai'i 214, 241, 948 P.2d 1055, 1082
(2997) (quoting Aloha Unlimited, Inc, v. Coughlin, 79 Hawai'i 527,
532-33, 904 P.2d $41, 546-47 (App. 1995)). In addition,
“regardless (of) whether sanctions are imposed pursuant to
statute, circuit court rule, or the trial court’s inherent
powers, such awards are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”
Gap_v. Puna Geothermal Venture, 106 Hawai'i 328, 331, 104 P.3d

912, 918 (2004) (citations, internal quotation marks and brackets

omitted).

25
‘s*4FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*+#

wv.

With respect to point of error (1) (a), the action below
was properly. initiated. Respondents claim that when the action
was filed, the guardianship petition (i) “did not include a
summons, a purported violation of {HFCR] Rule 4,* and (ii) “was
not signed by an attorney of record,” in violation of HFCR Rule
11.

A,
1.

As to subpoint (i) of point of error (1)(a), it is
noted that the current action was initiated by the filing of the
guardianship petition pursuant to HRS § 560:5-309 (1993). as
provided by that statute, a notice of hearing, as opposed to a
summons, is a fundamental requirement, as stated in pertinent

part as follows:

Notices and guardianship proceedings. (3) In 9
proceeding fer the appointment or removal of a guardian of
the person of an inespacitetes person other than the.
fppotntnent ote cenperary,guerdien or temporary 6

of a guardian,

 

yension

 

 

4 _npoR Rule ¢ (2006), entitied *Frocese,” provides in pertinent part
that “[ulpon the filing of the’ complaint, the clerk shall forthwith issue
sunnons and deliver it to the plaintiff for service by a person authorized to
Serve process.”

 

4 _WPoR Rule 11, (2006), entitled “Signing of pleadings, motions, and
ether papers; sanctions,” provides in pertinent part that “[e]very plesding,

motion, and other paper of a party represented by an attorney shall’ be #19
Ey at deast one attorney of record in the attorney's individual nane, whose

Sddrese shall be stated.”

 

 

Under HFCR Rule 61 (2006), entitled “Applicability,” the HIFCR
applies, in pertinent part, eo “{8) Guardianship of Person of Minors and
Incapacitated Persons under HRS chapter 5€0, article V."

26
‘s++FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ § HAMAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER'##

 

a 2

‘The wird or the person concerning whom the
broceedine has been comenced end the ward's or

Person's spouse, legal parents, and adult
Ehildrens

 

inj" Wotice ehaia be served personaily on the alleged
incapacitated person, the person's spouse, the person's
legal parents, and the person's adult children, if they can
be found within the State. Notice to such of those who
Cannct be found within the State and to all other persons
except the alleged incapacitated person shall be given as

provided in [HRS $] 5€0:1-401. Waiver of notice By the’

5 2 ‘the hesring or the cereon's waiver of

 

 

hierview the bergen. Except a
THRS.$]_560:5-303, representation of the elleged
person by a guafdian ad lites 1s not

  

necessary.

(Emphases added. )*
Respondents appear to argue that HFCR Rule 4, which
-308, which requires

  

requires a sunnons, prevails over HRS § 560:
notice. As 2 general rule, however, “[w]hen a statute . . . and
a rule conflict, the statute prevails.” In ze Doe, 109 Hawai'i

399, 409, 126 P.3d 1086, 1096 (2006). Accordingly, we determine

whether the mandates of HRS § 560:5-309 were observed.

 

svended HRS § 560:5-309, specifying the
joses of guardianship of incapacitated

 

® Ip 2004, the Legisiature
contents of a notice of hearing for pu
persons, in pertinent part, as follows

 

@
¢ che hearing on the petith z7

A conv of a cetition for quardianshin and notice

‘the respondent. The notice shell include e statenent that

he tespondent “must be chysically present unless excused by

Ehe court, inform the respondent of the rescondent's richts:
‘ak the hearing, and include a descrintion of the nacure,

‘ences of ap appeintaent.—A failure“to

Sith this subsection shal] orectude mE
the petition.

(Gxphasis added.) The amendnent became effective on January 1, 2005, and
provided that 1 “shall not affect any action commenced, proceeding Srought,
Sr rigne accrued prior to its effective date.” 2000 Haw. Sess, Ly Act ely §

Se ae 708.

   

 

2
 

‘++fOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ § HAWAI'I REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*#*

The record before us indicates that a Notice of Hearing

(the notice) was attached to the guardianship petition and was
signed by the clerk under seal of the court, and indicated the
name of the court, the parties involved, as well as the name and

address of Cynthia's counsel. The guardianship petition to which

 

the notice was attached, was file-stamped “October 24, 2003
The notice directed that the parties appear before the court on
october 28, 2003 at 1:30 p.m., and forewarned that further action
might be taken without further notice if a party failed to
appear. At the October 28, 2003 hearing, Edith’s éounsel
represented to the court that he had read all relevant documents
to Edith.

In their reply brief, Respondents concede that “[iJt
makes sense that [HRS § 560:5-309] provides that attendance at
the hearing waives notice of the hearing, but that does not
address service of the initial pleading.” Respondents argue that
“[HRS § 1560:5-309\is silent on service of the initial pleading,”
‘and that HECR Rule 4(4) (3) (B) governs. HFCR Rule 4(d) (3) (B)
provides for personal service of an initial pleading on an
incompetent person and requires that a summons and complaint be
served upon an incompetent person, “by delivering a copy of the
sunmons and of the complaint personally.”

By its terms, HFCR Rule 4(d) (3) (B) presupposes that the
person being served has been declared incompetent. Tt has been

ks to establish a

 

held that “a person over whon a petitioner s1

guardianship enjoys a presumption of competency which may be

28
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND FACIFIC REPORTER

relied upon until the contrary is shown.” Schaefer v, Schaefer,
52 P.3d 1125, 1128 (Or. App. 2002). (brackets and ellipses
omitted), Inasmuch as Edith has not been declared incompetent,
and in fact, Respondents argue otherwise, HFCR Rule 4(d) (3) (B) is
inapplicable.

