Opinion ID: 2584878
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The probate master's new factual findings were clearly erroneous.

Text: Apart from procedural bars to the master's new findings, we agree with the superior court that the probate master's new findings were clearly erroneous. Significantly, in reaching her new factual findings the master provided no reasons for overturning her prior findings. In her new findings, the master briefly mentioned the self-dealing loan, but failed to recognize that Dieringer breached his fiduciary duty by making it. [22] The master found that Dieringer acted properly with regard to the Summit Lake property, but not did explain why her previous findings  including that Dieringer demanded that he be allowed to purchase the property  were mistaken. Likewise the master did not explain her reasons for suggesting that Dieringer merely comment[ed] on the insurance proceeds when her prior findings stated that Dieringer asserted his belie[f] that the proceeds were his. Finally, the master changed her prior calculation of estate representative fees  increasing the amount of money she thought Dieringer was owed  without explaining why she was now adopting hourly rates for Dieringer's work that were greater than the rates she previously used. The master's new findings leave us with a definite and firm conviction that they are mistaken.