Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 24, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re: Revocable Trust of Okamoto

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

• Citations: None known

• Docket Number: CAAP-23-0000487

• Opinion

• Authorities (7)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (4)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
24-MAR-2026
07:50 AM
Dkt. 51 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

IN THE MATTER OF THE
REVOCABLE TRUST OF ITSUTO OKAMOTO,
DATED OCTOBER 15, 1993

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CTR-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)

Beneficiary/Trustee/Respondent/Petitioner-Appellant

Marshall Tetsuo Okamoto (Marshall) 1 appeals from the "Judgment on

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part [Petitioner/

Respondent-Appellee Derin Okasaki's (Derin)] Petition to Compel

1 Marshall filed this appeal as a beneficiary of the "Revocable
Trust of Itsuto Okamoto" (Trust). Marshall takes no position with respect to
this appeal in his capacity as Trustee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Distribution of Trust Property" (Trust Distribution Judgment),

and "Judgment on Order Denying [Marshall's] Petition for Further

Instructions" (Instructions Judgment), both filed on July 19,

2023, by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit 2 (probate

court). 3

This matter arises from the "Petition to Compel

Distribution of Trust Property" (Petition to Compel) filed by

Derin in June 2022. The Petition to Compel asked the probate

court to compel Marshall, as the Trustee, to distribute property 4

pursuant to the terms of a Trust executed by Itsuto Okamoto

(Itsuto), and naming Itsuto and his wife, Kimiko Yamanaka

Okamoto (Kimiko), as the initial trustees. Itsuto and Kimiko

passed in 1994 and 2016, respectively. Upon Kimiko's passing,

their children, Marshall and Carol Saeko Okasaki (Carol), became

the successor trustees. Upon Carol's passing, in 2021, Marshall

became the sole acting successor trustee.

2 The Honorable R. Mark Browning presided.

3 Marshall also appeals from the "Findings of Fact [(FOFs)],
Conclusions of Law [(COLs)], and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Petition to Compel Distribution of Trust Property," "Order Granting in Part
and Denying in Part Petition to Compel Distribution of Trust Property," and
"[FOFs], [COLs], and Order Denying [Marshall's] Petition for Further
Instructions," all filed on July 19, 2023, by the probate court.

4 The real property at issue is located in Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, and
will be referred to herein as the Emekona Property.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

At issue is Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Trust,

which instructs that the Emekona Property should be distributed

as follows:

Disposition of Trust Property Upon Death of [Itsuto] and
[Kimiko]. Upon the death of [Kimiko] after [Itsuto's]
death, the trustee shall hold and distribute the Residuary
Trust, as then constituted . . . .

(a) Division of Trust Estate. . . . With respect to
the [Emekona Property], said property shall be distributed
to [Carol], provided, however that said [Carol] shall pay
to [Marshall] a sum of [$25,000] before said property shall
be conveyed to [Carol]. In the event that said [Carol] is
not surviving, then said interest in the above-mentioned
real property shall be distributed to the issue of [Carol],
in equal shares, per stirpes, pursuant to the terms of
subparagraph (iv) of this paragraph.

(Emphasis added.)

It is undisputed that Carol, in the years between

Kimiko's passing and her own passing, did not pay to Marshall

the sum of $25,000. The Emekona Property could not, therefore,

have been conveyed to Carol prior to her passing. Derin

contends that because Carol survived both Itsuto and Kimiko,

"her conditional right to the [Emekona Property] was triggered,"

and that Carol's interest in the Emekona Property "is

transmissible through Carol's [e]state." Marshall contends that

because Carol did not pay Marshall $25,000, the Emekona Property

fell to the Residuary Trust.

Marshall asserts three points of error on appeal,

contending that the probate court erred in: (1) "granting in

part the [Petition to Compel] because it misinterpreted

[Itsuto's] intent and failed to apply relevant rules of law";

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(2) "granting in part the [Petition to Compel] because it failed

to consider whether conveyance of the Emekona Property to

Carol's estate should be barred as a matter of equity"; and (3)

"denying [Marshall's] Petition for Further Instructions

(Petition for Instructions)] because preserving the status quo

pending appeal was proper under the circumstances, would not

have caused the parties any prejudice, and would have prevented

irreparable harm to Marshall." (Formatting altered.)

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 Marshall's points of error as follows:

(1) Marshall contends that the probate court

misinterpreted Itsuto's intent with regard to the Trust's terms,

and failed to apply relevant rules of law in interpreting

Itsuto's intent. We review the probate court's construction of

the Trust de novo under the right/wrong standard. Tr. Created

Under the Will of Damon, 76 Hawaiʻi 120, 123-24, 869 P.2d 1339,

1342-43 (1994).

"The duty of the court is to interpret, not to

construct [a trust]." In re Est. of Campbell, 33 Haw. 799, 802

(Haw. Terr. 1936). Therefore, the court must determine the

settlor's intent based on "a sound and reasonable construction

of the words [that were] used," and "not by speculation or

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

conjecture as to what the [settlor] may have intended." Tr.

Created Under the Will of Damon, 76 Hawaiʻi at 127, 869 P.2d at

1346 (citation omitted).

As relevant here, Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Trust

provides that the Emekona Property "shall be distributed to

[Carol], provided, however that said [Carol] shall pay to

[Marshall] a sum of [$25,000] before said property shall be

conveyed to [Carol]." 5 Marshall contends that the Emekona

Property fell to the Residuary Trust because Carol, who survived

Itsuto and Kimiko, did not pay Marshall $25,000 prior to her own

passing.