In addition, the citation by Respondents to Carolina
o ri i‘ a

2, Warehousene! 180
$.B.2d 461 (N.C. Ct. App.), cert, denied, 161 S.£.2d 601 (N.C.
1971), is not helpful. In that case, 2 TRO was issued solely
upon the filing of an affidavit. Id. at 462-63. No other
pleadings were filed, and no summons were issued. Id, at 463.
on appeal, the Carolina court ruled that the lower court did not
have jurisdiction to issue the TRO, stating that a TRO procedure
“is permissible only after an action is commenced [after the
filing of a complaint or summons under North Carolina Rules of
Civil Procedure) Rule 3." Id.

‘The aforementioned facts in Carolina are inapposite to
the instant case. The TRO petition in the instant case was
accompanied by the guardianship petition. The guardianship
petition was filed before the court and satisfies the definition
of a “complaint” under HFCR Rule 3 which defines “complaint” to
include “any initial pleading required by statute.” The TRO, as
modified by the court, was issued with the TRO petition, and no

motions were made to strike both petitions.

29
FOR PUBLICATION IN MEST'S HAMAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPCRTERS+#

Moreover, any objections by Respondents as to the lack
of notice are deened waived by Edith’s appearance, her failure to
object to the purported defect of notice or summons, and
insistence upon proceeding with an evidentiary hearing. see Kim
Poo Kum vy, Sucivama, 33 Haw. $45, 555-56 (1935) (holding that the
“voluntary general appearance” by one party before the court in
opposition to an application by another party to make it a party
defendant, together with its subsequent appearance before the
‘same court at the hearing on appeal “demanding the right to be

permitted to introduce evidence upon the issues” therein, "was,

wholly inconsistent with anv other attitude on the part of [the

firs thi te and v under and
submission to the aeneral durisdiction of the court for a

Young vs Chong, 24 Haw. 95, 96

(2917) (ruling that defendants in that case “appeared generally

 

purposes” (emphasis added)); of.

and thereby waived all objections . . . as to the summons .
and submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the .
(court) and reasoning that the purpose of sunmons “is to bring
the defendant into court so that the court may have jurisdiction
over his person and its object is accomplished when the defendant
comes in without objection and submits himself to the
jurisdiction of the court”).

Hence, because Edith had notice of the petition and the
hearing concerning the petition, and inasmuch as Edith

voluntarily appeared without objection to the lack of summons or

30
s++FOR PUBLICATION JN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERS*®
notice, and insisted that an evidentiary hearing proceed, no

error exists as to subpoint (i) with respect to Edith.

 

Similarly, with respect to Duane, as the court stated,
he appeared before the court, indicated he did not have a copy of
the TRO and the guardianship petition, “but would get a copy from
the Carlsmith firm,” and that Duane “knew the substance of what
this case was all about.” The court also noted that, to its
knowledge, Duane was then “an attorney licensed to practice law
An the State of Hawaii . . . and raised no issue about the
service.” .
As a rule, the defense of insufficiency: of process or
lack of sezvice must be asserted in the initial pleading or made
by motion, before pleading, if @ further pleading is permitted.
HFCR Rule 12(b) (4) & (5). The failure to raise the defense of
insufficiency of process in a timely manner waives that defense.
HECR Rule 12(h). In addition, the failure to raise such @
defense is also waived if omitted from a motion in which it could
have been included. HFCR Rule 12(g).

According to Cynthia, on October 29, 2003, Duane was
served a copy of the TRO and guardianship petition through
Edith’s counsel. Following service of these documents, Duane
filed his response to the TRO and guardianship petitions wherein

he contested the factual allegations “but raised no procedural

 

arguments.” Duane not having raised the defense of insufficiency
of process in a timely manner or in a motion, we hold that the

a
 

‘++sFOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTEI
court did not err in ruling against him on the issue of service

of process.
B.

In regard to subpoint (11), Respondents’ objection
under HFCR Rule 11 to the lack of a signature by an attorney of
record in the petition, no error exists, Cynthia does not
dispute that the petition was initially unsigned. Rather,
Cynthia contends that “the memorandum in support of the (TRO
petition] . . . and memorandum in support of the (guardianship
petition) were signed by counsel, as was the affidavit attached
to the [TRO petition].” (Emphasis in original.) In addition,
Cynthia asserts that under HFCR Rule 11, “[i]f @ pleading,
motion, or other: paper is not signed, it shall be stricken unless
it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the
attention of the pleader or movant.”

cynthia’s arguments are persuasive. As she notes in
her ansvering brief, “when [Edith’s] counsel sent a letter
stating that Cynthia’s signature rather than the signature of
counsel indicated noncompliance with [HFCR] Rule 11, counsel for
Cynthia immediately submitted amended signature pages with
counsel’s signature.” Hence, after the lack of a signature by a
counsel of record was “called to the attention” of Cynthia's
counsel, any defect under HFCR Rule 11 was cured and the
requirenents of that rule were satisfied.

Respondents’ reliance on State ex, rel. Friedman v
Dist. ct., 399 P.2d 632 (Nev. 1965), for the proposition that the

32
“s+eFoR FUBLICATIGN IN WEST’ § HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*#*
—_—_— ses
filing of an errata does not cure any defect in the petitions, is

similarly unpersuasive. In that case, the petitioner obtained a
‘TRO from a trial court enjoining the respondent, Friedman, from
proceeding in a civil action against the petitioner in
california. Id. However, the TRO was not conditioned upon the
posting of a bond, and did not provide reasons for its issuance,
in violation of Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure (NRCP) Rules
65(c) & (d). Id. at 632-33. Friedman filed an action seeking
nullification of the TRO based on these defects. Id.

one day before trial, the petitioner obtained, ex

parte, an amended restraining order which required posting of 2
The

 

$1000 bond and provided reasons for its issuance.

 

petitioner then contended that the issuance of the amended
restraining order rendered Friednan’s action moot inasmuch as the
defects in the original TRO had been cured. id, The Friednan
court disagreed, observing that the amended restraining order,
obtained 2x parte, ‘was not accompanied by a motion for a
preliminary injunction, nor was there a separate showing to
authorize its entry without notice,” id. at 634, in violation of
NRCP Rule 65.

In this case, in contrast with Exiedman, no substantive
defect exists to render the TRO at issue invalid. The defect
pointed out by Edith, the absence of counsel's signature, was
cured as permitted by HFCR Rule 11, Following correction by
Cynthia's counsel, no defects remained in the TRO petition.
Hence, Exiednan is inapplicable.

