Carlson v. Esteban

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 28, 2025
• Docket: CAAP-22-0000251
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 28-FEB-2025 08:39 AM Dkt. 45 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

MARK ANDREW CARLSON, Personal Representative of the Estate of Brian Paul Esteban, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DOUGLAS BRADFORD ESTEBAN, Defendant-Appellant, and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and Guidry, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Douglas Bradford Esteban (Esteban)

appeals from the Order Granting Plaintiff-Appellee Mark Andrew

Carlson's (Carlson), Personal Representative of the Estate of

Brian Paul Esteban (Decedent), Motion for Summary Judgment and

Order of Partition Sale (Summary Judgment Order), filed on

March 8, 2022, and the Judgment on Order Granting Carlson's,

Personal Representative of the Estate of the Decedent, Motion

for Summary Judgment and Order of Partition Sale (Judgment), NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

filed on January 23, 2023, by the Circuit Court of the First

Circuit (circuit court).1

This appeal arises out of a Complaint filed by Carlson

on August 10, 2020 pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)

chapter 668A, in his capacity as personal representative of the

Decedent's estate. The Complaint sought the partition by sale

of the subject property, which was owned by Esteban and the

Decedent as tenants in common. The circuit court granted

summary judgment in Carlson's favor, finding the subject

property to be "Heirs Property" pursuant to HRS § 668A-2 (2016).

This appeal followed. On appeal, Esteban raises a

single point of error, contending that the circuit court erred

in granting summary judgment pursuant to HRS chapter 668A,

because "the probate court must first make a determination as to

the interest and title held by [Carlson] in the real property

before the interest can be subject to a sale by partition in the

partition case."

Upon careful review of the record and relevant legal

authorities, and having given due consideration to the arguments

advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve

Esteban's point of error as follows:

1 The Honorable James C. McWhinnie presided over the entry of the Summary Judgment Order, and the Honorable Kevin T. Morikone presided over the entry of the Judgment.

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

We review the circuit court's grant of summary

judgment de novo, applying the following standard,

[S]ummary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A fact is material if proof of that fact would have the effect of establishing or refuting one of the essential elements of a cause of action or defense asserted by the parties. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. In other words, we must view all of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.

Ralston v. Yim, 129 Hawaiʻi 46, 55–56, 292 P.3d 1276, 1285–86

(2013) (citation omitted).

We conclude that Carlson satisfied his initial burden

on summary judgment through his declaration and attached

exhibits. Carlson established, through his declaration and

authenticated Letters Testamentary, that he had been appointed

by the probate court as personal representative of the

Decedent's estate on July 29, 2020.

In his declaration, Carlson also stated facts

supporting his conclusion that the subject property was "Heirs

Property," as defined by HRS § 668A-2.2 Carlson represented that

2 HRS § 668A-2 states, in pertinent part:

"Heirs property" means real property held in tenancy in common that satisfies all the following requirements as of the filing of an action for partition: (1) There is no agreement in a record binding all the cotenants that governs the partition of the property;

(continued . . .)

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

he had "no knowledge of the Decedent having had an agreement in

a record with [Esteban] governing the partition of the [s]ubject

[p]roperty." Carlson further declared that the Decedent and

Esteban were brothers, and that the subject property, which was

first owned by the Decedent and Esteban's parents, was held in

trust for the Decedent and Esteban until 2013. Upon the

parents' death, the trust terminated, and 100% of the subject

property was conveyed to the Decedent and Esteban in equal

shares. Carlson submitted an authenticated copy of the deed,

recorded on January 14, 2014, pursuant to which Esteban and the

Decedent each held a 50% interest in the subject property as

tenants in common.

Carlson therefore presented sufficient evidence to

satisfy the requirements for partition of Heirs Property under

HRS chapter 668A.

The burden then shifted to Esteban, and Esteban did

not raise a genuine issue of material fact. See Ralston,

129 Hawaiʻi at 56–57, 292 P.3d at 1286–87 ("[W]hen the moving

2(. . . continued) (2) One or more of the cotenants acquired title from a relative, whether living or deceased; and (3) Any of the following applies: (A) Twenty per cent or more of the interests are held by cotenants who are relatives; (B) Twenty per cent or more of the interests are held by an individual who acquired title from a relative, whether living or deceased; or (C) Twenty per cent or more of the cotenants are relatives.

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

party satisfies its initial burden of production, . . . the

burden shift[s] to the nonmoving party to respond to the motion

for summary judgment and demonstrate specific facts, as opposed

to general allegations, that present a genuine issue worthy of

trial.") (citation omitted). Esteban contends that "in order to

be granted the relief under HRS §[]668A-2, [Carlson] had to have

been awarded or received title as a tenant in common, which the

probate court had yet to do as of the filing of the Complaint."

Esteban does not dispute the evidence establishing

Carlson's appointment as personal representative of the

Decedent's estate, pursuant to the Letters Testamentary, on

July 29, 2020. As personal representative, Carlson had,

"[u]ntil termination of [his] appointment[,] . . . the same

power over the title to property of the estate that an absolute

owner would have, in trust however, for the benefit of the

creditors and others interested in the estate." HRS § 560:3-711

(2018). Esteban agrees, in his opening brief, that "the last

recorded Deed showing how title to the real property was held

shows title in the name of [Esteban] and the Decedent."

Esteban therefore has not raised a genuine issue as to

Carlson's authority to seek, or the circuit court's authority to

grant, the partition of the subject property pursuant to HRS

chapter 668A.

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

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit

court's Summary Judgment Order and Judgment.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, February 28, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Presiding Judge Pablo P. Quiban, for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge Christin D.W. Kawada, for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Associate Judge