NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 18-FEB-2026 09:35 AM Dkt. 99 SO
NOS. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE MATTER OF THE ATHERTON RICHARDS TRUST OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1972,
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NOS. 1TR141000145 and 1TR181000071)
and
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX HERBERT M. RICHARDS, III, and PATRICIA K. RICHARDS (aka PATRICIA RICHARDS GILES) Claimants-Appellees, v. RIKI MAY AMANO, Respondent-Appellant, and JOHN RICHARDS and PAMELA KETCHUM, Respondents-Appellees
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 1CSP-XX-XXXXXXX)
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE MATTER OF THE ATHERTON RICHARDS TRUST OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1972,
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NOS. 1TR141000145 and 1TR181000071) NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)
These consolidated appeals arise out of the wind up of
the Atherton Richards Trust (Trust). The Trust's primary asset
is Kahua Ranch, Ltd. (Ranch). The four sibling beneficiaries
are Petitioner/Respondent/Claimant-Appellant/Appellee Herbert M.
Richards, III (Herbert), Respondent/Petitioner/Claimant-
Appellant/Appellee Patricia K. Richards (Patricia), Respondent-
Appellee John A. Richards (John), and Respondent-Appellee Pamela
Richards Ketchum (Pamela) (collectively, the beneficiaries).
The beneficiaries have a contentious relationship.
The beneficiaries retained Successor Trustee/
Petitioner/Respondent-Appellee/Appellant Riki May Amano (Amano).
In the "First Term Sheet for Agreement and Plan of
Reorganization" (First Term Sheet), the beneficiaries agreed
that Amano would reorganize the Trust assets into two separate
corporations, and then distribute the stock of the separate
corporations to the shareholders free of capital gains taxes on
the assets. Pursuant to this agreement, the Ranch would
essentially be divided into two separate ranches, with ownership
of one ranch to be conveyed to Herbert and Patricia, and
ownership of the other ranch to be conveyed to John and Pamela.
Amano obtained a Private Letter Ruling from the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) regarding I.R.C. § 355 (West), approving the
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
proposed corporate division as part of the anticipated Trust
division.
It appears that the wind up of the Trust is not yet
complete. The beneficiaries disagree on various issues, and,
pursuant to the terms of the First Term Sheet, must resolve such
disputes through binding arbitration.
Amano filed her October 2022 "Petition for Approval of
(1) Final Accounts from January 1, 2022 Through September 30,
2022, (2) Authorization to File a Supplemental Accounting
Through Date of Discharge Without Further Court Hearing[,] (3)
Payment of Trustee's Termination Fee, (4) Payment of Attorneys'
Fees and Costs, (5) Issuance of an Order Compelling
Beneficiaries to Fund Trust or Alternatively for Authorization
to Sell Trust Assets and/or Distribute Trust Assets[,] and (6)
Discharge and Release of Trustee" (Approval Petition), with the
Circuit Court of the First Circuit in case no. 1TR141000145
(probate court). 1 The Approval Petition sought, inter alia,
$1,095,727.23 in trustee compensation for Amano's thirty-three
months of trustee work, and $646,276.70 in attorneys' fees and
costs for work done to wind up the Trust and for participating
in the various arbitrations. 2
1 The Honorable R. Mark Browning presided.
2 Amano also requested to be discharged from her role as Successor Trustee; Amano withdrew this request.
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
On December 28, 2022, the day before the probate court
heard the Approval Petition, Herbert and Patricia filed
"Beneficiaries [Patricia] and [Herbert's] Petition for Surcharge
Against Trustee [Amano]" (Surcharge Petition), alleging that
Amano breached her trust duties. The Surcharge Petition
claimed, among other things, that Amano committed IRS
malfeasance, engaged in conflicts of interest, breached her
fiduciary duties, and failed to maintain Trust assets. The
Surcharge Petition sought, inter alia, damages, attorneys' fees,
and costs against Amano.
In March 2023, the probate court filed its "Order
Granting in Part and Denying in Part [Approval Petition], Filed
October 24, 2022" (Approval Order) and "Judgment on [Approval
Order]" (Approval Judgment) in case no. 1TR141000145. Relevant
here, the Approval Order granted Amano's requested trustee
compensation and partially granted her attorneys' fees and
costs. 3 In so doing, the probate court determined that it was
3 The Approval Order stated, in relevant part,
3. [Amano's] compensation as Successor Trustee for services rendered during the accounting period of January 1, 2020 through September 31 [sic], 2022 is approved.
. . . .
b. The [probate court] determines that the rate of $750 per hour for compensation as Successor Trustee pursuant to the Stipulation and Order Appointing [Amano] as Successor Trustee of the [Trust], filed on August 27, 2018, is binding on all parties.