33
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN VESI’S HAMAI' REFORES AND PACIFIC REFORTER+#*
v,

a

Points of error (1)(b) and (c), that the TRO action was
not accompanied by an appropriate application for further relief
or was never served on Edith and Duane,” present no error.
Respondents contend that HFCR Rule 65(b) mandates that “(elvery
restraining order granted without notice shall be. .
accompanied by an appropriate application for further relief.”
Respondents concede that “[tJhe only document that could
conceivably have met that description would have been the
{guardianship petition] itself.” However, Respondents maintain
that the guardianship petition “was not an ‘appropriate’
application for further relief” since (1) it was filed in
violation of HFCR Rules 4 and 11, and (2) the court did not have
subject matter jurisdiction over the allegations in the petition
which alleged elder abuse, and not incapacity. They argue that
subject matter jurisdiction over allegations of elder abuse is
conferred upon the court “only if the Department of Human
Services is the [pletitioner, and only if facts and circumstances
are present which were never present in this case.”

We first observe, as noted by Cynthia, that the
guardianship petition requested “further relief” to the effect

that the court, inter alia, find “that Edith... is an

# ks earlier noted, Respondents waived the defense of insufficiency
of service of process

34
‘s+470R PUBLICATION 18 MEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERS#®
101(2)."" AB.

 

incapacitated peron as defined in [HRS] § 560~
earlier related, Respondents’ objections to the guardianship
petition under Rules 4 and 11 are unpersuasive. Hence, inasmuch
as Cynthia's prayer in the guardianship petition that the court
find Edith an “incapacitated person,” literally satisfies the
“appropriate application for further relief” as required by HFCR
Rule 65(b), we discern no error in the issuance of the TRO in

this respect.

 

We further hold that the court did have Subject matter
jurisdiction to issue the TRO in the present matter, contrary to
Respondents’ argunents in points of error 1(b) and (1) (d). HRS
chapter 571 provides for the creation of, family courts. See HRS
§ 571-1 (1993) (stating that “(t]his chapter, creates within this
State a system of family courts”). HRS §§ 560:5-106 (2) and (3)
(supp. 2005), part of the Uniform Probate Code, declare that
“[t}he family court’ shall have exclusive jurisdiction over
guardianships and related proceedings concerning incapacitated
adults[,]” and “[w}here protective and guardianship proceedings
relating to the same person have been initiated, they may be
consolidated in the court as the court in the exercise of its

discretion shall determine.‘ HRS chapter 560 “shall be

 

* See aupza note 7.

 

the predecessor statute to HRS § 560:5-107 (Supp. 2005), HRS §
S60:5-102 (1993) stated that "[w]here protective and guardianship proceedings
Felating to the same person have been initiates, they may be consolidated in
the court or in the family court es the court and the family court in the
Teont ined...)

 

 

35
 

‘+ePOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purpose

 

 

-102 (1993). In addition, “(ijn any

 

and policies.” HRS § 560
case in which [the family court] has jurisdiction, the court

shall exercise general equity powers as authorized by law.” HRS

§ 71-3 (1993).
Part and parcel of the family court’s authority, in
relevant part, are the following statutorily-conferred powers:

(2) Subpoena, summon, end compel the attendance of parties
anc witnesses fron say pert of the State, and compel
the preduction of books, papers, documents sneluaing
school, medical, ang finaneisi records, or tangible
thinai

(3) Hakevang ieeue 12 orders and write necessary or
anpiontaate in-aid of their original suriedicticn:

ic)” Enforce decrees and iudments and ounish contensts °
acconding te laws

|" Apposnt guardians ed 1item for minor® or persons who
afe incompetent or attorneys to represent parties in

Accordance with lav:

 

 

 

 

26)" Hake ond exard sudoments, decrees, orders, and
Sundites, issue exscations and-cther processes, and do
Scher scte and take other steps 2c may be necesiery to
‘Sarce into full effect the covers that-are or aballbs
Given to-then by-law or tor the eronotion of iustice
inmaiters sending before then{-1

HRS § 571-8.5 (Supp. 2005) (emphases added). Moreover, under HRS
§ 560:1-302(b) (Supp. 2005), “[t]he court has full power to make

orders, judgments, and decrees and take all other action

 

necessary and proper to administer justice in the matters which

come before it.”

A salutary purpose of a TRO is to preserve the status
quo between the parties pending adjudication of the merits of a

claim. Cf, Wahba, LLC v. USRP (Don), LLC, 106 Hawai'i 466, 472,

 

«cont inued)
exercise of their discretion shall de

 

mine.”

 

36
ATOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER***
——
106 F.3d 1109, 1115 (2008) (noting that “*{a] TRO is designed to

 

preserve the status quo until there is an opportunity to hold @
hearing on the application for » preliminary injunction’
(brackets omitted) (quoting Whitman v, Hawaiian Tua & Barge
corps, 27 F. Supp. 24 1225, 1228 (D. Haw. 1998))); Devose va
Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam)
(observing that preliminary injunctive relief is designed “to
preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm until the
court has an opportunity to rule on the lawsuit’s merits”).
cynthia’s arguments in support of a detefmination thet
the court had subject matter jurisdiction to issue a TRO are
persuasive. First, she notes that the TRO petition was
cnecessary to prevent Duane’s imminent renoval of [Edith] from
th[is] jurisdiction to Panama before the matters alleged in the
Igluardianship (pletition . . . could be determined by the .
court.” Second, “the allegations of abuse heightened the need
for inmediate temporary injunctive relief, but were not the sole
basis for the issuance of the TRO.” As Cynthia submits, under
the circumstances of the instant case, “the . . . court validly
exercised its powers pursuant to HRS chapters 560 and 571 to act

in protection of a possible incompetent person and to preserve

 

] capacity.”

