Richardson v. Holma ( 2022 )

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
09-NOV-2022
08:01 AM
Dkt. 4 ODDP
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
GEORGE NAOI RICHARDSON, NEIL MAUNAKEA RICHARDSON, and NINIA
RICHARDSON-ALDRICH, Petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE KARIN HOLMA,
Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit,
State of Hawaiʻi, Respondent Judge.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CASE NO. 1CTR-XX-XXXXXXX)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
AND FOR WRIT TO STAY THE SALE OF PROPERTY
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioners George Naoi Richardson,
Neil Maunakea Richardson, and Ninia Richardson-Aldrich’s
petition for writ of mandamus, and for writ to stay the sale of
property, filed on November 1, 2022, and the record, the
extraordinary writ requested by petitioners is not warranted.
Petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear and indisputable
right to the relief requested and a lack of other means to
redress adequately the alleged wrong or to obtain the requested
action. Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawaiʻi 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338
(1999).
The decision of whether to enter the written order under
Rule 20(a) of the Hawaiʻi Probate Rules (HPR) is within the
discretion of the court. In re Est. of Kam, 110 Hawaiʻi 8, 24,
129 P.3d 511, 527 (2006). And, any purported error in the
court’s exercise of this discretion should be raised on appeal,
not mandamus. Moreover, the failure of the court to enter a
written order under HPR Rule 20(a) does not divest the court of
its statutory jurisdiction.
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus and
for writ to stay the sale of property is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, November 9, 2022.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
/s/ Todd W. Eddins
2