Opinion ID: 2630997
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: insufficient information to approve the Special Master's report

Text: Hawaii Ventures contends that the circuit court could not properly evaluate the Special Master's conclusion [b]ased on the lack of record supporting his report. Therefore, Hawaii Ventures believes that the circuit court abused its discretion in approving the report without a detailed record. As indicated above, the supplemental order instructed the parties, including Receiver Park to deliver to the Special Master their position statements and responses to position statements, with supporting documentation and legal authority[.] Thus, Hawaii Ventures was given an opportunity to address all of its concerns relating to the final report and submit any information it wished the Special Master to consider. The Special Master indicated that he reviewed (1) the final report and the orders (such as the appointment order) issued by the circuit court that might concern Receiver Park's authority and duties in managing the Hotel and (2) the parties' position statements and respective responses thereto. The Special Master further stated that he met and/or telephonically communicated with the participating parties and requested additional information from them. With the assistance of Horwath Kam & Company, the Special Master used the information he obtained from the parties and expanded upon the Receiver's final report. Attached to his report were (1) the statement of assets, liabilities and estate's equity and related statements of income and cash flows for the period of August 25, 2000 to June 30, 2001 (compiled by the Receiver's professionals), (2) a supplemental schedule for assets and liabilities as of August 24, 2000, and (3) a supplemental schedule for cash and liabilities as of June 30, 2001. Moreover, as illustrated above, the Special Master provided explanations for his recommendations  which explanations took into account the authority and power vested upon Receiver Park via her appointment order. Therefore, the Special Master had sufficient information to properly review the Receiver's final report. Nevertheless, Hawaii Ventures argues that the Special Master was not provided with sufficient information, but does not explain what documents or other information, if any, were not submitted to or were not considered by the Special Master. Lanai Co. v. Land Use Comm'n, 105 Hawai`i 296, 309 n. 31, 97 P.3d 372, 385 n. 31 (2004) (This court is not obligated to sift through the voluminous record to verify an appellant's inadequately documented contentions. (Citations omitted.)). In support of its position, Hawaii Ventures relies on two cases  Campbell v. Campbell, 198 Kan. 181, 422 P.2d 932 (1967), and Childs v. Sammons, 271 Ga. 161, 516 S.E.2d 779 (1999)  for the proposition that conclusory findings made by the special master are alone insufficient. However, such is not the case here. As demonstrated above, the Special Master provided an explanation for each of his recommendations. Indeed, lacking from Hawaii Ventures' opening briefs is any showing  other than its bald assertion  that the Special Master did not have adequate information to form his opinions as set forth in his report. Accordingly, without more, Hawaii Ventures' contention regarding insufficient information is unavailing.