The Trust provisions do not impose a time limit for

Carol to fulfill the condition of paying Marshall $25,000. And

while the Trust expressly provides that specific property would

fall to the Residuary Trust under certain circumstances, it does

not provide that the Emekona Property would fall to the

Residuary Trust if Carol, upon surviving Itsuto and Kimiko,

failed to pay Marshall $25,000 prior to her death. 6

5 Article VI, paragraph 3 alternatively provided that the Emekona
Property would be conveyed to "the issue of [Carol]," in the event that Carol
did not survive both Itsuto and Kimiko. Because Carol survived Itsuto and
Kimiko, that provision was not invoked.

6 We note that if the Emekona Property fell to the Residuary Trust,
neither Carol nor her issue would have claim to any part of the Emekona
Property. The Trust provided that the Residuary Trust was to be conveyed to
Marshall, and not to Carol or her issue.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

We therefore conclude that, consistent with Itsuto's

intent, Carol's contingent interest in the Emekona Property

passed to her estate. "The rule is well settled that a

contingent remainder of inheritance is transmissible to the

heirs of the person to whom it is limited, if such person dies

before the contingency happens, unless the remainder is so

limited as to depend on the life of the remainderman." Crescent

City Motors, Ltd. v. Nalaielua, 31 Haw. 418, 425-26 (Haw. Terr.

1930) (citation omitted); see Alexander v. UMB Bank, NA,

497 S.W.3d 323, 328 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016) (explaining that modern

rules of property suggest that a remainder interest conditioned

on survival is descendible through an estate so long as the

beneficiary survives until the preceding interests are

terminated).

(2) Marshall contends that the probate court erred in

"fail[ing] to consider" his equitable defenses of laches,

unclean hands, and equitable estoppel. We review the probate

court's application of equitable doctrines under the abuse of

discretion standard. 7's Enters., Inc. v. Del Rosario,

111 Hawaiʻi 484, 489, 143 P.3d 23, 28 (2006).

The probate court did not make any specific FOFs or

COLs as to Marshall's equitable defenses. And the record does

not reflect why the probate court did not provide any

explanation for the lack thereof. We are therefore unable to

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

determine whether the probate court appropriately considered

Marshall's equitable defenses. See HawaiiUSA Fed. Credit Union

v. Monalim, 147 Hawaiʻi 33, 43, 464 P.3d 821, 831 (2020)

(explaining that "based on the circuit court's lack of findings

as to the laches defense, [the appellate court is] unable to

determine on review whether the circuit court appropriately

considered this defense" (cleaned up)).

We vacate the Trust Distribution Judgment, and remand

with instructions that the probate court consider and address

Marshall's equitable defenses.

(3) Marshall contends that the probate court erred in

denying his Petition for Instructions, which sought to "preserve

the status quo" during the pendency of Marshall's appeal. 7 We

review the probate court's refusal to exercise its inherent

power for abuse of discretion. Richardson v. Sport Shinko

(Waikiki Corp.), 76 Hawaiʻi 494, 508, 880 P.2d 169, 183 (1994).

Marshall represented that he did not, or could not,

seek a stay or injunctive relief because the probate rules do

not permit the filing of a motion for stay. See Hawaiʻi Probate

7 Marshall filed his Petition for Instructions on December 5, 2022,
following the probate court's entry of the October 14, 2022 "Order Granting
in Part and Continuing in Part Petition to Compel Distribution of Trust
Property." The parties entered into a "Stipulation and Order to Preserve
Status Quo Pending Resolution of Petition for Further Instructions," in which
Marshall represented that he intended to appeal the October 14, 2022 order,
and the parties "agreed that the Emekona Property should not be distributed,
sold, or otherwise transferred out of Carol's Estate while the [Petition for
Instructions] remain[ed] pending." The probate court entered its "Order
Denying [Marshall's] [Petition for Instructions]" on March 8, 2023.

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Rules Rule 3 (allowing pleadings in the form of "a petition and

a response or objection," and providing that "[n]o other

pleading shall be allowed"). Nevertheless, it appears that, by

asking the probate court to "preserve the status quo," Marshall

was effectively requesting that the probate court grant some

form of stay or injunctive relief through the exercise of its

equitable powers. It also appears that the probate court

generally understood Marshall's request as such, but, in the

absence of a formal "request for a stay, injunctive relief, or

reconsideration," summarily "decline[d] to find that the

standard to preserve the status quo is a distinct relief and

legal standard from that of a stay or injunction."

We conclude that the probate court erred by narrowly

construing and rejecting Marshall's request in this manner, and

by not addressing the request on its merits, where Marshall was

effectively requesting a stay. See In re Helen-Edythe

Richardson Revocable Living Tr. Dated September 14, 1987,

No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2025 WL 2902421, at *4 (Haw. App. Oct. 13,

2025) (SDO) (vacating the probate court's denial of the

appellants' request for a stay, and remanding the matter to be

considered through further proceedings). We therefore vacate

the Instructions Judgment and instruct the probate court to

consider on remand whether a stay or injunctive relief is

appropriate under the circumstances of this case.

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm in part and

vacate in part the Trust Distribution Judgment, and we vacate

the Instructions Judgment. We remand for further proceedings

consistent with this summary disposition order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, March 24, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Chief Judge
Andrew J. Lautenbach,
for Beneficiary/Trustee/ /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Respondent/Petitioner- Associate Judge
Appellant.
/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Ronald T. Ogomori, Associate Judge
for Petitioner/Respondent-
Appellee.

9