Opinion ID: 2584878
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Superior Court Properly Rejected the Probate Master's New Findings and Recommendation.

Text: Dieringer challenges the superior court's rejection of the probate master's new factual findings. He also challenges the superior court's refusal to increase his fee award on remand. Because the probate master disregarded the law of the case doctrine, adopted an untenable interpretation of the scope of this court's remand order, and issued new factual findings that were clearly erroneous, we conclude that the superior court properly rejected the probate master's factual findings.
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.
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.