Opinion ID: 1405642
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Circuit Court Committed An Abuse Of Discretion In Altering The Judgment To Designate Imelda Marcos As Personal Representative Of The Marcos Estate, But Imelda's Own Misconduct Warranted Entry Of Judgment Against Her In Her Personal Capacity To The Extent Of Her Interest In The Marcos Estate.

Text: Imelda urges on appeal that the circuit court erred in granting the plaintiffs-appellees' motion to alter the judgment in order to enter judgment against her as personal representative of the Marcos Estate. She asserts that her stipulated substitution, pursuant to HRCP Rule 25, see supra note 8, as the representative of Defendant Ferdinand Marcos deceased was insufficient to justify the entry of a judgment against the Marcos Estate itself. HRS § 634-61 (1993) provides in pertinent part that [t]he death of a ... defendant ... shall not cause an action to abate, but it may be continued upon substitution of the proper parties as determined by the rules of court [.] [16] (Emphasis added.) HRCP Rule 25(a)(1), see supra note 8, provides for the substitution of the proper parties in the case of the death of an originally named party. The term proper parties is neither defined in the HRS nor in the HRCP. Imelda argues that proper parties, within the meaning of HRCP Rule 25(a)(1), are restricted to legal representatives, i.e., judicially-appointed representatives. Accordingly, Imelda maintains that, inasmuch as she was not a judicially-appointed personal representative, she had no power to bind the Marcos Estate, and the amended judgment against it was, therefore, a nullity. The plaintiffs-appellees counter that: (1) Imelda's argument is precluded by the doctrine of collateral estoppel; (2) HRCP Rule 25(a)(1) allows for substitution of the heirs of a party and not the party's legal representative; and (3) Imelda's stipulation should bind her and this court on the issue of her status as the successor to Ferdinand in the instant litigation. We address the foregoing issues in the order presented by the plaintiffs-appellees.