Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mccully Associates, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ten Grand Associates

April 25, 2013

MCCULLY ASSOCIATES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
TEN GRAND ASSOCIATES, A HAWAII LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND TEN GRAND INVESTMENTS, INC., A HAWAII CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS, AND JERRY TARUTANI AND HUO CHEN, CO-TRUSTEES OF THE GREGORY Y.Y. DUNN IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED DECEMBER 17, 1993, ROGER Y.H. DUNN IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED DECEMBER 17, 1993, LAURIEANN Y.F. DUNN IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED DECEMBER 17, 1993, AND MICHAEL Y.H. DUNN IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED DECEMBER 17, 1993, ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
AND
RONALD K. KOTOSHIRODO, RECEIVER, THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ALEXANDER Y. MARN, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT AND ERIC Y. MARN, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.



APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CIVIL NO. 05-1-2246)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Foley, Presiding Judge, Fujise and Leonard, JJ.)

Third-Party Defendant/Appellant Alexander Y. Marn

(Marn) appeals pro se from the Final Judgment entered by the

Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court) on September 16, 2009.*fn1

Marn's Opening Brief fails to identify points of error, improperly attempts to incorporate by reference arguments made in other appeals, fails to provide the required references to the record on appeal, fails to identify legal authorities relied on, fails to identify applicable standards of review, and otherwise fails to meet the requirements of Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28. We, nevertheless, attempt to address the seven issues raised by Marn as "Issues Requiring Appeal Review" (Issues).

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the issues raised by the parties, we resolve Marn's appeal as follows:

(1) In the first Issue, Marn appears to challenge the rate of pre-judgment interest awarded in favor of Plaintiff- Appellee McCully Associates (McCully) and against Defendant- Appellee Ten Grand Associates (TGA) and Defendant-Appellee Ten Grand Investment, Inc. (TGI). As argued by McCully, Marn does not have standing to appeal this issue because, although Marn was a third-party defendant in this case, he was not a party to McCully's action against TGA and TGI, Marn has not demonstrated that he had standing to oppose the ruling of the Circuit Court, and Marn has not established that he is affected or prejudiced by the Circuit Court's award against TGA and TGI. See, e.g., Abava v. Mantell, 112 Hawaii 176, 181, 145 P.3d 719, 724 (2006) (identifying requirements for standing to appeal).

(2) In the second Issue, Marn contends that the Circuit Court "exceed[ed] the prayer for relief in [McCully's] complaint by allowing a 'carve out' of the Dunn children from liability on the repayment of the $500K promissory note by TGA to [McCully]. Even assuming, arguendo, that Marn has standing to raise this issue, the opening brief provides no discernible argument on this issue and cites no facts in the record or authorities in support of and/or warranting any relief.

(3) In the third Issue, Marn asks whether it was error to refuse to allow certain persons to intervene. Marn clearly does not have standing to assert the interests of these non- parties.

(4) In the fourth Issue, Marn contends that the

Circuit Court erred by failing to give credence to certain corporate resolutions that purported to consent to and ratify the transfer of funds to Marn and his brother, Third-Party Defendant/Appellee Eric Y. Marn (Eric). It appears, however, that the record supports the Circuit Court's unchallenged Findings of Fact (FOF) and Conclusions of Law (COL) that such resolutions were ineffective and invalid and, on appeal, Marn provides no discernible argument, cites no facts in the record, or authorities in support of and/or warranting any relief from the Circuit Court's FOFs and COLs concerning this issue.

(5) In the fifth Issue, Marn argues that he and Eric were entitled, under TGA's bylaws, to indemnification for their attorney's fees. Marn does not, however, challenge the Circuit Court's FOF 19 stating, inter alia, that "no portion of this payment [to Marn and Eric] can be characterized as indemnification for legal fees incurred." Accordingly, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.