In re: Guardianship and Conservatorship of Stanley M. Zedalis, an Incapacitated Person

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
16-AUG-2023
07:56 AM
Dkt. 69 SO

NOS. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

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

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP AND CONSERVATORSHIP OF
STANLEY M. ZEDALIS, AN INCAPACITATED PERSON

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(CG NO. 13-1-0003)

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE MATTER OF STANLEY M. AND MARTHA B. ZEDALIS
LIVING TRUST DATED JUNE 24, 2004

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(TR NO. 14-1-00020)

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

This consolidated appeal1 arises out of disputes among
the nine children of Stanley M. Zedalis (Zedalis) and Martha B.
Zedalis (Martha) (collectively, the parents) following the death

1
On October 18, 2019, we consolidated the appeal from the trust
petition in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX (Trust appeal), with the appeal from the
conservatorship petition in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX (Conservatorship appeal).

All orders and judgments at issue in this consolidated appeal were
entered by the Third Circuit Court sitting in probate (Probate Court).
Honorable Henry T. Nakamoto entered the judgments and orders denying the
motions for reconsideration in both appeals. Honorable Glenn S. Hara entered
the orders deciding the conservatorship and trustee petitions in both appeals.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

of Martha in 2012, regarding the guardianship and conservatorship
of Zedalis, who died in 2013, and concerning who should serve as
successor trustee of the parents' trust (Zedalis Trust).
The Conservatorship appeal was filed by self-
represented Petitioner-Appellant Lillian J. Zedalis (Lillian),
Zedalis's daughter, who served as temporary guardian and
conservator of Zedalis. Lillian appeals from the (1) May 13,
2016 "Decision and Order and Decree as to Conservator's Petitions
for Discharge and for Approval of Accounts Filed on May 2, 2014,
and Also on August 24, 2015" (Conservatorship Petition Order);
(2) June 27, 2017 Amended Final Judgment (Amended Conservatorship
Judgment); and (3) December 22, 2017 "Court Order Denying
Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and Relief From Amended
Judgment Entered June 27, 2017, and to Reopen Matter, Make New
Findings of Fact and Amend Its Judgment, and Motion for Leave to
File an Interlocutory Appeal, Filed on July 14, 2017"
(Conservatorship Reconsideration Order). On appeal, Lillian
raises multiple points of error, 2 challenging the May 13, 2016
Conservatorship Petition Order on grounds that the Probate Court
erred by: determining that there was a "budget overage, breach
of duty, and surcharge"; finding Lillian made wrongful transfers
from the trust; ordering Lillian to personally pay the guardian
ad litem's fees "as punishment" for the trust transfers; and
failing to issue a written order of assignment and to order an
evidentiary hearing for this "contested accounting matter" under
Hawai i Probate Rules (HPR) Rules 19 and 20.3 While it is not
raised as a point of error, Lillian also argues the Probate Court
erred in denying Lillian's motion for reconsideration, which

2
Lillian's points of error have been restated and consolidated for
clarity.
3
HPR Rule 19 defines what is a "contested matter." HPR Rule 20,
entitled "Disposition of Contested Matters," allows the probate court to
retain a contested matter or to assign it to the circuit court civil trials
calendar; the rule also provides guidelines for such assignment
determinations.

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

"point[ed] out the Court's errors" and requested "the Court to
re-open the matter to fix the errors." 4
The Trust appeal was filed by Lillian and her sister,
self-represented Petitioner-Appellant Maryann Jolin (Maryann).
Lillian and Maryann appeal from the (1) June 23, 2016 "Amended
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order (1) Denying
Petition to Confirm [Lillian] and [Maryann] as Co-Trustees of the
[Zedalis Trust] Dated June 24, 2004, and (2) Confirming
Respondent-Appellee William P. Zedalis as Successor Trustee Said
[sic] Trust" (Amended Trust Petition Order); (2) June 14, 2017
Final Judgment (Trust Judgment); and (3) December 22, 2017 "Order
Denying Motion for Reconsideration, and Relief, and to Make New
Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Filed June 26, 2017 and Motion
for Leave to File an Interlocutory Appeal, Filed July 13, 2017"
(Trust Reconsideration Order).5 On appeal, Lillian and Maryann
6
raise multiple points of error, on various legal and evidentiary
grounds, challenging the Probate Court's June 23, 2016 Trust
Petition Order. They contend that the Probate Court erred by
removing Lillian and Maryann as trustees and replacing them with
Zedalis's son, William P. Zedalis (William), as successor

