Court Opinion

ID: 9531901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:15:50.050686+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:37.185321
License: Public Domain

AC OB A, Judge,
dissenting.
I disagree with the majority’s analysis and conclusion.
Confusion reigns in this ease because the probate court incorrectly deferred jurisdietion over a probate asset in favor of the family court.
I believe that this case should be resolved on the basis of the inherent subject matter jurisdictions of the probate and family courts and the exercise of comity between them. I would, therefore, remand the case for disposition in the probate court.
I.
A.
The probate court had initial subject matter jurisdiction over the Co-PRs and the Lohilani property (the property). The family court’s command that Dionicio convey the remainder interest in the property to the children of his first marriage was part of the divorce judgment; that judgment was enforceable in the probate court, as any other judgment would be.1 Accordingly, there was no need to refer the matter to the family court.
Despite its apparent jurisdiction, the probate court noted “probable jurisdiction” in the family court to enforce the terms of the divorce decree. On that basis, the probate court denied Felieitas’s motion to remove the Co-PRs, or in the alternative, to require that the Co-PRs list the property in the decedent’s estate, when it should have retained control over the case and exercised its own jurisdiction.
B.
For its part, the family court should have deferred jurisdiction over enforcement of the divorce decree to the probate court.
The family court was aware that probate proceedings had commenced and that the purpose of the family court action was to substitute the Co-PRs for Dionicio and to have them convey the property to the Five Children. But, as the parties acknowledged in oral argument, this substitution was, in fact, an empty gesture. The Co-PRs, in what may have been an attempt to keep the property from Felieitas’s reach in the pro*436bate court, had not listed the property as a probate asset—a duty they were legally obligated to perform under the probate code. See Hawai'i Revised Statutes § 560:3-706 (1993).2
Thus, even if the family court obtained personal jurisdiction over the Co-PRs, the Co-PRs could convey nothing. As Co-PRs, they could only convey probate property, and because of their non-feasance or misfeasance, the property had not been included in Dioni-cio’s probate estate.
Because the Co-PRs had nothing to convey, the family court had nothing upon which to act. At that point, the family court should have granted Felicitas’s motion for reconsideration of the order granting substitution and referred the case back to the probate court as a matter of comity.
If the case were returned to the probate court, the order requiring the Co-PRs to list the property as part of the probate estate and the enforcement of Dionicio’s obligation would flow naturally and logically from the probate court’s appointment of the Co-PRs and its plenary control over the probate estate.
C.
The majority opinion, however, requires dual disposition of the case and a continuation of dual jurisdiction over the same probate asset.
Under the majority’s ruling, the probate case is remanded to the probate court with an order to list the property as part of the probate estate and with a proviso that the property be listed as subject to the “encumbrance” of the divorce decree’s order requiring conveyance to the Five Children.3
Concurrently, according to the majority, the family court case is remanded to the family court. On remand, the family court is instructed to enforce the divorce decree order requiring Dionicio to convey his remainder interest to the Five Children by substituting the Co-PRs in Dionicio’s place and ordering the Co-PRs to comply with the divorce decree.4
D.
With all due respect, I believe the majority approach in this case and in future cases invites confusion, inter-court conflict, “forum shopping,”5 and undue expense and delay to the parties.
In a somewhat similar situation, it was said that concurrent judicial disposition of the same issue is disfavored because it “would be wasteful of court time and energy. It would involve the hazard of confusing or unseemly discord between two courts ... concerning essentially the same controversy. [And][i]t *437would encourage the practice of ‘forum shopping,’ which is inimical to sound judicial administration.” Jordan v. Hamada, 64 Haw. 446, 448, 643 P.2d 70, 72 (1982) (quoting Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 253 F.2d 536, 541 (9th Cir.1958)).
This case was subject to primary disposition in the probate court and should have been disposed of there. Allowing the matter to be maintained in the family court compounds the expense and delay engendered by the shunting of probate matters between two courts and the “hazard” of confusion and conflict in the ultimate disposition of the probate asset. I see no valid reason for promoting the unnecessary dual disposition of the issues raised before us or to signal the approval of this approach in future cases.
Act 288 (1996), which was recently enacted to amend Hawaii’s Uniform Probate Code, supports the approach laid out in this dissent. The Act makes provision for the comprehensive disposition of decedents’ estates in the probate court. Under the amended version of the law, the probate court would have “exclusive jurisdiction” of formal proceedings to determine how decedents’ estates are to be “administered, expended, and distributed.” The probate court also would have “concurrent jurisdiction of any other action or proceeding concerning a succession or to which an estate, through a personal representative, may be a party....”6 In my opinion, the Act only makes explicit what is already implicitly required in any reasonable accommodation of tasks and responsibilities between the probate court and other courts.
Granting the probate court “exclusive jurisdiction” over the administration and distribution of decedents’ estates and “concurrent jurisdiction” over “any other action” in which an estate may be a party is an indication that the law expressly seeks to include within the probate court’s jurisdiction, matters obviously relating to and having an impact on the administration and disposition of the probate estate. ■
Act 288 (1996) adopts verbatim § 3-105 of the Uniform Probate Code (UPC). According to the Comment to § 3-105 of the UPC, “[t]he important point is that the [probate] court, ... should have unlimited power to hear and finally dispose of all matters relevant to determination of the extent of the decedent’s estate and of the claims against it.”7 Uniform Probate Code (U.L.A.) § 3-105 cmt. at 228 (1993). Under the instant facts, this case would fall within the “concurrent jurisdiction” of the probate court as set forth in the amended probate code.
II.
As a final matter, I believe this court should not have reached the question of whether the denial of a motion to remove a personal representative is an appealable collateral order.
After considerable discussion, the majority opinion holds that the probate court’s denial of Felicitas’s motion for removal of a personal representative is not an appealable collateral order. However, it is concluded, without discussion or citation to legal authority, that appellate consideration of this case is based on “a probate court’s decision that a parcel of real property is not a part of the decedent’s estate.”
*438If the majority rests appellate jurisdiction on the appealability of a failure to list a probate asset in the estate inventory, it is unnecessary to decide that the denial of a motion to. remove a personal representative is not an appealable collateral order. I would leave that issue to another time.
Injustice and great hardship may be prevented by appellate review of a challenged personal representative appointment; See In re Estate of Georgiana, 312 Pa.Super. 339, 458 A.2d 989 (1983) (holding that “an order denying a petition for removal of an executor is a final order proper for appellate review” because “[where the executor is an individual], deferral of review may mean that the assets of the estate will be dissipated or destroyed in the interim), aff'd, 504 Pa. 510, 475 A.2d 744 (1984); see also Collins v. Miller, 198 F.2d 948, 950-51 (D.C.Cir.1952) (holding district court’s order dismissing petition for removal of administrator was a final and appealable order because it finally disposed of the appellant’s claimed right to remove the administrators and “clothed them with authority to complete the administration[,]” and because it would be too late to review the order upon final distribution of the estate, when the appellant’s right to prompt and proper administration of the estate would “be lost, probably irreparably”).
While a personal representative who acts improperly may be personally liable, this would be a hollow remedy where the personal representative becomes insolvent or financially unstable, or where the remedy is long delayed because the administration of the estate is substantially completed before an appeal may be taken.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.

