In re: The Maximo P. Esteban Trust Dated May 20, 1993
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-21-0000408 31-MAY-2022 07:55 AM Dkt. 103 ODSLJ NO. CAAP-21-0000408 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I IN THE MATTER OF THE MAXIMO P. ESTEBAN TRUST DATED MAY 20, 1993 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 1TR121000204) (By: ORDER Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears that we lack appellate jurisdiction over Petitioners-Appellants Jean Esteban and Veronica Esteban's appeal from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit's "Order Granting in Part and Denying Part Remainder of 'Petition for Stay Order'; to Remove Trustee; Liens; Hold the Funds and Place into the Maximo P. Esteban Estate; Compel Discovery of the P. No. 97-0596 Filed August 24, 2020," and "Order Granting Remainder of Petition for Authority to Distribute the Deposit Sum of $146,083.52, and to Sell Real Property, Filed August 6, 2020" (collectively, Orders), both filed on June 9, 2021, because the circuit court has not entered a final, appealable judgment, and the Orders are not independently appealable. An aggrieved party cannot obtain appellate review of a circuit court's interlocutory orders in a civil case, under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 641-1(a) (2016), until the NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER circuit court has reduced its dispositive rulings to an appealable, final judgment under Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 58. Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai#i 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994). Here, the circuit court has not entered a final, appealable judgment. Further, the Orders do not satisfy the requirements for appealability under the collateral-order doctrine or HRS § 6411(b). See Greer v. Baker, 137 Hawai#i 249, 253, 369 P.3d 832, 836 (2016) (reciting the requirements for appeals under the collateral-order doctrine); HRS § 641-1(b) (2016) (reciting the requirements for leave to file an interlocutory appeal). In addition, the Order is not independently appealable under the Forgay doctrine because it does not confirm the sale of the subject property (Property), direct the immediate distribution of sale proceeds, or direct Veronica to surrender her interest in the Property immediately. See Greer, 137 Hawai#i at 253, 369 P.3d at 836 (reciting the requirements for appeals under the Forgay doctrine). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 31, 2022. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Presiding Judge /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Associate Judge 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
