Opinion ID: 2630997
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Receivership

Text: A receivership is equitable in nature and the court's extraordinary broad remedial powers and wide discretion to appoint receivers derive from its inherent powers of equity to fashion relief. In other words, a court of law without equity jurisdiction or statutory authority generally has no power to appoint a receiver. The power is a branch of equity jurisdiction not dependent upon any statute. 65 Am.Jur.2d Receivers § 7 at 658-59 (2001) (footnotes omitted). One of the glories of equity jurisprudence is that it is not bound by the strict rules of the common law, but can mold its decrees to do justice amid all the vicissitudes and intricacies of life. The principles upon which it proceeds are eternal; but their application in a changing world will necessarily change to meet changed situations. Fleming v. Napili Kai, Ltd., 50 Haw. 66, 70, 430 P.2d 316, 319 (1967) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As such, [c]ourts of equity have the power to mold their decrees to conserve the equities of the parties under the circumstances of the case. Honolulu, Ltd. v. Blackwell, 7 Haw.App. 210, 219, 750 P.2d 942, 948 (1988) (citation omitted); Jenkins v. Wise, 58 Haw. 592, 598, 574 P.2d 1337, 1342 (1978) (A court sitting in equity on a foreclosure case has the plenary power to fashion a decree to conform to the equitable requirements of the situation. (Citation omitted.)). It follows that, whether and to what extent relief should be granted rests within the sound discretion of the [circuit] court, id. at 597, 574 P.2d at 1341 (citations omitted), and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of such discretion. In other words, a circuit court's decisions involving its supervision of an equitable receivership are viewed for abuse of discretion. See Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Hardy, 803 F.2d 1034, 1037 (9th Cir.1986). Under this rule, [t]he [circuit] court abuses its discretion if it bases its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. Stated differently, an abuse of discretion occurs where the [circuit] court has clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant. Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. State, 110 Hawai`i 338, 351, 133 P.3d 767, 780 (2006) (citation omitted) (format altered).