Title: Phoenix UPVC Building Supply, Inc. v. Yamada

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

Law LIBRARY

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
No. 24586

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
PHOENIX UPVC BUILDING SUPPLY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant

STEPHEN K. YAMADA, Defendant-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. NO. 98-2181) :

  

  

‘SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER 5
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, and Duffy, “JJ.
and Circuit Judge Wilson, in place of Acoba, J., recused)

Plaintiff-appellant Phoenix UPVC Building Supply, Inc.
(Phoenix) appeals from the September 13, 2001 post-Jjudgment order
of the circuit court of the first circuit, the Honorable
Victoria S. Marks presiding, denying Phoenix’s motion for the
appointment of a receiver to assist in collecting a judgment
against defendant-appellee Stephen K. Yamada (Yamada). On
appeal, Phoenix argues that the circuit court erred in denying
its request for the appointment of a receiver based on cost and
lack of authority to grant the motion.

Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted and having given due consideration to the issues raised
and arguments advanced, we hold that the circuit court's
jurisdiction to appoint a receiver rested on Phoenix alleging and
Proving, by specific evidence, that Yamada’s attorneys’ fees were
in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured after
attorney Joseph Gleason took over Yanada’s cases. See Qvama v..
Stuart, 22 Haw. 693, 698-699 (Hawai'i Terr. 1915). See also
Cohen v. Herbert, 186 Cal. App. 2d 488, 495, 8 Cal. Rptr. 922,
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

926-927 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1960). Inasmuch as Phoenix did not
present any evidence establishing that Yamada’s accrued
attorneys’ fees were in danger of neglect, waste or misconduct,
or educate the circuit court as to its exact value, we cannot say
that the circuit court “clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or
disregarded rules or principles of law or practice” to the
substantial detriment of Phoenix when it denied Phoenix’s motion
to appoint a receiver “based on the cost of using the receiver
procedure and a lack of authority to grant this motion.” See The
cal. Feed wv. bs co. , 10 Haw.
208, 212 (Hawai'i Rep. 1896); Amfac. ve W hi
Inv. Cou, 74 Haw. 85, 114, 839 P.2d 10, 26 (1992). Therefore,
HP 18 HEREBY ORDERED that the circuit court's
September 13, 2001 post-judgent order, from which the appeal is
taken, is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 20, 2005.

on the briefs: WT aaa

Arnold T. Phillips I :
for plaintiff-appellant SCG
Phoenix UPVC Building

Supply, Ine. Niele uals orbs
stephen K. Yamada,

defendant-appellee, Yan «Basen he

pro se, no answering