NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 24-APR-2026 07:53 AM Dkt. 74 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
MARYANNE CSIZMAZIA, as Executrix for the Estate of BRIAN MCCOY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHELAGH BRADY, an individual, Defendant-Appellee
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 2CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)
Plaintiff-Appellant Maryanne Csizmazia (Csizmazia)
appeals from the "Order Granting Defendant[-Appellee] Shelagh
Brady's [(Brady)] Motion to Dismiss Filed October 17, 2023"
(Dismissal Order), entered on January 30, 2024 by the Circuit
Court of the Second Circuit (circuit court). 1
This matter arises out of a Complaint, filed in March
2023, by Csizmazia, as Committee 2 and Attorney in Fact for Brian
1 The Honorable Kelsey T. Kawano presided.
2 It appears that, in Canada, a "Committee" is akin to a court- appointed guardian or personal representative. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
McCoy (Brian). 3 The Complaint alleged that Brady "wrongfully
took advantage of her disabled brother Brian by using [her power
of attorney for Brian] to take for her own use substantial funds
from the sale of his investment property in Maui, thereby
unjustly enriching herself at his expense." Brady, a citizen of
Canada, filed a "Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings"
(Motion to Dismiss). Following a hearing, the circuit court
granted the Motion to Dismiss, on the grounds that it lacked
personal jurisdiction over Brady, and entered the Dismissal
Order. In July 2024, on temporary remand, the circuit court
entered its Final Judgment.
On appeal, Csizmazia raises two points of error,
contending that the circuit court erred in entering its
Dismissal Order because: (1) "[Csizmazia] made a prima facie
showing that [Brady's] activities in Hawaiʻi fall into a category
specified by Hawaiʻi's long-arm statute in order to establish
specific jurisdiction"; and (2) "[Csizmazia] made a prima facie
showing that [Brady] purposefully and continuously interjected
herself into the forum state such that [the] constitutional due
process requirements are satisfied."
3 Csizmazia filed the Complaint on behalf of Brian and, following his death during the pendency of the trial court proceedings, was substituted as executrix for Brian's estate. 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
We review the circuit court's Dismissal Order de novo.
City & Cnty. of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP, 153 Hawaiʻi 326, 340, 537
P.3d 1173, 1187 (2023). Upon careful review of the record,
briefs, and relevant legal authorities, and having given due
consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by
the parties, we resolve Csizmazia's contentions of error as
follows.
In Yamashita v. LG Chem, Ltd., the Hawaiʻi Supreme
Court held that "Hawaiʻi's long-arm statute incorporates the
limits of due process," and accepted that "the personal
jurisdiction analysis under the Hawai[ʻ]i long-arm statute" can
be "collapse[d] into a single due process inquiry." 152 Hawaiʻi
19, 21-22, 518 P.3d 1169, 1171-72 (2022) (citations omitted).
Thus, "[a]s long as federal due process is satisfied, under the
long-arm statute a Hawaiʻi court may assert personal jurisdiction
over an injury that 'relates to,' but does not 'arise from,' a
defendant's in-state acts." Id. at 21, 518 P.3d at 1171.
The following three-part test applies in determining
whether due process is satisfied:
(1) the nonresident defendant must purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state; (2) plaintiff's claims must arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts within the forum; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP v. Kim, 153 Hawaiʻi 307, 313, 537
P.3d 1154, 1160 (2023) (cleaned up).
With regard to the third prong of the test, "[t]he
exercise of specific jurisdiction must 'comport with fair play
and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable.'" Sunoco
LP, 153 Hawaiʻi at 345, 537 P.3d at 1192 (quoting In re Doe, 83
Hawaiʻi 367, 374, 926 P.2d 1290, 1297 (1996)). The Hawaiʻi
Supreme Court has adopted the following seven-factor test to aid
in determining whether the exercise of jurisdiction is
reasonable:
(1) the extent of the defendants' purposeful interjection into the forum state's affairs; (2) the burden on the defendant of defending in the forum; (3) the extent of any conflict with the sovereignty of the defendants' state; (4) the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute; (5) concerns of judicial efficiency; (6) the significance of the forum to the plaintiff's interest in relief; and (7) the existence of alternative fora.
Id. at 346, 537 P.3d at 1193 (citation omitted).
