Court Opinion

ID: 9631676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:46:12.881132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:58.583911
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION BY
BURNS, J.
The circuit court’s Conclusions of Law 4 and 5 state as follows:
4. At all relevant times herein, Yang and/or Brother’s were never agents for Kim and/or K & K in regards to the Lease.
*5235. At all relevant times herein, Yang and/or Brother’s were never agents for Lee and/or Pak in regards to the Lease.
The majority opinion concludes that “[ijnasmuch as COL Nos. 4 and 5 derive from the facts and circumstances of the parties’ relationship^] reflected in the trial court’s FOFs, we review the challenged COLs under the clearly erroneous standard.” Majority Opinion, 73 Haw. 509,515,836 P.2d 1057,1061 (1992) (citation omitted). I disagree with this conclusion.
It has been observed that:
When a [Hawaii] trial judge addresses a mixed [fact and law] question, any one of three standards of review may apply: no substantial evidence, clearly erroneous, or free review. Which standard applies to a given decision is a function of historical precedent and policy.
* * *
... Hawaii appellate courts have applied the clearly erroneous standard when reviewing judicial findings on mixed but factually-oriented issues....
* * *
... Hawaii courts have held that certain mixed law and fact decisions are freely reviewable if the legal portion of the fact/law mix is erroneous, or if the factual finding is induced by an error of law. .. .
Yoshii, Appellate Standards of Review in Hawaii, 7 U. Haw. L. Rev. 273, 288-90 (1985) (footnotes omitted).
*524Attorney Yoshii has accurately summarized Hawaii’s precedent. He has also accurately noted that “Hawaii appellate courts... have never carefully analyzed their standards of review.” Id. at 285 (footnote omitted). In other words, Hawaii’s precedent on this subject is gobbledygook designed and calculated to avoid the task of distinguishing findings of fact from conclusions of law while validating a desired result. In my view, with respect to appellate standards of review, there are no questions of mixed fact and law. Conclusions of Law 4 and 5 are good examples.
The question of what is an “agency” is a question of law.
Agency is a consensual relationship. The relationship is created only when one person manifests an intention that another shall act in his behalf and the other person consents to represent him. The relationship is most often thought of as being contractual though it is not necessary that the relationship arise out of contract. Since the relationship is not necessarily contractual, consideration is not required for the creation of an agency and the capacity to contract on the part of both parties is not necessary.
H. Reuschlein and W. Gregory, The Law of Agency and Partnership § 12 (2d ed. 1990).
As with all questions of law, the standard of appellate review applicable to the question whether the lower court correctly defined “agency” is the de novo or right/wrong standard.
The question of what are the facts in a particular case is a question of fact. As with all questions of fact in nonjury cases, the applicable standard of appellate review is the clearly erroneous standard.
The question of whether the relevant facts in a particular case constitute “agency” as defined by the law is a question of law reviewed pursuant to the de novo or right/wrong standard of appellate review. It is a question of law because in any given factual *525situation there can be only one right answer. If it was categorized as a question of fact or mixed fact and law reviewable pursuant to the clearly erroneous standard of appellate review, then in any given factual situation two or more contradictory right answers would be permitted.
In all other respects, I concur with the majority opinion.