The Estate of Elizabeth Shapiro Gilmore

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
05-JUN-2025
08:02 AM
Dkt. 51 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

THE ESTATE OF ELIZABETH SHAPIRO GILMORE
also known as Alana Gilmore and Betsy Cole, Deceased.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 2CLP-XX-XXXXXXX(1))

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)

Petitioner-Appellant Samantha S. Cole appeals from the

Circuit Court of the Second Circuit's 1 (probate court)

October 18, 2022 Judgment in favor of Respondent-Appellee

Amanda P. Cole and several orders. 2

1 The Honorable Kirstin M. Hamman presided. The circuit court was
sitting in probate and is thus subsequently referred to as the probate court.
See Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 603-21.6 (2016) (indicating circuit
courts have the power to appoint and remove personal representatives, compel
personal representatives "to account in all respects for the discharge of
their official duties[,]" and "[d]o all other things as provided in
chapter 560").

2 Samantha appeals from the following orders: October 13, 2022 Order
Granting Amanda's "Petition for Order Terminating [Samantha] as Personal
Representative and Dismissing Probate Action" (Order Dismissing Probate

(continued . . .)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

In 1968, twins Samantha and Amanda were born to

Elizabeth Shapiro Gilmore (Decedent) and her first husband in

Boston, Massachusetts. Decedent divorced her first husband in

1978, and married Donald D. Gilmore in 1985.

In 1997, Decedent was diagnosed with terminal cancer

and decided to move to Maui. On November 20, 2005, Decedent

died intestate in Kīhei, Maui.

According to Samantha, between Decedent's death and

early December 2005, she and Amanda discussed their "joint

desire to obtain and maintain [Decedent]'s photographs,

portraits, paintings, graphic designs, and other personal

property, and" decided to "proceed with obtaining D. Gilmore's

interest in the Decedent's personal property in exchange for"

their interest in Decedent's individual retirement account.

According to Amanda, she, Donald, and Samantha,

gathered in Decedent and Donald's home and divided up Decedent's

personal belongings "amicably and by agreement." "With Donald

Gilmore's permission, Amanda and Samantha divided certain

personal property belonging to their mother . . . , namely her

(. . . continued)

Action); January 31, 2022 "Order Denying [Samantha]'s Petition/Non-Hearing
Motion for Reconsideration"; and September 9, 2021 "Order Denying
[Samantha]'s Petition to Compel [Amanda] to Return Personal Property and
Distribution of Estate[.]"

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

paintings and her photographs. By agreement . . . , Samantha

took the paintings and Amanda took the photographs."

Both Amanda and Samantha submitted statements from

Donald indicating he agreed with their decision to split

Decedent's artwork and photographs.

For the next fourteen years, Samantha possessed the

paintings and Amanda possessed the photographs.

In 2019, Donald assigned Amanda all rights, title, and

interest in Decedent's photographs and negatives, including

copyright(s) to those images. About a year later, Donald

assigned his portion of any copyright to Decedent's works

(including "archive of creations and artwork, photographs,

negatives, contact sheets, documents and writings of all sorts,

including her journals") to Amanda.

In 2020, Samantha petitioned the probate court for

adjudication of intestacy and to appoint her personal

representative of Decedent's estate, which the court granted.

Ultimately, the probate court found that Decedent's personal

belongings, including the paintings and photographs, were

distributed in 2005 and, thus, were not part of Decedent's

estate. The probate court terminated Samantha as personal

representative and dismissed the probate action.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On appeal, Samantha challenges her dismissal as

personal representative of Decedent's estate. 3 Amanda challenges

Samantha's standing to bring this appeal.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to

the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve the

points of error as discussed below, and affirm.

(1) We first address Amanda's contention that the

appeal should be dismissed because "Samantha lacks standing to

bring this appeal as the Personal Representative of the

Decedent[.]" Amanda argues "[t]he termination of appointment of

a personal representative terminates the personal

representative's authority to represent the estate in any

pending or future proceeding[,]" following Hawai‘i Revised

Statutes (HRS) § 560:3-608 (2018).

HRS § 560:3-608 provides in pertinent part:

Termination ends the right and power pertaining to the
office of personal representative as conferred by this
chapter or any will, except that a personal representative,
at any time prior to distribution or until restrained or

3 Samantha also challenges the probate court's denial of her petition
to compel immediate return of Decedent's personal belongings. Based on our
decision, we need not reach this issue.

We note that Samantha's opening brief fails to comply in material
respects with Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b). To promote
access to justice, we nonetheless consider Samantha's appeal. See Marvin v.
Pflueger, 127 Hawai‘i 490, 496, 280 P.3d 88, 94 (2012) (mentioning " court's
policy of hearing cases on the merits where possible"); cf. generally Erum v.
Llego, 147 Hawaiʻi 368, 380-81, 391, 465 P.3d 815, 827-28, 838 (2020) (noting
court's policy of liberally interpreting pleadings of pro se litigants "in
order to promote access to justice").

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

enjoined by court order, may perform acts necessary to
protect the estate and may deliver the assets to a
successor representative.

. . . .

Termination does not affect the jurisdiction of the court
over the personal representative, but terminates the
personal representative's authority to represent the estate
in any pending or future proceeding.

