Court Opinion

ID: 9613935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:21:04.272517+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:33.322926
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION OF
KIDWELL, J.
While I concur in the conclusions reached in parts II, III and IV of the majority opinion, I disagree with the conclusion in part I and the consequent partial vacation of the judgment. I would modify the judgment by deleting Project Coordinator’s Office, Inc. as a defendant and vacating the award of attorney’s fees, but otherwise would affirm the judgment.
As I understand part I of the opinion, the majority announces the rule that, in an action between joint venturers, if a complex accounting is required the appropriate procedure is that of an accounting in equity before the court rather than a trial to a jury, although the entire case may be tried to a jury if the accounts of the joint venture are not so complex that the respective obligations of the joint venturers are beyond the capacity of the jury to compute and ascertain. Stated abstractly, the rule seems reasonable and I would accept it, although I have some difficulty in tracing its antecedents. Since the separation of law and equity has been abolished and civil actions take a single form, the rule is clearly not jurisdictional although the constitutional right to a jury trial may be involved in the choice of procedures in a particular case. *301Absent the constitutional question, which has not been raised and I do not see as present here, the determination whether the accounts in a particular case are so complex as to be beyond the jury’s capabilities seems to be one which is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. I read the majority opinion as concluding that this discretion was abused in the present case, and I am unable to agree with that conclusion.
In their answer appellants asserted as a defense, and in their counterclaim they asserted as a ground for damages, that appellee had not provided the accounting to which they were entitled. But even if their answer and counterclaim would otherwise have been sufficient to present the procedural question to the trial court, there was nothing in the pleadings to suggest that the accounts were of the degree of complexity which would call for their removal from the jury’s consideration under the rule announced in the majority opinion.
Appellee demanded a jury trial. No objection to proceeding before a jury appears in the record, unless the colloquy referred to in footnote 5 of the majority opinion discloses such an objection. This colloquy occurred at the hearing on the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Appellant’s counsel was then arguing to the trial court that an accounting should have been conducted by the court or a master out of the presence of the jury. The following exchange then occurred:
MR. MAH: No, but the jury is not entitled to have that portion. If this was a question of fact whether this was an accounting, then they may decide that but you have —
THE COURT: Didn’t you make any such motion to have a separate hearing on the accounting? You didn’t bring anything up until the pre-trial conference.
MR. MAH: Yes, that’s the way the statement of record is, yes. That’s when I came into the picture.
THE COURT: I’m not blaming you for it. I’m just saying that after a year passes, you can’t act like it happened yesterday.
*302No transcript of the pretrial conference is in the record. The minutes of that proceeding show that appellants were represented by Daniel Donegan and Stanley Mah, and contain, with respect to the subject of an accounting, only the following entry:
The Court suggested a master in accounts in this case, Mr. Donegan had no objection in using a master, but the expense.
In this state of the record it seems to be entirely speculative whether any motion, much less an adequate one, was made in the pretrial conference for a separate accounting. If a motion of any sort was attempted to be made, it must have been oral and therefore subject to Rule 7(b)(1), H.R.Civ.P.:
7(b) An application to the court for an order shall be by motion which, unless made during a hearing or trial, shall be made in writing, shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought. The requirement of writing is fulfilled if the motion is stated in a written notice of the hearing of the motion.
In Alger v. Hayes, 452 F.2d 841 (8th Cir. 1972), the appellant sought to show by affidavit that an objection to jurisdiction of the person had been made by an oral motion to dismiss at an unrecorded pretrial conference. The appellate court refused to assume that an adequate motion had been made.
Rule 7(b) requires applications for an order to be in writing “unless made during a hearing or trial. ” The type of “hearing” at which there is no need for reducing a motion to writing is one in which the proceedings are recorded. Hammond-Knowlton v. Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co., 26 F. Supp. 292, 293 (D. Conn. 1939); Mitchell v. Public Service Coordinated Transport, 13 F.R.D. 96 (D.N.J. 1952). The rule is explained in In re J. & M. Doyle Co., 130 F.2d 340, 341 (3 Cir. 1942): “If no written motion is filed ... it is apparent that within a very brief time neither the adverse parties nor the court will be able to tell what took place.” Judge Goodrich added in Raughley v. Pennsylvania R.R., 230 F.2d 387, 391 (3 Cir. 1956):
*303“In the conduct of any organization which has many things to do, some form of system is required lest everything become so botched that the business cannot be done. This applies to the running of an army, a mercantile establishment or a court. We think rule 7(b)(1) is to be taken as meaning what it says.”
Clearly the dictates of Rule 7(b) apply in a situation such as this where a party applies under Rule 12(d) for a determination of a pleaded jurisdictional defense in an unrecorded pretrial conference. The effect of noncompliance here is that this court is unable to determine either from the pleadings or the initial proceedings, whether the defense was properly raised. 452 F.2d at 843-44.
Even if the hurdle of Rule 7(b)(1) is surmounted, there is nothing to indicate that the trial court was made acquainted with the complexity of the accounting evidence which was to be submitted to the jury until the evidence was actually received. Without a showing of complexity, the rule which the majority has announced would not have entitled appellants to the withdrawal of the accounting evidence from the jury’s consideration. I think it would be asking far too much of the trial court to require it to have observed the evidence as it unfolded and at some point during the trial to have acted sua sponte to terminate the trial and refer the accounts to a master or conduct an accounting proceeding before the court. The question was not adequately presented to the trial court until after the jury verdict. If it was not error for the trial court to have failed to take the accounts from the jury before the verdict, it cannot be error for the trial court to have refused to do so after the verdict. In Lindeman v. Raynor, 43 Haw. 299 (1959), where similarly no objection was made to the conduct of the trial before the jury rendered its verdict, we said:
Rule 46 of the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure requires a party to make known to the trial court his objections to its actions and the grounds therefor. Actions of the court as to which no objections have been interposed *304are not subject to appellate review .... Plaintiff saw fit to speculate on the chances of a favorable verdict. Having done so, he must abide by the consequences. 43 Haw. at 301.
Accordingly, I am unable to join in the majority’s conclusion that appellant’s objection to the trial court’s conduct of the proceedings is before us on this appeal. The majority opinion possibly may also be read as premised upon this court’s independent consideration of the evidence and its determination that the verdict is so glaringly unsupported by the evidence as to reflect plain error. However, although the motion for a directed verdict was coupled with a motion for a new trial, the ground that the verdict was not supported by the evidence was not asserted before the trial court independently of the claim to an accounting. Neither has insufficiency of the evidence been raised as a point in this appeal. Such omissions would ordinarily preclude consideration of the sufficiency of the evidence by this court. Miller v. Leadership Housing Systems, Inc., 57 Haw. 321, 555 P.2d 864 (1976). Moreover, this court has regularly refused to search the record to determine the sufficiency of evidence to support a finding of fact, and has placed the burden upon the party seeking to overthrow the finding to demonstrate its insufficiency. Associated Engineers & Contractors v. State, 58 Haw. 187, 215, 567 P.2d 397, 415 (1977). I see no reason to depart from these salutary rules in this case.