In re: Ho Irrevocable Trust Dated May 30, 2001

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
19-JUL-2024
08:40 AM
Dkt. 73 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

IN THE MATTER OF THE DONALD T.L. HO
IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED MAY 30, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(TRUST NO. 1TR191000112)

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

This appeal by a self-represented beneficiary
challenges the probate court's order approving the final
accounting and denying the appointment of a special master with
respect to the Donald T.L. Ho Irrevocable Trust dated May 30,
2001 (Trust). We affirm.
Self-represented Joint Beneficiary-Appellant Dorianne
Ho (Dorianne) 1 appeals from the (1) December 12, 2019 "Order

1 Dorianne submitted an Opening Brief and Reply Brief, both signed
only by Dorianne, on behalf of "Joint-Appellant-Beneficiaries" that include
herself, Elizabeth Guevara (Elizabeth), and Dondi Ho (Dondi). The record
reflects that only Dorianne filed the June 1, 2020 Amended Notice of Appeal,
and Elizabeth and Dondi did not appeal. We thus refer to only Dorianne in
this order.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Granting Petition for Approval of Final Accounts, Complete
Settlement of Trust Estate, and Discharge of Successor Co-
Trustees" (Order Granting Approval) and May 4, 2020 Amended
Judgment on this order (Amended Judgment); and (2) April 24,
2020 "Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration Regarding the
Order Granting the Trustees Petition of Final Accounts, Complete
Settlement of Trust Estate, and Discharge of Successor Co-
Trustees; and the Denial for a Special Master Appointment"
(Reconsideration Order) and Judgment on this order, 2 all filed
and entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Probate
Court). 3
On appeal, Dorianne contends the Probate Court erred:
(1) by releasing the co-trustees "without providing and [sic]
accounting of the whole estate"; (2) by allowing co-trustee
Patrick Yim (Co-trustee Yim) to "submit the written Orders and
Judgments under color of law, when he was represented by
attorney Randal Yee"; and (3) by not appointing a Special Master
to investigate Petitioners-Appellees Patrick Yim, Adrienne

2 Dorianne does not present any arguments challenging the
Reconsideration Order, and such challenge is waived. See Hawai‘i Rules of
Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(7) ("Points not argued may be deemed
waived.").

While Dorianne's Amended Notice of Appeal purports to appeal from
the "Final Order and Judgment filed herein on June 1, 2020," the record
reflects that no judgment was entered on June 1, 2020. Dorianne attaches the
following orders and judgments to the Amended Notice of Appeal: (1) the
May 4, 2020 Amended Judgment; (2) the May 4, 2020 minute order regarding the
Amended Judgment; (3) the April 24, 2020 judgment on the Reconsideration
Order; (4) the April 24, 2020 Reconsideration Order; (5) the April 3, 2020
minute order denying reconsideration; (6) the November 25, 2019 minute order
granting the petition to approve; (7) the original December 12, 2019 Judgment
on the Order Granting Approval; and (8) the December 12, 2019 Order Granting
Approval.
3 The Honorable R. Mark Browning presided.

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

Sweeney, and Jace McQuivey, as Successor Co-Trustees of the
Trust (collectively, Appellees). 4
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve
Dorianne's points of error as follows, and affirm.
Jurisdiction
Appellees challenge this court's jurisdiction over an
appeal from the December 12, 2019 Order Granting Approval.
Appellees argue that the June 1, 2020 Amended Notice of Appeal
was not filed within thirty days of the original December 12,
2019 Judgment, and was untimely under HRAP Rule 4(a)(1). 5 We
conclude we have jurisdiction because Dorianne's appeal was
filed within thirty days of the May 4, 2020 Amended Judgment,
which was the operative judgment for the reasons explained
below.
On December 12, 2019, the Probate Court issued the
Order Granting Approval approving Appellees' final accounts,
ordering Appellees to pay reasonable attorney's fees and costs,
terminating Appellees' appointments as successor co-trustees,