4
While Lillian appeals from the Conservatorship Reconsideration
Order, Lillian does not specifically challenge this order in her points of
error, yet presents argument regarding the Probate Court's denial of her
motions for reconsideration. See Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP)
Rules 28(b)(4) (requiring statement of each alleged error committed by the
lower court in the points of error section); 28(b)(7) (requiring argument on
each point presented). Despite noncompliance with HRAP Rule 28, in view of
the policy of deciding cases on their merits, we nevertheless address
Lillian's argument to the extent we can discern it. See Marvin v. Pflueger,
127 Hawai i 490, 496, 280 P.3d 88, 94 (2012) (addressing cases on their merits
despite noncompliance with HRAP Rule 28, "where the remaining sections of the
brief provide the necessary information to identify the party's argument");
Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai i 368, 380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020) (liberally
interpreting pleadings by self-represented parties to promote access to
justice despite noncompliance with court rules).
5
No argument regarding the December 22, 2107 Trust Reconsideration
Order is presented in the Opening Brief, and we do not address this order.
See HRAP Rule 28(b)(7) ("Points not argued may be deemed waived.").
6
Lillian and Maryann's points of error have been restated and
consolidated for clarity.

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

trustee; and by failing to order a contested evidentiary hearing
or issue an order of assignment under HPR Rules 19 and 20,
because there were genuine issues of material fact.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs 7
submitted by Lillian and Maryann, we dismiss in part and affirm
in part.
Conservatorship proceedings
On April 15, 2013, Lillian filed a petition for
appointment of a guardian and conservator of Zedalis
(conservatorship petition) based on the allegation that he was
incapacitated, and proposing Lillian and Maryann as co-
conservators.
Marcia B. Zedalis Maire (Marcia), another one of
Zedalis's daughters, filed an objection.
On June 18, 2013, the Probate Court entered an order
appointing Lillian as the temporary guardian and conservator of
Zedalis, and appointed attorney G. Kay Iopa as the Guardian Ad
Litem (GAL) for Zedalis.
On September 6, 2013, the Probate Court entered an
order appointing Lillian as the permanent guardian and
conservator of Zedalis, and appointing the GAL long term for
Zedalis.
On April 1, 2014, the Probate Court entered an order
discharging the GAL and awarding the GAL her fees.
On April 7, 2014, Marcia and William filed a joint
petition for an order requiring Lillian to provide an accounting
of the funds and assets she controlled as conservator.
On May 2, 2014, Lillian filed a petition for discharge
as conservator and for approval of the final accounting. Marcia
and William filed an objection on June 6, 2014.

7
In both appeals, only Opening Briefs were filed; there were no
Answering Briefs.

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

Following an August 19, 2015 hearing, the Probate Court
terminated the conservatorship and guardianship but retained
jurisdiction to address the disputed accounting, and ordered
Lillian to file a supplemental accounting.
On August 24, 2015, Lillian filed her supplemental
accounting and a motion to approve it.
On May 9, 2016, Lillian filed a motion to discharge
herself as the guardian and conservator of Zedalis, and for
approval of the final accounting.
On May 13, 2016, the Probate Court entered the
Conservatorship Petition Order pertinent to this appeal, granting
Lillian's petition to discharge Lillian as guardian and
conservator, but also surcharging Lillian for breaches of her
fiduciary duty, and ordering Lillian to pay, in her individual
capacity, the GAL's fees of $4,095.28, and $659.05 for
expenditures in excess of the budget.
On May 23, 2016, Lillian filed a "Motion for
Reconsideration of the [Conservatorship Petition Order]" (first
motion for reconsideration or relief), which was denied by order
filed May 30, 2017.
On June 13, 2016, Lillian filed a "Motion for Recusal
of Judge Glenn S. Hara and for Relief from [Conservatorship
Petition Order]" (second motion for reconsideration or relief),
denied by order filed November 28, 2016.
On July 14, 2016, Lillian filed a "Motion for Relief
from [Conservatorship Petition Order]" (third motion for
reconsideration or relief), for which the record contains no
disposition.
On March 31, 2017, Lillian filed a Notice of Hearing on
a "Motion for Relief of Judgment and Surcharge From
[Conservatorship Petition Order]" (fourth motion for