 

the status quo, pending a determination of (Bdith’
‘Third, ae Cynthia suggests, it has generally been

upheld that issuance of a temporary or permanent injunction

enjoining renoval of @ person from a certain jurisdiction “is

well-established” when “the effect of removal on the person's

37
 

}FOR PUBLICATION 8 WEST'S HAMAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPCRTE

 

 

health, interests [or] welfare are called into question or are
found not to be in the person's best interests(.]” See, edu,
Ewernewenn v, Kenny, 563 A.2d 1158, 1162 (N.J. Super. 1988)
(upholding restriction against mother from moving child to
another state as not in the best interest of child); Scott v
Scott, 60 A.2d 147 (RT. 1948) (affirming trial court's issuance
of restraining order prohibiting mother from removing child from
the court's jurisdiction until further order where child’s
welfare was called into question); In re Estate of Lint, 957 P.2d
755 (Wash. 1998) (holding that the totality of circumstances,
including, inter alia, the issuance of a TRO preventing removal
of testator from court’s jurisdictional reach, warrant trial
court’s decision that husband of testator exercised undue
influence and acted fraudently over testator).

The TRO at issue prohibited Edith from leaving or
otherwise being removed from the United States until an IME could
be performed in order to resolve the issue of her capacity. The
court is empowered to issue “orders . . . and. . . [do] other
acts . . . as may be necessary to carry into full effect the
powers that are or shall be given to them [under the guardianship
statutes, ]” HRS § 571-8.5(a) (10), and is authorized to “make
orders . . . and take all other action necessary and proper to
administer justice in the matters which come before it[,]” HRS
§ 560:1-302(b). Accordingly, it cannot be concluded that the
court was without jurisdiction to issue the TRO in this case

where resolution of Edith’s capacity is required to be resolved,

38
 

se+P0R PUBLICATION IN WEST! § RAMAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER®
———
and an apparent threat of Edith’s removal from the court's

jurisdiction was alleged. Hence, Respondents’ contentions
regarding the court’s jurisdiction must be rejected
vr.

With respect to Respondents’ point of error (2),
regarding the alleged lack of evidence to issue the TRO, the
court did not abuse its discretion in doing so. HFCR Rule 65(b)
states that “[a] restraining order may be granted without notice
to the adverse party when it clearly appears from specific facts
2 dav:

et 08 ” (Emphasis added.), As
earlier noted, the court ruled on the propriety of Sssuing « TRO

under HFCR Rule 65(b) in the following manner:

 

upon the (THO) Petition... , the affidavits
‘Cynthia’. .\. and others, and the opinion of Or.

   

a past act or acts of nental or physical abuse against, or
Gndue influence over, . Edith. - » have cecured, and
thet she may be st risk of being taken cut of the country
against her wiil or that she ney lack capacity to make any
Gecisions regarding her health care end domicile.

 

(Emphasis added.) Respondents contend that Cynthia “did not cone
close to meeting even [the] minimal standard [under HFCR Rule

65(b).)" ‘They argue that

no matter how one looks at it, what [Cynthia] proffered
sinply does not add up to probable cause “that « past act or
acts of mental of physical abuse agsinst, or undue influence
over | ss Edith « . . y have occured, and that she may be
St 'risk’of being taken out of the country against her will
Gr thet she may Lack capacity to maxe eny cecisions

although the court utilized 2 “probable cause” standard in
determining whether # TRO should issue, HIFCR Rule 62 does not prescribe such a
Standard. ‘Respondents do not challenge the application of such a standerd.
ie do fot express any opinion ss to the utilization of 2 "probable cause”
Standard in determining whether an ex parte TRO should be entered.

38

 

 

 
 

‘+ **FOR PUBLICATION IN MEST’S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

regerding her healthcare and domicile,” ll of which the
court found in issuing the TRO.

(Emphasis in original.) In support of their contention,
Respondents challenge the adnission of the letter from Dr.
Blanchette, attached to the TRO petition, arguing that it lacked
proper foundation, and that there was “nothing in the record that
showed who she was or what qualified her to give opinions." In
addition, relying on State v Coffee, 104 Hawai'i 193, 199, 66
P.3d 1002, 1008 (App. 2004), for the proposition that “fal
judge’s personal familiarity with his prior decision in a
different case does not warrant the taking of judicial notice of
that prior decision solely in the interest of judicial
efficiencyl,]” Respondents maintain that the court's taking
judicial notice of Dr. Blanchette’s qualifications as a doctor
who practices geriatric medicine, and her “training, reputation,
and. . . work in this field,” based on her appearances in other

cases before the court, was error.”

 

<8 buring proceedings before the court on December 17, 2003, the
court made the following statement with respect to OF. Blenchette’s
qualifications:

 

THE COURT: Thank you. 1711
and this is for the record so the record 13 ©
Fegara to (Edith's counsel's] argument
Original pleadings or unsupported allegations with regard to
Dr. [Blanchette], although there wes no curriculum vitae
attached to the document that was her letter to the [clourt,
the. - court Ss aware of her medical background, training
and expertise.

‘he's sppeared nunerous times in the fanily court by
way of evidence, by letter, other reports being submitted,
Gnd itva the (elouft's understanding she's testified and
been certified as an expert witness for, on a number of
eccasions, as well ae in the probate court in the issue of
geriatrics, inthe field of geriatrics, so that doesn’t deal
with the question abost order to show cause, but T did vant
the recora to be clear that this [clourt’s familiar with Dr

[Blanchette’s] training, reputation and her work in this
[contsnued.

 

 

   

 

 

   

   

 

 

40
FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST! § WAWAL'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERS#
Petitioner responds that the court correctly considered

 

br. Blanchette’s letter because it was properly authenticated in
the affidavit of Cynthia's Counsel. The affidavit identifies Dr.
Blanchette as an M.D. (medical doctor) with an MPH (masters in
public health)end was attached to the TRO Petition. Additionally,
Petitioner argues that the memorandum in support of the TRO
Petition, also signed by Cynthia's counsel, identifies ‘Dr.
Blanchette as the Professor and Chair of Geriatric Nedicine, John
A. Burne School of Medicine. Further, Petitioner argues that
Respondents’ reliance on Coffee is misplaced because, in that
case, the district court took judicial notice to establish that
(2) a police officer was a drug recognition expert (ORE) and

(2) a certain test conducted by the police officer in order to
determine drug impairment was scientifically valid. 104 Hawai'i
at 194, 86 P.3d at 1003.