4 We have numbered Dorianne's points of error (POEs) and restated
them for clarity. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(4) (requiring POEs to be "set forth in
separately numbered paragraphs"). Dorianne's POEs do not comply with HRAP
Rule 28(b)(4), and do not state "where in the record the alleged error was
objected to or the manner in which the alleged error was brought to the
attention of the court." HRAP Rule 28(b)(4)(iii). The Opening Brief
contains minimal record references, which also impede our review. See HRAP
Rule 28(b)(3) (requiring a concise statement of facts with "record references
supporting each statement of fact or mention of court . . . proceedings").
Nevertheless, we address Dorianne's contentions to the extent they can be
discerned. See Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai‘i 368, 380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-28
(2020) (affording liberal review to pleadings by self-represented parties to
promote access to justice).
5 HRAP Rule 4(a)(1) requires that "the notice of appeal shall be
filed within 30 days after entry of the judgment or appealable order."

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

and discharging Appellees from any further claim or demand of
any interested person. No other petitions were filed in the
underlying case. On the same date, the Probate Court entered
the original December 12, 2019 Judgment, which provided: "there
being no just reason for delay, Judgment is hereby entered
pursuant to Hawaii Probate Rule[s] [(HPR)] [Rule] 34(a) and in
the manner provided by Rule 54(b) of the Hawaii Rules of Civil
Procedure [(HRCP)][,]" 6 and "[t]his judgment is final as to all
persons with respect to all issues concerning the decedent's
trust that the court considered or might have considered
incident to the [Petition] and fully addresses all claims raised
in said Petition." This language in the original Judgment did
not comply with HRCP Rule 54(b).
On December 23, 2019, Dorianne filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, which the Probate Court denied in the April 24,
2020 Reconsideration Order and Judgment.
On May 3, 2020, Dorianne filed a Notice of Appeal from
the April 3, 2020 minute order denying reconsideration and the
April 24, 2020 Judgment on the Reconsideration Order.
On May 4, 2020, the Probate Court issued a minute
order explaining that the original December 12, 2019 Judgment on
the Order Granting Approval "had inadvertently been entered
pursuant to [HPR] Rule 34(a) and in the manner provided by

6 HPR Rule 34 governs appealability of probate court orders, and
provides in subsection (a), entitled "Entry of Judgment," that: "Any other
order that fully addresses all claims raised in a petition to which it
relates, but that does not finally end the proceeding, may be certified for
appeal in the manner provided by Rule 54(b) of the [HRCP]."

HRCP Rule 54(b) provides for the entry of judgment on multiple
claims involving multiple parties, and states: "[T]he court may direct the
entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims
or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason
for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment."

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

[HRCP] Rule 54(b)," when it "should have been entered pursuant
to [HPR] Rule 34(c)." 7 The minute order stated that this error
"shall not affect any appeal already filed" and that an amended
judgment would be entered. The same day, the Probate Court
entered the May 4, 2020 Amended Judgment on the Order Granting
Approval, which stated that it was entered pursuant to HPR
Rule 34(c), and that it "is final as to all persons with respect
to all issues concerning the above-entitled trust and fully
addresses all claims and issues raised or that could have been
raised in this proceeding."
Here, the record reflects that the Probate Court's
original December 12, 2019 Judgment was defective because it was
not certifiable for appeal under HPR Rule 34(a), in the manner
provided by HRCP Rule 54(b). The May 4, 2020 Amended Judgment,
which the Probate Court correctly entered as the operative
"final judgment closing the proceeding" under HPR Rule 34(c), is
an appealable judgment. Because the May 4, 2020 Amended
Judgment cured a jurisdictional defect in the original Judgment,
it "create[d] a right of appeal where one did not exist before,"
and therefore, was not merely the correction of a "clerical
error." Korsak v. Haw. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc., 94 Hawai‘i
297, 304, 12 P.3d 1238, 1245 (2000) (citation omitted). That
the Probate Court stated in its minute order preceding the
Amended Judgment that it "shall not affect any appeal already
filed" does not change the fact that the original Judgment was
jurisdictionally defective, and the Amended Judgment cured the

7 HPR Rule 34(c), entitled "Final Judgment Closing Proceeding,"
provides that: "At the conclusion of the proceeding, a final judgment
closing the proceeding shall be entered and filed with the clerk of the
court, at which time all prior uncertified interlocutory orders shall become
immediately appealable."