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

reconsideration or relief),8 which was denied by order filed May
30, 2017.
On May 30, 2017, the Probate Court entered judgment
(Initial Conservatorship Judgment) pursuant to the May 13, 2016
Conservatorship Petition Order.
On June 27, 2017, the Probate Court entered the Amended
Conservatorship Judgment pertaining to this appeal, containing
the certification "no just reason for delay" pursuant to Hawai i
Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 54(b).9
On July 6, 2017, Lillian filed a "Motion for
Reconsideration and Relief from 'Amended Final Judgment' Entered
June 27, 2017 and to Reopen this Matter, Make New Findings and
Amend its Judgment" (fifth motion for reconsideration or relief),
which was denied by the December 22, 2017 Conservatorship
Reconsideration Order pertinent to this appeal.
On January 18, 2018, Lillian Zedalis filed a notice of
appeal creating the Conservatorship appeal.
Trust proceedings
On December 30, 2014, Lillian and Maryann filed a
petition in the underlying trust case, requesting the Probate
Court to confirm them as co-trustees of the Zedalis Trust.
William filed an objection.
On May 13, 2016, the Probate Court entered an order
denying Lillian and Maryann's petition and confirming William as
trustee of the Zedalis Trust.
On June 23, 2016, the Probate Court entered the amended
Trust Petition Order pertinent to this appeal, containing the
additional finding of "no just reason for delay" pursuant to HRCP

8
While the notice of hearing for the motion was filed, it appears
that the underlying motion was not filed. This fourth motion for
reconsideration or relief was heard on May 25, 2017 by the Honorable Harry P.
Freitas.
9
HRCP Rule 54(b) permits the entry of a final judgment upon fewer
than all claims or parties where a court determines that "there is no just
reason for delay . . . ."

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

Rule 54(b). The Probate Court also entered a June 23, 2016
judgment in favor of William and against Lillian and Maryann.
On July 22, 2016, Lillian and Maryann filed a notice of
appeal from the June 23, 2016 judgment, which became
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX. On May 31, 2017, this court dismissed the
appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
On June 14, 2017, the Probate Court entered the amended
Trust Judgment pertinent to this appeal, containing the
certification pursuant to HRCP Rule 54(b), in favor of William
and against Lillian and Maryann.
On June 26, 2017, Lillian and Maryann filed a motion
for reconsideration of the June 14, 2017 Trust Judgment, which
was denied by the Probate Court's December 22, 2017 Trust
Reconsideration Order pertinent to this appeal.
On January 18, 2018, Lillian and Maryann filed a notice
of appeal creating the Trust appeal.
We lack appellate jurisdiction over the petition orders
and judgments in both the Conservatorship appeal and
the Trust appeal.

In appeals from civil cases, "the notice of appeal
shall be filed within 30 days after entry of the judgment or
appealable order." HRAP Rule 4(a)(1).
With the exception of the challenged denial of the
motion for reconsideration, Lillian's points of error in the
Conservatorship appeal all challenge the May 13, 2016
Conservatorship Petition Order. This order became appealable
upon entry of the initial May 30, 2017 Conservatorship
Judgment.10 Lillian's January 18, 2018 notice of appeal,
however, was not timely filed within thirty days after entry of
the initial May 30, 2017 Conservatorship Judgment. Because the
Conservatorship appeal was not timely filed, we lack jurisdiction

10
The Amended Conservatorship Judgment, from which Lillian appeals,
was entered on June 27, 2017.

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

over Lillian's appeal from the May 13, 2016 Conservatorship
Petition Order and the June 27, 2017 Amended Conservatorship
Judgment. See HRAP Rule 4(a)(1).
In the Trust appeal, Lillian and Maryann's points of
error all challenge the June 23, 2016 Trust Petition Order. This
order became appealable upon entry of the June 14, 2017 Trust
Judgment. Lillian and Maryann's January 18, 2018 notice of
appeal, however, was not timely filed within thirty days after
entry of the June 14, 2017 Trust Judgment. Because the Trust
appeal was not timely filed, we lack jurisdiction over Lillian
and Maryann's appeal from the June 23, 2016 Amended Trust
Petition Order and the June 14, 2017 Trust Judgment. See id.
The post-judgment reconsideration motions did not toll
the deadline for appeal.