‘The reasoning in Coffee focused on whether the facts
presented were the kind of facts permitted to be judicially
noticed under HRE Rule 201, that is, whether they “were generally
known within the territorial jurisdiction of the district court
or capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to
sources whose accuracy could not reasonably be questioned, as
required for the taking of judicial notice.” Id. at 200, 86 P.3d

at 1009.

P(..-continved}
‘eld.

a
FOR PUBLICATION 28 WEST'S WAMAL'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER®#

 

 

In the instant case, as stated supra, the first letter
from Dr. Blanchette to Cynthia's counsel, appended to the TRO
petition, identified the doctor as a doctor of medicine with an
advanced degree in public health, The menorandum in support of
the TRO Petition, signed by Cynthia’s counsel, states that Dr.
Blanchette is a professor and Chair of Geriatric Medicine at the
John A, Burns School of Medicine, In view of her position at the
only medical school in the State, it is arguable that or.

Blanchette’s status in geriatric medicine is “capable of accurate

 

and ready determination by resort to sources whose’ accuracy could

 

not reasonably be questioned.” Id.
However, the first letter aside, the TRO petition was
supported by the affidavits of cynthia,” Linda, and Beverley
which, taken together, satisfy the mandate of Réle 65(b) that
‘specific facts . . . by affidavit or by the verified complaint
or cross-conplaint” be shown to warrant inmediate relief.
cynthia’s affidavit averred the following matters:

On oF about June 1, 2003, my grandmother suffered @
Shortly thereafter, ny father, Duane Carlemith, who
ding in Panama for several years, moved into het
Fesigence and prevented ether fanily members fron seeing her.

    

  

 

My Understending ie that my grandnother and ay
father are currently in the city and County of Honluly

% Respondents abject to the affidavits by Cynthis, Lint
Beverley claining that these were inadnissible because each of 1
stfirmatively to demonstrate that the affient hed personal. knowledge of the
matters asaressed In the efficavit,” ee required by HRE Rule 602, As to
Cynthia's affidavit, the allegation that she "tried €0 call and to viet”
Faith but was refused by Duane, appears to be based on her persons! knowledge,
While the statenent that she is “deeply concerned” about Edith’s health does
Rot establish a factual matter regarding Esith’s health, but merely expresses
her concern for Edith's well-being. With respect to the affidavite of Linda
and Beverley, each of their affidsvits both affirmatively state that the
Raters averred were based on “personal knowledge” and appear to indicate
Statenente based on such knowledge. ence, no error is discerned

42

   

 

 
‘ss4POR PUBLICATION IN MEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERS##

State of Hawaii, but that ay father intends to take her to
Panama by ship.” 1 tried to call and to visit her, but my
father refuses to let me talk to her or to see her

os: My grancncther is legally blind end very frail. 2
an deeply concerned about ny grandmother's health end
Welfare and believe that she is at trenendous risk et the
hands of my father

 

 

 

Linda’s affidavit reported, in relevant part, as follows

3. dn July, Annaliese cane to visit. Annaliese
told me that the fenily would Like se to become (Edith’ =]
primary caregiver. They wanted to buy ay contract from (my

employer)
cer, they bought my contract and T

ecane Zesponsiblé ring, scheduling and purchasing

Groceries for the care of (Edith). Additionally, 1 oversaw

Gesning, laundry, and generally managing (Edith? 8)

household.

3.-' continued in that capacity until Wednesday,
cetober @, 2003. At that tine, Duane took [Edien] to
Nawail. “I believe that they plan to stay in Hawaii for
three. (3) weeks and then go co Panana where Duane has
Feridence.

©. "Duane plans to keep (Edith) in Panama.

31 Daring the tine 1 nae Ms. Carisnith’s primary hene
caregiver, i witnessed numerous instances of Duane keeping his
mother isolates from other family nenbers[-)

8. Duane went #0 far as to hook the telephone up to the
computer eo that only he could answer the oF make telephone calls
fron the residence. No one was allowed to answer the door, except

  

 

 

 

 

  

in, “th mid september of 2003, one of the other health
caregivers, Beverley, told se that (Edith) had bruises on
her buttocks and upper inner thighs (near her groin). 1
then personally observed these Brus:

32, Ouane canceled [Edith’ s) appointments with her
speech therapist, physical therapist and message (2ic)
therapist. He told his mother in my presence Ne had done
thie ts) until the brotses were gone

 

 

is! “Diane did not take [Edith] to the doctor for her
reatment of the bruises.

ie, “tiaien) cold me three (3) oF four (4) times that
he waz horrified about leaving her residence and moving
Sonawhere

15. “On October 7, [Edith] told me, “I'm very
terrified! They're taking me somewhere T don’t want to go."
‘This occurred while I accompanied Duane and (Edith) in my
automobile to 8 shipping cospany in San Raphael, California.

 

Beverley'’s affidavit provided the following relevant statements:

7. uring the approximately month and a half (sicl
was employes by Dusne 1 cbserved many things
Concerning Duane... snd hie mother that caused me to be
Gneasy and of great concern regarding her enotional and
physical welfare:

 

a
}FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAMAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERS+#

10. on the morning of September 29 or 30, 2003, ae 1
was assisting Baith in going to the toilet, ot that time 1
oticed @ large black and purple Bruise on’ Edith's buttocks.
(2 cannot renenber whieh side-)” The brulae wes
approxinately three inches in diameter. Upon closer
ebservation, T also noticed that the inside of Edith's
thighs, in the groin ares, were red and chaffed. I had
never noticed brsising oF chaffing on sdith’ body before.
Edith had been complaining about frequent and severe muscle
spases in her Legs at this tine

 

 

13. “Thesday, September 30, 2003, 1 overheard Duane
talking Gn the telephone. Duane’ sald, “I think we're going
to leave in a couple of days. Tomorrow we go to the bank
and get $4000 or $40,000. I do not know who he was talking
fo, “T'teld Linda abit this on Wednessay morning, October 1,
2003. She told ne that Ouane was taking Edith to Haweii and
then to Panana (by ship) sonetine in the futu

14. ""Approxinately|) two weeks ago, Ousne renoved the
telephone fron Eaith’s bedroos.” when she asked about where
the phone was, Duane told ner he had taken it out so that
ether menbers of the family wouldn't bother her. Edith told
tne that she id not want eo go to Mawsi'l, But Lt was anat
Mas best for her. Edith sppesred to be very emotionally
Upset over having to leave her house.