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

defect. Under HRAP Rule 4(a)(2), 8 Dorianne's premature appeal,
filed after the Probate Court's December 12, 2019 Order Granting
Approval, but before the entry of the final and appealable
May 4, 2020 Amended Judgment on the Order Granting Approval, is
"considered as filed immediately after" the entry of the May 4,
2020 Amended Judgment, and the appeal is timely. We thus have
jurisdiction to review the December 12, 2019 Order Granting
Approval. 9
(1) Dorianne argues the Order Granting Approval failed
"to provide a timely, accurate accounting to [the]
beneficiaries." Dorianne claims the accounting failed to
provide "a summary explaining the amount and basis of fiduciary
fees" under HPR Rule 26(3); failed to provide "a copy of any
audited report to the beneficiaries in respect [sic] to the
accounting period" under HPR Rule 26(5); and failed to comply
with "generally accepted accounting principles." (Emphasis
omitted.) Dorianne further asserts that "a copy of the
controlling trust documents" was not provided, and complains of
inadequate communication with the beneficiaries. (Emphasis
omitted.)
Dorianne does not indicate where in the record these
objections to the accounting were made, and how they were
preserved for appeal. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(4)(ii) and (iii).
Dorianne does not challenge specific entries in the Appellees'
submissions or explain how her assertions establish a clear

8 HRAP Rule 4(a)(2), entitled "Premature Filing of Appeal,"
provides that: "If a notice of appeal is filed after announcement of a
decision but before entry of the judgment or order, such notice shall be
considered as filed immediately after the time the judgment or order becomes
final for the purpose of appeal."
9 The Probate Court lacked jurisdiction to issue its July 23, 2020
findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the Order Granting
Approval, filed after the initial May 3, 2020 Notice of Appeal.
6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

disregard of law amounting to an abuse of discretion. See HRAP
Rule 28(b)(7) (requiring argument to contain "citations to the
authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on[,]" and
providing that "[p]oints not argued may be deemed waived.");
Aickin v. Ocean View Invs. Co., 84 Hawaiʻi 447, 453, 935 P.2d
992, 998 (1997) ("The relief granted by a court in equity is
discretionary and will not be overturned on review unless the
circuit court abused its discretion by issuing a decision that
clearly exceeds the bounds of reason or disregarded rules or
principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of
the appellant." (cleaned up)); Haw. Ventures, LLC v. Otaka,
114 Hawai‘i 438, 480, 164 P.3d 696, 738 (2007) (finding that the
appellants failed to demonstrate error because they "do not
point to anything in the record or provide any analysis that
would guide th[e] court in determining the validity of their
contention.").
We conclude that the Probate Court did not abuse its
discretion in the Order Granting Approval. See In re Estate of
Gentry, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2014 WL 2180110, (Haw. App. May 23,
2014) (SDO) (applying abuse of discretion standard of review to
the probate court's approval of an accounting).
(2) Dorianne's argument that Co-trustee Yim should not
have submitted any written orders and judgments is difficult to
discern. It appears that Dorianne relies on the Hawaii Revised
Code of Judicial Conduct to claim that attorney Randall Yee, Co-
trustee Yim, and the Probate Court judge acted improperly when:
"[f]rom December 2nd through the 12th, 2019, attorney Randall
Yee corresponded by letter and other collaboration [sic] with
Judge Browning and Successor Co-Trustees, for advice to file the
signed written Order and Judgment." Dorianne also claims that
Co-trustee Yim submitted and filed the Order and Judgment in
7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