Relevant to the Conservatorship appeal, following the
May 30, 2017 Initial Conservatorship Judgment and the June 27,
2017 Amended Conservatorship Judgment, Lillian filed the fifth
motion for reconsideration or relief as a post-judgment motion on
July 6, 2017. In the Trust appeal, following the entry of the
June 14, 2017 Trust Judgment, Lillian and Maryann filed a post-
judgment motion for reconsideration on June 26, 2017. For the
reasons explained below, these post-judgment motions for
reconsideration filed as to both the Initial Conservatorship
Judgment and the Trust Judgment did not extend the thirty-day
time period to appeal.
A timely post-judgment motion invokes the tolling
provision in HRAP Rule 4(a)(3) if the court rule authorizing the
motion specifies the time by which the motion must be filed:
(3) Time to appeal affected by post-judgment
motions. If any party files a timely motion for
judgment as a matter of law, to amend findings or make
additional findings, for a new trial, to reconsider,
alter or amend the judgment or order, or for
attorney's fees or costs, and court or agency rules
specify the time by which the motion shall be filed,
then the time for filing the notice of appeal is

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

extended for all parties until 30 days after entry of
an order disposing of the motion.

(Emphases added.) Here, the court rules applicable to the
conservatorship and trust proceedings are the HPR. See HPR Rule
11
1; HPR Rule 20. Thus, if the HPR specify the "time by which
the motion [for reconsideration] shall be filed," then the
deadline to file a notice of appeal is extended until thirty days
after entry of the order disposing of the motion filed, under
HRAP Rule 4(a)(3). See Nakaoka v. Shizuru, 151 Hawai i 510, 514,
517 P.3d 793, 797 (App. 2022) (holding that because the pertinent
rule, HRCP Rule 54(d)(1)12 "does not specify the time by which a
motion for costs must be filed as measured from the entry of
judgment, a post-judgment motion for costs under HRCP Rule
54(d)(1) does not qualify as a tolling motion under HRAP Rule
4(a)(3)").

11
HPR Rule 1 provides: "These rules govern the procedure in the
circuit courts of the State of Hawai i in all probate, conservatorship,
guardianship, trust, legal representation for no fault benefits, and
determination of death proceedings . . . ." Moreover, the Probate Court
clearly retained the contested matter in probate court and did not designate
that the HRCP would apply. See HPR Rule 20(a) and (d) ("(a) Assignment. The
court by written order may retain a contested matter on the regular probate
calendar or may assign the contested matter to the civil trials calendar of
the circuit court. . . . (d) Procedures in Retained Contested Matters.
Whenever the court retains jurisdiction of a contested matter as a probate
proceeding, the court in the order of assignment may, at the request of the
parties, designate and order that any one or more of the [HRCP] and/or the
Rules of the Circuit Courts shall be applicable in such matter.").
12
HRCP Rule 54(d)(1), which provides for an award of costs to the
prevailing party, does not specify a deadline by which a motion for costs must
be filed. The rule states:

(1) Costs Other Than Attorneys' Fees. Except when express
provision therefor is made either in a statute or in these
rules, costs shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing
party unless the court otherwise directs; but costs against
the State or a county, or an officer or agency of the State
or a county, shall be imposed only to the extent permitted
by law. Costs may be taxed by the clerk on 48 hours' notice.
On motion served within 5 days thereafter, the action of the
clerk may be reviewed by the court.

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Under the HPR, a post-judgment motion for
reconsideration is governed by HPR Rule 36(b), 13 which does not
"specify the time by which the motion shall be filed[.]" HRAP
Rule 4(a)(3). HPR Rule 36(b) provides that a "petition" for
relief "from an order or judgment" may be filed "within a
reasonable time," as follows:
Rule 36. RELIEF FROM ORDER.

. . . .

(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect;
Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, Etc. Upon petition
and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve
an interested person from an order or judgment for the
following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence which by due
diligence could not have been discovered in time
before the order was issued;

(3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated
intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other
misconduct of an adverse party;

(4) the order is void;

(5) the order has been satisfied, released, or
discharged, or a prior order upon which it is based
has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no
longer equitable that the order should have
prospective application; or

(6) any other reason justifying relief from the
operation of the order. The petition shall be made
within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2),
and (3) not more than one year after the order or
proceeding was entered or taken. A petition under
this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of
an order or suspend its operation.

13
Subsection (a) of HPR Rule 36 pertains to "[c]lerical mistakes"
and is not pertinent to this appeal.

10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(Emphasis added.) Thus, unlike HRCP Rule 59, 14 which provides
that post-judgment motions under the HRCP for a new trial or to
alter or amend judgment must be filed within ten days after entry
of judgment, HPR Rule 36(b) does not contain a set deadline for
motions, as measured from the entry of judgment. See Nakaoka,
151 Hawai i at 514, 517 P.3d at 797. HPR Rule 36(b) requires

14
HRCP Rule 59 states:

Rule 59. NEW TRIALS; AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENTS.