 

 

As Cynthia contends, “the above-discussed affidavits
satisfied the standard set forth in [HFCR] Rule 65(b).” The

@ possibility. that Edith was

 

affidavits suggest that there wi
receiving improper care from Duane, and that Duane would take
Edith to Panama against her will, Given the possibility of
irreparable injury, the court cannot be faulted for determining

that immediate relief was appropriate.”

 

 _vitimately, assuming, arguendo, adaission of br. Blanchet te’s
first letter was error, it was hazmless error because it was supported by the
doctor's subsequent February 23, 2004 affidavit with the second Letter and CY
appended. As her second letter states, she has “been an expert in Alzheimer's
Gisease and other forms of dementia for the past 20 years. [She] hes done
Fesearch and published in peer review Journals on this copie, iene) de
considered a national expert on the subject and has been sffirmed es an expert
incompetence in both federal and state coure.” Dr. Blanchette’s cv indicates
‘she attensed medical ‘school at Dartmouth University , did 2 two year
fellowship in geriatric medicine at Harvard University, and she is currently &
Professor and Chair of the Department of Geriatric Medicine at the John A.
Burns School of Medicine at the University of Hawai't and wes the founding
Girector of the Geriatric Medicine program st the University of Hawai'i
Regarding the errcneous adnission of evidence by 3 trial court,
this court has said that “the error is not to be viewed in isolation and
Consiseres purely in the abstract. It must be examined in the Light of the
entire proceedings and given the effect which the whole record shows it tobe
(cont inuea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“4
‘POR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ § AKA'S REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*#*
Hence, HECR Rule 65(b) being satisfied, sufficient

 

evidence existed to support the issuance of the TRO, and, thus,
the court did not abuse its discretion on this matter.
vit.

In their point of error no. 3, Respondents contend that
the appointment of a TGAL should have been terminated following
Edith’s appearance before the court on October 28, 2003, when she
denied the allegations of the guardianship petition. In support
of this contention, Respondents rely on the holding of the
Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii in Kalanianaole vi
Lilivokalani, 23 Haw. 457, 468-70 (1916), which states as

follows:

‘the law presunes all persons to be of sound mind, and
if adults, capable of managing their own affairs and the
ere fact that it is alleged oy @ person styling himself
ext friend, that a particular individual, who 18 an adult,
TS"oe weak or unsound sing, and not capable of taking care!
of his own affairs, does not destroy that presunption. But
Where the action is brought in the name of the person
Nieged to be of weak or unsound mind, by his next friend,
Ggelnse parties having an interest in'the subject-matter, st
{3"to be presuned, in the absence of anything appearing to
the contraey, that whatever consent such person is capable
Of giving £0 the bringing of the action has been obtained:
Gne’that at 4s in fact his auity for it is really an his
Rime; and that he has obtained the consent of a friend, as
tthe most. competent person by whom he wishes his case to be
Ednducted, ih order that his rights may be the bert
protected

 

 

 

‘hig suits chat he" {s competent 19 take cazeof nis own
aifaics: that the supposed friend isin fect an
jth he hat isthe pave?

) Doubtless an ex parte allegation of insanity or
me na trae Bould warrant a cours
‘anoosnting a ext telend or quardian ad Litem Sot such

ig ry

(continued)

entitied.* “State v, Machado, 109 Hawai" 445, 452, 127 €.34 981, 948 (2006).
aus, sieved in ight of the doctor's subsequent affidavit ang GV, error if

Iny in the adniesion of the first letter waa harmless error.

 

45
 

/+FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST! § HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER®

 

tment, the laced
‘Sourta-dental of such incomestence. nor would ib iustity
fiitinart tn continuing an appointment sreviously eade aster
‘Guci_denial hes been intersosed, exceot upon _adiudication of
f rr Te ould

resent an Intoleranle situation that & party iitigant
Should be represented by a next friend or a guardian ad

Iivem on the eneory that he is incompetent, and also by an .
attorney of his own selection on the theory that he is

Sinpecent, each representative filing inconsistent. pleadings

and insisting on conducting the caso as he should deem best.

Open principle there would seen to be no room for the theory

that the trial Judge has the discretion to decide the issue

fas to the party's competency in connection with the merits

Of the case for the question would not down (sic) as to

Which of the reptesentatives shovld be allowed to frane the

USsuee and conduct the case oF discontinue it

 

 

 

A-person Of throvah a representative of bis ow choice, and
She be in fact incompetent his only representative snculc
fecthe aneointes of the courk.

(Emphases added.) (Citation and internal quotation ‘marks
omitted.) Respondents argue that instead of terminating the
appointment of a TGAL, the court reauthorized a TGAL in its
November 26, 2003 order.”

Kalanianaole is distinguishable and mist be viewed in
context. Kalanianaole does not stand for the proposition that in
all cases where the individual denies his or her incapacity, the
appointment of a TGAL should end. in Kalanianaole, the
petitioner questioned the mental competency of Queen Liliuokalani
(the Queen) before the trial court and alleged, in purported
behalf of the Queen, that two of the respondents conspired and

exercised undue influence over the Queen causing her to execute a

 

* the Novenber 26, 2003 order instructed Luria to continue in the
capacity of TGAL for Baith. That order provided that Edith may return to her
home in California or travel to another location in the United states if she
Informs the TGAL of her itinerary, address, and telephone number beforehand.
Te also authorized the TGAL to, inter alia, (1) “arrange for appropriat
access for family senbers to (Edith,|"" (2) arrange for an IME, (3) provide
list of proposed examining physicians able to perform the IME, and (4) have:
Continued access to Edith, “ner meaical providers and caretakers(,) and such
Fecorde and documents #9 shall be necessary to perform his duties as (TGAL].”

 

 

 

46
 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAMAL'E REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*®*
——

deed of trust which named the two respondents, among others, as
beneficiaries. 23 Haw. at 458-59. The petitioner sought the
annulment of the deed and all related instruments, and requested
that the trustees be ordered to reconvey and deliver the subject
property to the Queen. Id. at 458. The Queen, through counsel,
moved to dismiss petitioner’s claim on the ground that the
petitioner's complaint was filed without her authority, consent

or knowledge. Id.