. In light of the fact that the divorce decree was an enforceable judgment, the majority opinion’s extensive discussion concerning contracts between spouses appears unnecessary.

. Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 560:3-706 (1993) provides that "a personal representative ... shall prepare and file ... an inventory of property owned by the decedent at the time of the decedent’s death, listing it with reasonable detail and indicating as to each listed item, its fair market value as of the date of the decedent’s death, if known with reasonable accuracy, and the type and amount of any encumbrance that may exist with reference to any item.”

. I question whether a requirement in a divorce decree to convey a remainder interest in land to third parties is the type of “encumbrance” contemplated by HRS § 560:3-706, supra. See HRS § 560:3-814 (enumerated examples of encumbrances on estate assets include mortgage, pledge, lien, or other secured interest).

. The majority opinion states that "[ujnless Feli-citas was afforded the opportunity to stop the family court from ordering the Co-PRs to comply with the Divorce Decree, her claim (as an omitted spouse) and her son's claim (as a pretermit-ted child) to the Lohilani property may have been impaired or impeded.”
Although the majority concludes that Felicitas had the right to intervene in the divorce proceedings under Hawai'i Family Court Rules Rule 24(a) and that the family court erred in denying Felicitas's motion to intervene, it effectively bars Felicitas from intervening on remand by holding, in advance of the family court hearing, that the trial court’s denial of her motion was "harmless etTor.”

.It appears from the record that in a January 29, 1992 letter to the probate court, the Co-PRs' attorney stated that Antonette was planning to pursue disposition of the property in the family court. The Co-PRs counsel requested that "the matter regarding the real property ... be determined by the Family Court” rather than the probate court. Less than one month later, Anto-nette filed her motion in family court to substitute the Co-PRs appointed by the probate court in place of Dionicio.

. Act 288 (1996) will take effect on January 1, 1997. As amended by Act 288, HRS § 560:3-105 will state in relevant part as follows:

Proceedings affecting devolution and administration; jurisdiction of subject matter.

[[Image here]]
The court has exclusive jurisdiction of formal proceedings to determine how decedents' estates, subject to the laws of this State, are to be administered, expended, and distributed. The court has concurrent jurisdiction of any other action or proceeding concerning a succession or to which an estate, through a personal representative, may be a party, including actions to determine title to properly alleged to belong to the estate, and of any action or proceeding in which property distributed by a personal representative or its value is sought to be subjected to rights of creditors or successors of the decedent.

. The Judicial Council Committee on Uniform Probate Code (UPC) and Probate Court Practices considered Articles 1-4 of the 1993 UPC as suitable for introduction in toto. Testimony of Carroll S. Taylor on H.B. 3637 to the House Committee on Judiciary (Feb. 23, 1996). The Judicial Council Committee did not recommend any changes to § 3-105 of the UPC.