On January 5, 2017, the HAWSCT heard oral arguments in a case involving a trust created under the will of Samuel M. Damon: SCWC-12-0000731, In the Matter of the Estate of Samuel M. Damon, Deceased, and Trust Created Under the Will of Samuel M. Damon, Deceased.
The HAWSCT accepted certiorari on October 13, 2016, to review the ICA’s decision that affirmed the circuit court’s approval of the Damon Estate Trustees’ petition for approval of their accounting for the years 1999-2003. It was during this accounting period that a majority of the trust assets were sold. After the HAWSCT vacated the circuit court’s prior approval of the petition based on a conflict of interest with the court appointed master, on remand, the circuit court appointed a new master. The Trustees’ petition was challenged by two of the trust beneficiaries. During the circuit court proceeding, the two beneficiaries sought to obtain documents underlying the petition, and logged objections to the petition. The request for documents was denied, and the accounting was approved.
On appeal, the ICA affirmed the circuit court’s decision, deciding (among other things) that the Trustees were entitled to a presumption of regularity and good faith, and that the Trustees had met their statutory duty to disclose documents to beneficiaries, and that denial of the documents to the two beneficiaries during the petition approval proceeding was within the circuit court’s discretion.
At the oral argument, many of the HAWSCT’s questions related to whether or not the Trustees had a continuing duty to disclose to the beneficiaries information about the Trust matters – even after the petition for accounting was filed and even though a master was appointed by the probate court.
The HAWSCT’s order accepting certiorari is available here.
The ICA’s Memorandum Opinion is available here.
The Applications for Certiorari filed by the two beneficiaries are here and here.
The oppositions to certiorari filed by the Trustees and two other beneficiaries are here, here, here, and here.
The replies in support of certiorari are here, here, and here.
** Disclosure: this blogger represents one of the beneficiaries on certiorari but makes no representation through this post of any particular outcome in this case, or that any similar outcome may occur in any other case.
Social Media