(a) Grounds. A new trial may be granted to all
or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues
(1) in an action in which there has been a trial by
jury, for any of the reasons for which new trials have
heretofore been granted in actions at law in the courts
of the State; and (2) in an action tried without a jury,
for any of the reasons for which rehearings have
heretofore been granted in suits in equity in the
courts of the State. On a motion for a new trial in an
action tried without a jury, the court may open the
judgment if one has been entered, take additional
testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of
law or make new findings and conclusions, and direct
the entry of a new judgment.

(b) Time for motion. A motion for a new trial
shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the
judgment.

(c) Time for serving affidavits. When a
motion for new trial is based on affidavits, they shall
be filed with the motion. The opposing party has 10
days after service to file opposing affidavits, but that
period may be extended for up to 20 days, either by
the court for good cause or by the parties' written
stipulation. The court may permit reply affidavits.

(d) On court's initiative; notice; specifying
grounds. No later than 10 days after entry of
judgment the court, on its own, may order a new trial
for any reason that would justify granting one on a
party's motion. After giving the parties notice and an
opportunity to be heard, the court may grant a timely
motion for a new trial, for a reason not stated in the
motion. When granting a new trial on its own
initiative or for a reason not stated in a motion, the
court shall specify the grounds in its order.

(e) Motion to alter or amend judgment. Any
motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no
later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.

(Emphases added.)

11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

that the petition for relief "be made within a reasonable time,"
with an outer maximum limit of one year for the grounds set forth
in subsections (1), (2), and (3). Because HPR Rule 36(b)
contains no time limit by which a post-judgment motion must be
filed, the tolling provision of HRAP Rule 4(a)(3) extending the
time for filing the notice of appeal "until 30 days after entry
of an order disposing of the motion" does not apply in these
appeals.
In addition, HPR Rule 36 is substantially similar to
HRCP Rule 60,15 the parallel provision in the HRCP providing for

15
HRCP Rule 60 provides:

Rule 60. RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER.

(a) Clerical mistakes. Clerical mistakes in
judgments, orders or other parts of the record and
errors therein arising from oversight or omission may
be corrected by the court at any time of its own
initiative or on the motion of any party and after
such notice, if any, as the court orders. During the
pendency of an appeal, such mistakes may be so
corrected before the appeal is docketed, and
thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so
corrected with leave of the appellate court.

(b) Mistakes; inadvertence; excusable neglect;
newly discovered evidence; fraud, etc. On motion and
upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a
party or a party's legal representative from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which
by due diligence could not have been discovered in
time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);(3)
fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of
an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the
judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged,
or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been
reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer
equitable that the judgment should have prospective
application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief
from the operation of the judgment. The motion shall
be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1),
(2), and (3) not more than one year after the
judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.
A motion under this subdivision (b) does not affect
the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation.
This rule does not limit the power of a court to
entertain an independent action to relieve a party
(continued...)

12
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

post-judgment relief on grounds similar to those set forth in HPR
Rule 36(b). This court has held that, generally, a post-judgment
motion brought under HRCP Rule 60(b) is not a tolling motion
under HRAP Rule 4(a)(3)). Simbajon v. Gentry, 81 Hawai i 193,
196, 914 P.3d 1386, 1389 (App. 1996).
Here, in the Conservatorship appeal, Lillian's July 6,
2017 post-judgment motion for reconsideration or relief from the
May 30, 2017 Conservatorship Judgment did not toll the deadline
to file a notice of appeal under HPR Rule 36(b) and HRAP Rule
4(a)(3). Thus, the January 18, 2018 notice of appeal was not
timely as to the May 30, 2017 Initial Conservatorship Judgment;
the June 27, 2017 Amended Conservatorship Judgment; and the
underlying May 13, 2016 Conservatorship Petition Order that
preceded them. We consequently lack jurisdiction over the appeal
from them.
Similarly, in the Trust appeal, Lillian and Maryann's
June 26, 2017 post-judgment motion for reconsideration of the
June 14, 2017 Trust Judgment did not toll the deadline to file a
notice of appeal under HPR Rule 36(b) and HRAP Rule 4(a)(3).
Thus, the January 18, 2018 notice of appeal was not timely as to
the June 14, 2017 Trust Judgment, and the June 23, 2016 Amended
Trust Petition Order that preceded it; and we consequently lack
jurisdiction over the appeal from them.
Denial of Lillian's fifth motion for reconsideration or
relief was not an abuse of discretion.