 

The trial court denied the Queen’s motion to dismi
and reasoned that it regarded the Queen's affidavit in support of
her motion to dismiss as an objection to the designation of the
petitioner as her next of friend. Jd. at 459, The court
appointed an attorney as next of friend for the Queen in place of
petitioner. Id. Subsequently, the Queen filed an’ affidavit
asserting her capacity, accompanied by a notice to petitioner's
counsel that she would be requesting @ hearing to determine the
issue of her competency. Id, at 459-60. Later, the Queen filed
‘an “Objection and Protest” against further proceedings until
after her competency had been judicially determined. Id, at 460-
61. However, the trial court ruled that it would not decide the
issue of the Queen’s competency as a preliminary matter but would
do so in relation to the other issues brought before it. Id. at
461.

on appeal, the issue presented before the Territorial

 

Supreme Court, among others, was whether it was proper for the

trial court to adjudicate the merits of the case prior to a

0
 

sevfoR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAL'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
determination of the Queen’s mental competency. Id, at 468. The
Territorial Supreme Court held that “when in any case the alleged
Ancompetency. is denied by the alleged incompetent the court must.
hear and determine the issue in Limine and before further steps
be taken in the cause.” Id, at 470. It explained the effect of
the trial court’s error as follows:

Here, the error was exphasized by the fact that the circuit

SSage, while expresely declining to make a finding as to the

Goeen’s"present status or condition, permitted the guardian

2e'licen, uno could have standing in Eourt only in case the

Gueen be sn fact. sncorpetent, to file an answer and cros

EGii"averring her incepacity, the legal effect of which was
fo supplant her former assertion of competency.

 

 

Ide

‘hus, as Cynthia contends in her answering brief,
Kalanianaole disapproved of the trial court permitting the GAL to
take legal action on the Queen's behalf before it determined that
she was not competent to proceed on her own, “In this case, the
purpose of the guardianship proceeding was to determine whether

ath care

 

Edith was competent to make decisions regarding her h

and other matters affecting her. Following the October 28, 2003

 

hearing, the court determined that an IME was required to be
performed, and in the interim, the continuance of a TGAL wai
necessary.

not aid Respondents’ caus

   

Therefore, Kalanianole do
Kalanaianole stands for the proposition that when an allegedly
incapacitated person denies his or her incapacity, then the issue
of copacity must be resolved prior to a determination on the

merits. In fact, the court’s decision to appoint a TGAL and

48
8 HAWAT'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*+*

 

FOR PUBLICATION IN WE

 

ar_e—~<~<>SEOT OS
order an IME is consistent with Kalanianaole in that the court
did not proceed to finally adjudicate the issue of whether
guardianship of Edith should be established. Instead, the court
ordered that the matter of Edith's capacity be resolved prior to
any determination regarding whether the guardianship matter
should proceed.

The court's decision to retain @ TGAL while the issue
of Edith's capacity renains undecided is also supported by HRS
§ 560:5-303(b) (1993) which provides in pertinent part that
“fulpon the filing of the petition, the family court shall set a
date for hearing on the issues of incapacity and, if at any tine
in the proceeding, the court determines that the interests of the
allegedly incapacitated person are or may be inadequately
represented, it shall appoint a guardian ad liten.”

As earlier mentioned, HRS chapter 560 “shall be
Liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purpose

and policies.” HRS § 560:1-102, “The court has full power to

 

make orders, judgments, and decrees and take all other action

necessary and proper to administer justice in the matters which

 

come before it.” HRS § 560:1-302(b). In that light, we hold
that the court did not err in maintaining the appointment of the
TGAL in view of the allegations of potential abuse and undue

influence, as part of its continuing duty to protect the interest

of Edith before the issues of her capacity are resolved.

49
‘+*FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REFORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER*##

vinr.

We next address Respondents’ point of error no. 6, and

their objections to the following findings and conclusions issued
fon Decenber 22, 2005, which we reiterate here:

A. EINDINGS oF pact

5.7. . (edsth's counsel) stated that (edith! hae
received a Copy'of the TAO and represented to the {cloure
that he had read the (glvardianship petition and TRO te
teaienl.

3.” ‘on october 2%, 2003, . . . [Cynthia's counsel]
served file-narked copies of the (Guardianship Petition],
TRO Motion, and Ex Parte Petitions to Shorten Tine upon
(Duane). ¢" through... [Edien's counsel.

iz. | At about the time thet she was released fron
Queen's iiospital, (Edith) was oriented to her name only
[eaitn} aid! not know where she was, nor could she recall the

day, date, oF tine.
13." “n‘er about Noverber 24, 2003, Duane and (Edith)

went to Penana Sn viclation of the TRO.

B.
I. ““This court has jurisdiction to hear the

[guardianship petition!

5.” "[Baith) violated the TRO entered on October 24,
2003 by leaving for Panana prior to completion of an IME.
ia ‘sted (Edith) in violating the TRO. (Edith) and
Duane viclates the First and Second Ime Orders.

10. Based on the violations of the [ejourt's
lolrders of october 24, 2003, and Noveaber 26, 2003, and the
nonconplisnce with IME’ orders, [Edith] and Duane were
precluded from presenting evidence of (Edith]"s c

11. “Based on the evidence that was before the
Iclourt, ‘the (clourt finds (Edith it) incapacitated and in
need ofa guardian to provide ner continuing care.

 

   

sey.

   

In sum, we cannot discern any error on the part of the court with
respect to the challenged findings and conclusions. We further
note that, in light of the circumstances regarding the issuance
of these findings and conclusions, and consistent with HFCR Rule
37(b) (2) (A), see supra note 2, the court was empowered to enter
“[aJn order that the matters regarding which the order was nade

or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established,”

50
‘s++FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

where a party fails to comply with an order.
AL

With respect to the court's December 22, 2008 finding
no. 5, Respondents identified in the record where Edith objected
to this finding but offered no argument as to why this was in
error. As we have previously stated, “this court is not
obligated to sift through the voluminous record to verify an
appellant's inadequately documented contentions.” Lanai Co. v
and Use Con'n, 105 Hawai'i 296, 309 n.31, 97 P.3d 372, 385 n.31
(2004); see also Mivanoto v. Lum, 104 Hawai'i 2, 11 n.14, 84 P.3d
509, 519 n.14 (2004) (explaining that an appellate court is not
required to sift through the voluminous record for documentation
of a party's contentions). Accordingly, we need not reach this

contention.