We conclude that the above factors do not weigh in
favor of exercising jurisdiction over Brady. Csizmazia contends
that Brady has had "continuous and systematic" contacts with
Hawaiʻi, having been a frequent visitor to Hawaiʻi "both for
recreation and for visits with family, including to help her
brother Brian in 2017." Csizmazia points in particular to
Brady's role in facilitating the sale of Brian's property,
namely the sale of his 51% interest in a Maui rental property,
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
the proceeds of which (amounting to $264,768) were deposited
into a joint Hawaiʻi bank account held by Brian and Brady. 4
The record reflects that Brady traveled to Hawaiʻi in
2017, following Brian's debilitating medical emergency, to help
Brian put his personal and financial affairs in order.
Csizmazia and Brian did not know each other at the time; Brady
was the only person available to help Brian and had to come here
from Canada to do so. Brady arranged for Brian to live in a
care home on Maui. It was there that Brian met Csizmazia.
Brady's "purposeful interjection into the forum state's affairs"
was thus limited to caring for Brian and tending to his affairs
after his medical emergency. 5 The money from the sales of
Brian's properties were either used to satisfy outstanding
expenses and debts or transferred into a Canadian bank account.
Brian, himself, relocated to Canada in July 2017. Csizmazia
followed Brian to Canada. Upon Brian's passing in 2023, Brian
had no bank accounts or property in Hawaiʻi. Brian's estate is
being probated in Canada, where a will contest remains pending.
On this record, we conclude that the burden on Brady,
a Canadian citizen, to defend a proceeding in Hawaiʻi is
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 24-APR-2026 07:53 AM Dkt. 74 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
MARYANNE CSIZMAZIA, as Executrix for the Estate of BRIAN MCCOY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHELAGH BRADY, an individual, Defendant-Appellee
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 2CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)
Plaintiff-Appellant Maryanne Csizmazia (Csizmazia)
appeals from the "Order Granting Defendant[-Appellee] Shelagh
Brady's [(Brady)] Motion to Dismiss Filed October 17, 2023"
(Dismissal Order), entered on January 30, 2024 by the Circuit
Court of the Second Circuit (circuit court). 1
This matter arises out of a Complaint, filed in March
2023, by Csizmazia, as Committee 2 and Attorney in Fact for Brian
1 The Honorable Kelsey T. Kawano presided.
2 It appears that, in Canada, a "Committee" is akin to a court- appointed guardian or personal representative. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
McCoy (Brian). 3 The Complaint alleged that Brady "wrongfully
took advantage of her disabled brother Brian by using [her power
of attorney for Brian] to take for her own use substantial funds
from the sale of his investment property in Maui, thereby
unjustly enriching herself at his expense." Brady, a citizen of
Canada, filed a "Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings"
(Motion to Dismiss). Following a hearing, the circuit court
granted the Motion to Dismiss, on the grounds that it lacked
personal jurisdiction over Brady, and entered the Dismissal
Order. In July 2024, on temporary remand, the circuit court
entered its Final Judgment.
On appeal, Csizmazia raises two points of error,
contending that the circuit court erred in entering its
Dismissal Order because: (1) "[Csizmazia] made a prima facie
showing that [Brady's] activities in Hawaiʻi fall into a category
specified by Hawaiʻi's long-arm statute in order to establish
specific jurisdiction"; and (2) "[Csizmazia] made a prima facie
showing that [Brady] purposefully and continuously interjected
herself into the forum state such that [the] constitutional due
process requirements are satisfied."
3 Csizmazia filed the Complaint on behalf of Brian and, following his death during the pendency of the trial court proceedings, was substituted as executrix for Brian's estate. 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
We review the circuit court's Dismissal Order de novo.
City & Cnty. of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP, 153 Hawaiʻi 326, 340, 537
P.3d 1173, 1187 (2023). Upon careful review of the record,
briefs, and relevant legal authorities, and having given due
consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by
the parties, we resolve Csizmazia's contentions of error as
follows.
In Yamashita v. LG Chem, Ltd., the Hawaiʻi Supreme
Court held that "Hawaiʻi's long-arm statute incorporates the
limits of due process," and accepted that "the personal
jurisdiction analysis under the Hawai[ʻ]i long-arm statute" can
be "collapse[d] into a single due process inquiry." 152 Hawaiʻi
19, 21-22, 518 P.3d 1169, 1171-72 (2022) (citations omitted).
