Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I --- o0o ---

LESLIE BLAIR AND LAURIE BISHOP, CO-TRUSTEES OF THE 1988 HUGHES FAMILY TRUST, AS AMENDED, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. LAWRENCE N. C. ING, Defendant/Cross-Claim Defendant-Appellee, and THOMAS THAYER, Defendant/CrossClaimant-Appellee, and JOHN DOES 1-10, JANE DOES 1-10, DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, DOE NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS 1-10, AND DOE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-10, Defendants

NO. 22401 APPEAL FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT (CIV. NO. 98-0757(2)) (Legal Malpractice)

FEBRUARY 27, 2001

MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, AND RAMIL, JJ., AND INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS CHIEF JUDGE BURNS, IN PLACE OF ACOBA, J., RECUSED

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MOON, C.J.

-1-

Plaintiffs-appellants Leslie Blair and Laurie Bishop (the Appellants), as co-trustees and beneficiaries of the Hughes Family Trust [hereinafter, the Hughes Trust], brought legal malpractice claims against defendant/cross-claim defendantappellee Lawrence N. C. Ing, a licensed attorney, and professional malpractice claims against defendant/cross-claimantappellee Thomas Thayer, a certified public accountant, arising from services rendered in conjunction with the Hughes Trust. Ing

moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 12(b)(6), in which Thayer joined.1 Concluding that the Appellants lacked standing to assert their claim for relief, the second circuit court granted the motion in favor of Ing and Thayer. The Appellants timely filed the present appeal and contend that the circuit court erred in granting the motion to dismiss because: (1) Ing and Thayer each owed duties to them as

intended beneficiaries of the Hughes Trust; (2) the Appellants

1

HRCP Rule (12)(b) provides in relevant part:

Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: . . . (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted . . . .

-2-

have standing to bring their amended complaint; and (3) their claims against Ing are not barred by the applicable statute of limitations, Hawai#i Revised Statutes (HRS)

Download Blair v. Ing. S.Ct..pdf

Hawaii Law