5

With respect to finding no. 9, Respondents simply state
that they “find no proof of service in the record.” As discussed
supra however, Respondents waived the defenses of lack of service
or insufficient service. Hence, any error as to the lack of
proof of service has been likewise waived.

c.

Finding ne. 12 4s also not clearly erroneous.
Respondents contend that “no substantial evidence supports the
finding” that “(a]t about the time she was released from Queen's

Hospital, [Edith] did not know where she was, nor could she

51
 

‘++fOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER®*#

recall the day, dete, or tine.” However, Respondents proffer no
arguments beyond that contention. We note, however, that the
court's finding is supported by the affidavits and medical
records. To reiterate, Edith’s medical records include a
progress report dated November 13, 2003, or a day prior to
Edith’s discharge, it was reported that Edith’s condition was
“AsOx1.” Dr. Blanchette explained in her second letter that this
meant Edith was “alert oriented only to person, place, or time.”
(Emphasis in original.)

In that same letter, Dr. Blanchette assessed that,
based on her review of Edith’s medical records, “(t]his record
provides strong evidence of a physically frail, mentally
incapacitated person whose ‘baseline’ is seriously impaired to
the point that she simply knows who she is, does not recognize
others even when informed of who they are, and is not oriented to
day, date, month, or year.” Hence, substantial evidence exists
to support the court’s finding no. 12, and therefore, the court
did not clearly err in determining Edith “did not know where she
was, nor could she recall the day, date, or time.”

D.

Similarly, the court did not err in finding no. 13 that
“fo}n or about November 24, 2003, Duane and [Edith] went to Panama
in violation of the TRO.” In connection with this argument,
Respondents also claim that conclusion no. 9, determining that

Edith and Duane violated the TRO, was in error. According to

52
seepon PUBLICATION JN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*#*
EE
Respondents, “Edith and Duane raised the issue that the TRO was

void, and therefore was not violated.” As earlier determined,
Respondents’ contentions regarding the validity of the TRO are
unpersuasive. Accordingly, the court's finding no. 13 and
conclusion no. 9 need not be disturbed.
BE
Respondents clain that conclusion no. 1 is incorrect,
but provide no arguments in this respect. However, as earlier
discussed, Respondents’ arguments relating to the court's
jurisdiction, either over the persons of Edith and Duane or with
respect to the issuance of a 780 in relation to a guardianship
petition, are not tenable. Therefore, conclusion no. 1 is not
wrong.
Fr
With respect to the court's conclusion no. 10, no
arguments are presented. Therefore, Respondents waived error in
this respect. See HRAP Rule 26(b) (7) (2006) (“Points not argued
may be deemed vaived.”)
s.
With respect to the court's conclusion no. 11, that
“{bJased on the evidence that was before the (clout, the {clourt
finds [Edith is] incapacitated and in need of @ guardian to
provide for her continuing care(,]" we hold that no reversible
error is present. Respondents argue that “no substantial evidence

supports the [cJourt’s finding that Edith is ‘incapacitated and in

53
‘++F0R PUBLICATION IN MEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERY*#

need of a guardian.’" As earlier discussed, the court entered its
December 22, 2005 findings, conclusions, and order in response to
cynthia’s motion for attorney’s fees and sanctions against Edith
and Duane, Although the parties presented evidence with respect
to Edith’s capacity, the issue of Edith’s capacity has not been
finally decided.

The court is empowered to enter, as a sanction against a
party who fails to comply with a discovery order, “[a]n order that
the matters regarding which the order was made or any other
designated facts shall be taken to be established.” HFCR Rule
37(b) (2) (A). Respondents do retain the opportunity to rebut the
court’s interim ruling that Edith is incapacitated. In fact, the
court's December 22, 2005 order permits such opportunity by
ordering that “Duane . . . and Edith . . . [be] precluded from
presenting evidence to establish [Edith]’s alleged capacity until.
sucha tine as she aubsits to an [IMEL.” (Emphasis added.)

We recognize that, on its face, the court's conclusion
may be read as indicating that the matter of Edith’s capacity has
been fully adjudicated. However, in light of the court’s order
allowing Duane and Edith to establish Edith’s capacity following
her submission to an IME, this is not the case. Hence, to the

extent that conclusion no. 11 was made as part of the order

 

nctioning Respondents for failing to comply with the IME

 

orders, and in light of the court’s authority to enter “[ajn

order that the matters regarding which the order was made or any

54
se+FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER**#
ee
other designated facts shall be taken to be established” under

HFCR Rule 37(b)(2)(A), the court did not err.
rm.

Finally, with respect to Respondents’ objection to the
court’s November 26, 2003 finding no. 4 that Edith “was served
with the (guardianship petition] through her Hawaii
attorney’s[,]” Respondents offer no argument in support of this
contention. However, it appears that Respondents are reiterating
their objections to the manner in which Edith was served. As
earlier indicated, supra, Respondents have waived their
objections for insufficiency of service by failing to raise
objections regarding service in a timely manner or by motion
pursuant to HFCR Rule 12, Hence, no clear error exists with
respect to the court's November 26, 2003 finding no. 4

x.

Accordingly, we affirm the court’s September 26, 2005
order granting in part and denying in part Cynthia’s motion for
attorney's fees and sanctions and its September 26, 2005
judgment, and remand thie case to the court for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

on the briefs: Gop
Be Pierce

Michael Jay Green and
Howard Glickstein for

Respondent Appellant a
La, CA carey AN

Edith M. Carlsmith.

men: Bully fa
5s
 

‘**FOR PUBLICATION 38 WEST'S HAMAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTERS*+

Stuart M. Cowen for
Respondent Appellant
Carl Duane Carlsmith.

Jeffrey S. Portnoy,
Rhonda L. Griswold, and
Allison M. Mizuo (Cades
Schutte, LLP), for
Petitioner-Appellee
Cynthia Carlsmith Crespi.

Russell Suzuki and Adine
Kobayashi Cunningham, Deputy
Attorneys General, for

amicus curiae State of Hawai'i,

 

 

56