(Formatting altered.) In Hawai‘i, standing is prudential rather

than jurisdictional. Tax Found. of Hawai‘i v. State, 144 Hawai‘i

175, 188, 439 P.3d 127, 140 (2019).

Though it appears Hawai‘i has not determined whether a

terminated personal representative can appeal an order removing

them as personal representative of an estate, other

jurisdictions allow a terminated personal representative to

appeal a probate or trial court's order terminating them as

personal representative. See, e.g., In re Est. of Unke, 583

N.W.2d 145, 146, 150 (S.D. 1998); In re Est. of Anderson-Feeley,

174 P.3d 512, 512, 513 (Mont. 2007); but see Simon v. Simon, 957

N.E.2d 980, 988 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (once removed, personal

representative cannot "prosecute an appeal of the removal

order").

We agree with those jurisdictions. To hold otherwise

would render the order terminating Samantha as personal

representative unreviewable.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(2) We now turn to Samantha's contention that the

probate court abused its discretion in terminating her as

personal representative of Decedent's estate.

In terminating Samantha as personal representative,

the probate court determined "equity does not support a

redivision of the Decedent's property" and cited HRS § 560:3-

108(a)(5) (2018). 4 (Formatting altered.)

HRS § 560:3-108(a)(5) indicated a "formal testacy

proceeding" may begin more than five years after a decedent's

death if in the court's discretion it is equitable to distribute

property of the decedent's estate:

A formal testacy proceeding may be commenced at any
time after five years from the decedent's death if, in the
discretion of the court it would be equitable to do so, for
the purpose of establishing an instrument to direct or
control the ownership of property passing or distributable
after the decedent's death from one other than the decedent
when the property is to be appointed by the terms of the
decedent's will or is to pass or be distributed as a part
of the decedent's estate or its transfer is otherwise to be
controlled by the terms of the decedent's will.

(Formatting altered, emphases added.) "'Testacy proceeding'

means a proceeding to establish a will or determine intestacy."

HRS § 560:1-201 (2018).

Here, the probate court found Decedent's personal

belongings were distributed in 2005 and were no longer part of

4 The probate court cited "HRS § 560:3-108(5)" in the Order Dismissing
Probate Action, but there is no such sub-section in HRS § 560:3-108.
Rather, HRS § 560:3-108(a)(5) discusses the five-year commencement period the
probate court referred to in the Order Dismissing Probate Action.

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the estate. The probate court further found that "equity does

not support a redivision of the Decedent's property[.]" As a

result, the probate court determined it was "no longer equitable

or necessary that Samantha act as Personal Representative."

Because the probate court considered the parties'

filings and examined HRS § 560:3-108(a)(5) in the context of the

facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot say the court

abused its discretion in determining that equity did not require

redivision of Decedent's belongings seventeen years later.

Samantha argues the probate court collaterally

attacked its August 10, 2020 order granting her petition for

adjudication of intestacy and appointing her personal

representative when it entered its Order Granting Amanda's

"Petition for Order Terminating [Samantha] as Personal

Representative and Dismissing Probate Action" (Order Dismissing

Probate Action) and removed her as personal representative.

"A collateral attack is an attempt to impeach a

judgment or decree in a proceeding not instituted for the

express purpose of annulling, correcting or modifying such

judgment or decree." In re Thomas H. Gentry Revocable Tr., 138

Hawai‘i 158, 168-69, 378 P.3d 874, 884-85 (2016) (citations

omitted). "Appellate courts in Hawai‘i have typically only

applied the collateral attack doctrine in situations in which a

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

second lawsuit has been initiated challenging a judgment or

order obtained from a prior, final proceeding." Id. at 169 n.5,

378 P.3d at 885 n.5.

Here, there was no second lawsuit and, thus, no

collateral attack.

Samantha further maintains the probate court

disregarded e-mails appended to the February 4, 2022 memorandum

in opposition to the petition seeking dismissal of the probate

action and disregarded HRS § 560:3-912 (2018).

But in the Order Dismissing Probate Action, the

probate court noted it "considered Amanda's Petition and Reply,

Samantha's Memorandum in Opposition, and the parties' respective

supporting declarations and exhibits, supplemental submissions,

the records, files and rulings herein, as well as the

representations of counsel" before dismissing the probate action

in its entirety, and the record indicates these filings

referenced HRS § 560:3-912.

Thus, the probate court did not disregard HRS § 560:3-

912 or the e-mails appended to the memorandum in opposition when

it entered its Order Dismissing Probate Action.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the probate court's

October 18, 2022 Judgment; October 13, 2022 Order Dismissing

Probate Action; January 31, 2022 "Order Denying [Samantha]'s

Petition/Non-Hearing Motion for Reconsideration"; and

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

September 9, 2021 "Order Denying [Samantha]'s Petition to Compel

[Amanda] to Return Personal Property and Distribution of

Estate[.]"

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, June 5, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Acting Chief Judge
Ivan L. Van Leer,
for Petitioner-Appellant. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge
Deborah K. Wright,
Douglas R. Wright, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
(Wright & Kirschbraun), Associate Judge
for Respondent-Appellee.

9