Opinion ID: 2584878
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The probate master's new findings violated the law of the case doctrine and exceeded the scope of this court's remand order.

Text: The probate master erred when she deemed this case completely open again. The case did not return to her as a blank slate. Rather, only fee issues remained. In Wolff v. Arctic Bowl, Inc. we explained that [t]he doctrine of the law of the case prohibits the reconsideration of issues which have been adjudicated in a previous appeal in the same case. Even issues not explicitly discussed in the first appellate opinion, but directly involved with or necessarily inhering in the decision will be considered the law of the case.[ [15] ] The law of the case is both a doctrine of economy and of obedience to the judicial hierarchy. [16] The doctrine applies to all previously litigated issues unless there are exceptional circumstances presenting a clear error constituting manifest injustice. [17] Before the first appeal in this case, in early 2002, the master held a two-day hearing considering Martin's removal petition. All of the factual topics now raised on appeal were litigated at that hearing. The master found that Dieringer had loaned money from the estate to a business that he held an interest in, that Dieringer had demanded that he be allowed to buy the Summit Lake property at a price $8,000 below a third party's offer, and that Dieringer and his wife claimed that the insurance proceeds belonged to them personally and asserted that they had simply loaned the proceeds to the estate. These factual findings involved issues that were central to Martin's removal petition. Dieringer now argues that there is new evidence suggesting that this court's conclusions regarding the self-dealing loan, the Summit Lake property, and the insurance proceeds are wrong. He argues that the newly developed testimony demonstrates that he had reasonable grounds to defend against Martin's challenges, suggesting that he defended in good faith. He does not explain his apparent failure to present this evidence at the initial hearing. The probate master, in her new recommendation, likewise did not explain why this evidence was not adduced at the original hearing. In the absence of any such explanation, there are no exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the law of the case doctrine. [18] The probate master's acceptance of testimony contradicting the conclusions reached in our prior opinion was mistaken. Moreover, the probate master ignored the scope of this court's remand order when she allowed a hearing covering issues that spanned the history of the estate. Our prior decision was clear. We concluded the opinion by stating, [f]or the foregoing reasons, we . . . REMAND this case for reconsideration of attorney's fees and fees of the personal representative in light of the conclusions expressed herein. [19] The conclusions referred to were that Dieringer had committed breaches of fiduciary duties and acts of bad faith. [20] We did not remand for reconsideration of these conclusions. Rather, given these conclusions, the court was directed to reconsider the fee awards. [21] The superior court, in its decision rejecting the probate master's recommendation, properly recognized the scope of the remand.