dockets 44 and 46, which "gave an appearance of impropriety[.]"
(Emphasis omitted) Dorianne refers to the December 2, 2019
letter attorney Randall Yee sent to the Probate Court judge,
enclosing a proposed order and judgment disposing of the
petition for court approval.
The record reflects that the December 2, 2019 letter
(Rule 23 letter) that Dorianne claims was improper, expressly
referenced Rule 23 of the Rules of the Circuit Courts of the
State of Hawai‘i (RCCH). RCCH Rule 23 outlines the procedures
for the preparation, submission, and settlement if contested, of
orders and judgments. The Rule 23 letter was copied to
Dorianne, and was submitted in compliance with RCCH Rule 23.
The "Notice of Electronic Filing" at dockets 45 and 47, which
correspond to the Order Granting Approval at docket 44 and the
original Judgment at docket 46, were both filed by Attorney
Randall Yee, not Co-trustee Yim. Dorianne's assertions are
inaccurate and lack legal merit.
(3) Dorianne argues that the Probate Court should have
appointed a special master because a "[m]ajority of the
beneficiaries desire an investigation for possible acts of
fraud, stealing, misuse of power, blackmail and other serious
allegations." (Bolding omitted.) Dorianne disagrees with
Appellees' argument "that a Special Master is only for
complicated cases," and that therefore, this case did not
require a Special Master. Dorianne asserts that the appointment
was necessary "due to the complicated nature of the case,
multiple beneficiaries requesting a review, and alleged breaches
and accusations of fraudulent activities." (Bolding omitted.)
Dorianne does not present pertinent legal authority or
provide record references to evidence that supports her
assertions. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(7). Dorianne does not explain
8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

how her assertions establish a clear disregard of law
constituting an abuse of the Probate Court's discretion. See
Aickin, 84 Hawai‘i at 453, 935 P.2d at 998; Haw. Ventures, LLC,
114 Hawai‘i at 480, 164 P.3d at 738.
We conclude the Probate Court did not abuse its
discretion when it declined to appoint a Special Master. See
In re Estate of Damon, 119 Hawai‘i 500, 503, 199 P.3d 89, 92
(2008) (applying abuse of discretion standard of review to the
probate court's appointment of a master).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the
(1) December 12, 2019 "Order Granting Petition for Approval of
Final Accounts, Complete Settlement of Trust Estate, and
Discharge of Successor Co-Trustees"; (2) April 24, 2020 "Order
Denying Motion for Reconsideration Regarding the Order Granting
the Trustees Petition of Final Accounts, Complete Settlement of
Trust Estate, and Discharge of Successor Co-Trustees; and the
Denial for a Special Master Appointment"; (3) April 24, 2020
"Judgment on Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration Regarding
the Order Granting the Trustees Petition of Final Accounts,
Complete Settlement of Trust Estate, and Discharge of Successor
Co-Trustees; and the Denial for a Special Master Appointment";
(4) May 4, 2020 "Amended Judgment on Order Granting Petition for
Approval of Final Accounts, Complete Settlement of Trust Estate,
and Discharge of Successor Co-Trustees"; 10 (5) May 4, 2020
"Minute Order Re Judgment on Order Granting Petition for
Approval of Final Accounts, Complete Settlement of Trust Estate,
and Discharge of Successor Co-Trustee"; (6) April 3, 2020
"Minute Order Re Motion for Reconsideration Regarding the Order
Granting the Trustee Petition of Final Accounts, Complete

10 This Amended Judgment replaced the original December 12, 2019
Judgment that was also attached to the Amended Notice of Appeal.
9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Settlement of Trust Estate, and Discharge of Successor Co-
Trustees; and the Denial for a Special Master Appointment"; and
(7) November 25, 2019 "Minute Order Re Petition for Approval of
Final Accounts, Complete Settlement of Trust Estate, and
Discharge of Successor Co-Trustees (Filed 5/28/2019)," all filed
and entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, July 19, 2024.
On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Dorianne L. Ho
Acting Chief Judge
Self-Represented
Joint Beneficiary-Appellant
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge
Adrian L. Lavarias
for Petitioners-Appellees
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Associate Judge

10