Title: Kawamae v. Lee

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

glo

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION *** =a = = 7

zz OS =

No. 24314 por :

Be 2 €
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWATG|”
aos

JOYCE KAWAMAE and REID KAWAMAE, Plaintiffs-Appellees

vs.
EUN JOO LEE, Defendant-Appellant
and
JOHN DOES 1-20, JANE DOES 1-10, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, DOE

PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, DOES 1-10, DOE ENTITIES 1-10, and DOE
GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-10, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(CIV. NO. 99-4403)

(By: Moon, C.J, Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)
Defendant-appellant Eun Joo Lee (“Lee”) appeals from
the Aprit 30, 2001 judgment of the circuit court of the first
cireuit, the Honorable Virginia Lea Crandall presiding, granting
in part plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and imposing
constructive trust on $783,801.57 (plus accrued interest) in life

insurance proceeds of Ronald Kawamae (“Ronald”) (deceased) in

favor of plaintiffs Joyce Kawamae (“Joyce”) and Reid Kawamae
("Reid"), Ronald’s first wife and their son, which funds had been

paid to Lee as Ronald’s beneficiary. The court determined that
Ronald was legally obligated to retain the plaintiffs as
beneficiaries of certain life insurance policies pursuant to a

property settlement agreement (PSA) incorporated in the 1979

decree granting Joyce a divorce from Ronald and awarding her
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
custody of Reid. Lee argues that the court misconstrued the PSA.
Specifically, Lee argues: (1) that Ronald and Joyce intended
that the beneficial interest Joyce and Reid (“appellees”) enjoyed
in Ronald's life insurance would revert to Ronald when Ronald was
no longer obligated to pay child support; (2) that the appellees’
interest in Ronald’s life insurance, if any, should be valued as
of the time of the divorce, at which time the PSA described the
value of the specified policy as approximately $120,000; and (3)
that the court erred in awarding to the appellees the proceeds of
a travel accident insurance policy. Lee also argues that the
court's summary resolution of the dispute was inappropriate
because the intent of the parties to the arguably ambiguous PSA
is @ question of fact. The appellees argue: (1) that the court
did not err in construing the PSA; and (2) that the court did not
err in summarily resolving the dispute because there was no
genuine issue of material fact.

Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we hold that: (1)
with respect to the first two issues raised by the appellant,
the trial court did not clearly err in construing the PSA; (2)
the trial court did not clearly err in its finding with respect

to the travel accident insurance policy; and (3) the trial court
‘*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
did not err in granting the appellees’ motion for summary
judgment. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment from which the
appeal is taken is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, March 9, 2006.

on the briefs:

Louis K. Wai and David
Allan Feller for the
defendant-appellant
Eun Joo Lee

 

Darvin L.D. Ching, for
the plaintitfs-appellees

Joyce and Reid Kawamae S— <