The December 22, 2017 Conservatorship Reconsideration
Order that is the subject of this appeal, disposes of Lillian's
fifth motion for reconsideration or relief filed on July 6, 2017.

15
(...continued)
from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to set aside
a judgment for fraud upon the court. Writs of coram
nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of
review and bills in the nature of a bill of review,
are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any
relief from a judgment shall be by motion as
prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.

13
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Lillian argues that the Probate Court's "mathematical and
categorical errors" were "pointed out in [her] Motion for
Reconsiderations [sic] and Relief filed on May 23, 2016 (ROA) DKT
# 25 at 508-517, and at 520-527, and at 536-543, and 571-78, with
the Court denying the Motions Id. [sic] at 551, 555, 653." These
record references are for multiple similar motions for
reconsideration or relief that Lillian filed. Lillian's record
references correspond to four separate motions for
reconsideration or relief filed below, but the record summarized
supra reflects that there were actually five such motions. In
her Opening Brief, Lillian presents detailed argument regarding
her first motion for reconsideration or relief that was filed on
May 23, 2016, and not for the fifth motion for reconsideration or
relief at issue in this appeal.
"The trial court's ruling on a motion for
reconsideration is reviewed under the abuse of discretion
standard." Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Wailea Elua v. Wailea
Resort Co., 100 Hawai i 97, 110, 58 P.3d 608, 621 (2002)
(citation omitted).
[T]he purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to
allow the parties to present new evidence and/or arguments
that could not have been presented during the earlier
adjudicated motion. Reconsideration is not a device to
relitigate old matters or to raise arguments or evidence
that could and should have been brought during the earlier
proceeding.

Cho v. State, 115 Hawai i 373, 384, 168 P.3d 17, 28 (2007)
(alteration in original) (quoting Sousaris v. Miller, 92 Hawai i
505, 513, 993 P.2d 539, 547 (2000)).
Here, the record reflects that the December 22, 2017
Conservatorship Reconsideration Order denied Lillian's fifth
motion for reconsideration or relief. This fifth motion
attempted to relitigate Lillian's request for reconsideration or
relief from the Conservatorship Petition Order that had been
previously denied multiple times, and it was thus not a proper
motion for reconsideration. See id. The Probate Court's denial

14
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

of the fifth motion for reconsideration or relief was not an
abuse of discretion. See Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Wailea
Elua, 100 Hawai i at 110, 58 P.3d at 621.
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal in
part for lack of jurisdiction to review the following:
(1) the May 13, 2016 "Decision and Order and Decree as
to Conservator's Petitions for Discharge and for Approval of
Accounts Filed on May 2, 2014, and Also on August 24, 2015" in
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX;
(2) the June 27, 2017 Amended Final Judgment in CAAP-
XX-XXXXXXX;
(3) the June 23, 2016 "Amended Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order (1) Denying Petition to Confirm
[Lillian] and [Maryann] as Co-Trustees of the [Zedalis Trust]
Dated June 24, 2004, and (2) Confirming Respondent-Appellee
William P. Zedalis as Successor Trustee Said [sic] Trust"
in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX; and
(4) the June 14, 2017 Final Judgment in CAAP-18-
0000041.
We affirm in part, with respect to the following
entered and filed by the Third Circuit Court sitting in probate:
(1) the December 22, 2017 "Court Order Denying
Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and Relief From Amended
Judgment Entered June 27, 2017, and to Reopen Matter, Make New
Findings of Fact and Amend Its Judgment, and Motion for Leave to
File an Interlocutory Appeal, Filed on July 14, 2017" in CAAP-18-
0000040; and
(2) the December 22, 2017 "Order Denying Motion for
Reconsideration, and Relief, and to Make New Findings of Fact and

15
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Conclusions, Filed June 26, 2017 and Motion for Leave to File an
Interlocutory Appeal, Filed July 13, 2017" in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, August 16, 2023.

On the briefs: /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
Chief Judge
Lillian J. Zedalis,
Maryann Jolin, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Self-represented Petitioners- Associate Judge
Appellants.
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Associate Judge

16