Opinion ID: 2630997
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Special Master's Fees

Text: Lastly, Hawaii Ventures contends that additional fees of $35,804.84 to the Special Master and his accountant, Horwath Kam & Company, should not have been paid out of the Estate. [32] According to Hawaii Ventures, [t]here is no basis in law for the Estate to have been singled out to bear all of the charges of the Special Master, which were in fact caused by the breaches of the Receiver and which involved other parties. No benefit flowed to the Estate from this work. . . . The Estate did not in fact ask for the Special Master and strongly objected to the secret record, denial of discovery and process by which his report was prepared. As previously stated, in response to the parties' (particularly, Hawaii Ventures') objections to the August 14, 2001 final report, Receiver Park urged the circuit court to appoint a special master. The record does not indicate that Hawaii Ventures objected to the appointment. On September 21, 2001, the circuit court appointed Matsubara as the Special Master. Thereafter, the circuit court issued its first supplemental order, wherein the court directed that the Special Master's compensation shall be at the rate of $200.00 per hour, together with necessary and reasonable expenses, including the fees and expenses of the Special Master's retained expert(s), to be paid out of the funds of the [r]eceivership Estate.  (Emphasis added.) [33] Again, the record does not reveal that Hawaii Ventures objected to the circuit court's first supplemental order. Nor did Hawaii Ventures file a motion to amend the supplemental order. Hawaii Ventures, therefore, cannot now argue that fees for the Special Master and his consultant should not have been paid from the Estate because the Estate did not benefit from the Special Master's work. Enoka, 109 Hawai`i at 546, 128 P.3d at 859 (issues not preserved at the circuit court level are deemed waived); see also Querubin v. Thronas, 107 Hawai`i 48, 61 n. 5, 109 P.3d 689, 702 n. 5 (2005) (The rule in this jurisdiction prohibits an appellant from complaining for the first time on appeal of error to which he has acquiesced or to which he failed to object. (Internal quotation marks, citations, brackets, and ellipsis omitted.)). [34] The supplemental order explicitly mandated that the Special Master's and his retained accountant's fees and costs be paid out of the Estate. The circuit court, pursuant to the unopposed supplemental order, permitted the fees and costs to be paid from the Estate. Accordingly, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the payment of the Special Master's services out of the funds of the Estate.