Thus, "[a]s long as federal due process is satisfied, under the
long-arm statute a Hawaiʻi court may assert personal jurisdiction
over an injury that 'relates to,' but does not 'arise from,' a
defendant's in-state acts." Id. at 21, 518 P.3d at 1171.
The following three-part test applies in determining
whether due process is satisfied:
(1) the nonresident defendant must purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state; (2) plaintiff's claims must arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts within the forum; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP v. Kim, 153 Hawaiʻi 307, 313, 537
P.3d 1154, 1160 (2023) (cleaned up).
With regard to the third prong of the test, "[t]he
exercise of specific jurisdiction must 'comport with fair play
and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable.'" Sunoco
LP, 153 Hawaiʻi at 345, 537 P.3d at 1192 (quoting In re Doe, 83
Hawaiʻi 367, 374, 926 P.2d 1290, 1297 (1996)). The Hawaiʻi
Supreme Court has adopted the following seven-factor test to aid
in determining whether the exercise of jurisdiction is
reasonable:
(1) the extent of the defendants' purposeful interjection into the forum state's affairs; (2) the burden on the defendant of defending in the forum; (3) the extent of any conflict with the sovereignty of the defendants' state; (4) the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute; (5) concerns of judicial efficiency; (6) the significance of the forum to the plaintiff's interest in relief; and (7) the existence of alternative fora.
Id. at 346, 537 P.3d at 1193 (citation omitted).
We conclude that the above factors do not weigh in
favor of exercising jurisdiction over Brady. Csizmazia contends
that Brady has had "continuous and systematic" contacts with
Hawaiʻi, having been a frequent visitor to Hawaiʻi "both for
recreation and for visits with family, including to help her
brother Brian in 2017." Csizmazia points in particular to
Brady's role in facilitating the sale of Brian's property,
namely the sale of his 51% interest in a Maui rental property,
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
the proceeds of which (amounting to $264,768) were deposited
into a joint Hawaiʻi bank account held by Brian and Brady. 4
The record reflects that Brady traveled to Hawaiʻi in
2017, following Brian's debilitating medical emergency, to help
Brian put his personal and financial affairs in order.
Csizmazia and Brian did not know each other at the time; Brady
was the only person available to help Brian and had to come here
from Canada to do so. Brady arranged for Brian to live in a
care home on Maui. It was there that Brian met Csizmazia.
Brady's "purposeful interjection into the forum state's affairs"
was thus limited to caring for Brian and tending to his affairs
after his medical emergency. 5 The money from the sales of
Brian's properties were either used to satisfy outstanding
expenses and debts or transferred into a Canadian bank account.
Brian, himself, relocated to Canada in July 2017. Csizmazia
followed Brian to Canada. Upon Brian's passing in 2023, Brian
had no bank accounts or property in Hawaiʻi. Brian's estate is
being probated in Canada, where a will contest remains pending.
On this record, we conclude that the burden on Brady,
a Canadian citizen, to defend a proceeding in Hawaiʻi is
4 Brady represents that she used the money to pay Brian's hospital and medical expenses, as well as his outstanding debts related to a farm he partially owned.
5 It is undisputed that Brady held power of attorney for Brian at the time of the property sale. 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
exceedingly high. Moreover, "the forum state's interest in
adjudicating the dispute" is minimal, "the significance of the
forum to [Csizmazia's] interest in relief" is low, and
"alternative fora" exist in which to resolve the matter. In
this regard, the present matter has the potential to "conflict
with the sovereignty" of Canada, where legal proceedings
relating to Brian's estate are pending. And, for all of the
reasons discussed supra, exercising jurisdiction over Brady
would raise "concerns of judicial efficiency" for Hawaiʻi courts.
Under these circumstances, we conclude that the exercise of
personal jurisdiction over Brady by Hawaiʻi courts is not
reasonable, and would therefore not comport with "traditional
notions of fair play and substantial justice."
The circuit court was not wrong in determining that
Csizmazia failed to establish a prima facia case of personal
jurisdiction. We therefore affirm the Final Judgment.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, April 24, 2026.
On the briefs: /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Presiding Judge Timothy Vandeveer, for Plaintiff-Appellant. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Associate Judge Adam G. Lang, for Defendant-Appellee. /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Associate Judge