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
"not necessary to wait for the outcome of the pending Surcharge
Petition(s)" because "[i]f the [probate court] subsequently
determine[d] that it is appropriate to surcharge [Amano] for
actions taken as Successor Trustee, [Amano] may be ordered to
return any improper compensation back to the Trust." Herbert
and Patricia appealed from the Approval Order and Approval
Judgment, creating CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX.
The probate court separately addressed the Surcharge
Petition. In a March 2023 minute order, the probate court: (1)
found the Surcharge Petition to be a contested matter and
retained the matter under Hawaiʻi Probate Rules (HPR) Rule 20;
(2) ordered the arbitration of Counts 1 (IRS Malfeasance), 3
(Delay of Trust Wind Up Based on Partiality Against Herbert and
Patricia and Desire to Increase Amano's Own Fees), 4 (Creating
Tax Liability), 5 (Failure to Return Funds Ordered by
Arbitrator), and 21 (Breach of the First Term Sheet); and (3)
denied Herbert and Patricia's remaining claims without
prejudice. The probate court stayed the probate proceedings
until the resolution of arbitration on the above claims.
In August 2023, the arbitrator entered its "Final
Decision and Award on Arbitration Demands 5 and 6" 4 (Arbitration
Award). The Arbitration Award found, inter alia, that Amano
4 Arbitration Demand 6 concerned the five claims referred for arbitration by the probate court.
5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
breached her trust duties, and that John and Pamela violated
their duty of good faith and fair dealing. The arbitrator
ordered Amano to reimburse the Trust $321,912.60, and John and
Pamela to pay Herbert and Patricia $263,286.48 in damages.
Herbert and Patricia filed a "Motion to Confirm [the]
Arbitration Award" in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit in
case no. 1CSP-XX-XXXXXXX (circuit court). 5 The circuit court
heard the motion, and entered the "Order Granting Motion to
Confirm Arbitration Award, Filed on October 27, 2023 (DKT. 1)"
(Arbitration Order) and "Final Judgment on Arbitration Award"
(Arbitration Judgment). Amano appealed the Arbitration Order
and Arbitration Judgment, creating CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX.
In March 2024, Herbert and Patricia moved for
reconsideration of the Approval Order in case no. 1TR141000145, 6
citing the Arbitration Award as "new evidence." The probate
court entered its "Order Denying Petition for Reconsideration
[of the Approval Order]" (Order Denying Reconsideration).
Herbert and Patricia appealed the Order Denying Reconsideration,
creating CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX.
Herbert and Patricia raise seven points of error on
appeal in case nos. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX,
5 The Honorable Lisa W. Cataldo presided.
6 The Honorable James S. Kawashima presided over Herbert and Patricia's motion for reconsideration in case no. 1TR141000145. 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
contending that the probate court erred in: (1) "approv[ing]
[Amano's] compensation when there was a pending [Surcharge
Petition]"; (2) "declin[ing] to limit [Amano's] compensation to
the statutory rate of compensation set forth in [Hawaii Revised
Statutes (HRS) §] 607-18[ (2016)]"; (3) "approv[ing] [Amano's]
compensation for time spent defending against arbitrations
[Amano] lost and unsuccessfully trying to avoid arbitration and
overturn arbitration awards"; (4) "approv[ing] [Amano's]
compensation for time that was unreasonable and/or was not for
the sole benefit of the Trust"; (5) "grant[ing] [Amano's]
request for attorneys' fees for participating in the
arbitrations"; (6) "grant[ing] [Amano's] request for attorneys'
fees and costs for time that was unreasonable"; and (7) entering
the Order Denying Reconsideration.
Amano raises three points of error on appeal in case
no. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, contending that the circuit court erred in:
(1) "acting without subject matter jurisdiction" by
"confirm[ing] and enter[ing] judgment on a non-final arbitration
decision"; (2) "enforcing an arbitration agreement that violates
public policy"; and (3) "refusing to vacate and remand [the
Arbitration Award] for clarification."
Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and
relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration
7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties,
we resolve the parties' points of error as follows:
I. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
(1) Herbert and Patricia contend that the probate
court erred in "approv[ing] [Amano's] compensation without
waiting for the outcome of [the Surcharge Petition]." They
contend that the probate court could not properly evaluate the
reasonableness of Amano's requested compensation without
"tak[ing] into account the outcome of the [S]urcharge
[P]etition." 7
"In an action for an accounting, a court of equity is
called upon to determine the propriety of every entry in an
estate's account." In re Est. of Bishop, 53 Haw. 604, 605, 499
P.2d 670, 671 (1972). We therefore review the probate court's
Approval Order for abuse of discretion. Aickin v. Ocean View
Invs. Co., 84 Hawaiʻi 447, 453, 935 P.2d 992, 998 (1997) ("The
relief granted by a court in equity is discretionary and will
not be overturned on review unless the circuit court abused its
discretion by issuing a decision that clearly exceeds the bounds
7 Herbert and Patricia, citing In re Elaine Emma Short Revocable Living Trust Agreement Dated July 17, 1984, 147 Hawaiʻi 456, 466, 465 P.3d 903, 913 (2020), also contend that the Approval Order cannot be affirmed because the probate court did not make findings of fact. In re Elaine Emma Short precludes the appellate court from conducting its own evidentiary analysis when the probate court has failed to issue the requisite findings to enable meaningful appellate review. Id. at 465, 465 P.3d at 912. We determine that the record in this case is sufficient to enable a meaningful appellate review without the need to conduct an evidentiary analysis. 8 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
of reason or disregarded rules or principles of law or practice
to the substantial detriment of the appellant.") (cleaned up).
Herbert and Patricia elected to present their evidence
of Amano's alleged malfeasance and breach of trust in support of
their Surcharge Petition, which was filed the day before the
hearing on the Approval Petition. They cite no case law
supporting their argument that the probate court needed to
concomitantly address these separately filed petitions, and they
do not demonstrate that they were prejudiced by the separate
resolutions of the two petitions. Indeed, as the probate court
explained, "it [was] not necessary to wait for the outcome of
the pending Surcharge Petition(s)" because "[i]f the [probate
court] subsequently determine[d] that it [was] appropriate to
surcharge [Amano] for actions taken as Successor Trustee,
[Amano] may be ordered to return any improper compensation back
to the Trust."
On this record, we conclude that the probate court did
not abuse its discretion in granting the Approval Petition, and
in deferring the issues and arguments raised in the Surcharge
Petition to be addressed separately.
(2) Herbert and Patricia contend that the probate
court erred "when it approved [Amano's] entire compensation,"
and by declining to reduce Amano's trustee compensation to the
9 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
statutory limit set forth in HRS § 607-18. 8 (Formatting
altered.) Here, it is undisputed that the beneficiaries
stipulated to Amano's rate of $750/hour in trustee compensation.
A trust instrument governs a trustee's compensation. See HRS §
607-18(b) (2016) (instructing that "[b]anks, trust companies,
and individuals who in the ordinary course of business serve as
fiduciaries shall, when serving as trustees, be entitled to
reasonable compensation, which may be set forth in their
published fee schedules").
Herbert and Patricia contend that they only agreed to
this rate in reliance on Amano's "misstatements" and "factually
incorrect representations," and that this agreed-upon rate
should therefore not be applied. They cite Restatement (Third)
of Trusts § 38 cmt. f (A.L.I. 2003), which provides that an
agreement on compensation is not binding if "the trustee failed
to disclose all the relevant circumstances that the trustee knew
or should have known, or if the agreement is unfair to the
beneficiary." They do not, however, identify any evidence filed
in opposition to the Approval Petition demonstrating that they
only agreed to Amano's $750/hour rate because of Amano's
"misstatements" and "factually incorrect representations." We
8 HRS § 607-18 sets forth a statutory rate of compensation that a trustee is entitled to, except where "the trust instrument otherwise provides, or the settlor and trustee otherwise agree." HRS § 607-18 (a), (c) (2016). 10 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
therefore conclude that the probate court did not err by not
applying the above-cited Restatement provision.
Moreover, Herbert and Patricia cite no legal authority
supporting their contention that the probate court was required
to reduce Amano's agreed-upon compensation because it was
disproportionate to the statutory fee schedule set forth in HRS
§ 607-18, to the Ranch's revenues and profits, and to trustee
compensation awarded for work done with regard to other
comparable trusts.
The determination of whether Amano's requested fees
should be reduced is a matter within the probate court's
equitable discretion. We conclude that the probate court did
not abuse its discretion here.
(3) Herbert and Patricia contend that the probate
court erred in approving Amano's compensation for time she spent
"defending against arbitrations [Amano] lost and unsuccessfully
trying to avoid arbitration and overturn arbitration awards."
They primarily rely upon cases that address reimbursement for
attorneys' fees and costs -- not trustee compensation -- and
that are therefore distinguishable.
Herbert and Patricia also rely on In re Estate of Ena,
24 Haw. 414, 417 (Haw. Terr. 1918). In instructing that trustee
compensation must be limited to work done "for the sole benefit
of the estate," In re Estate of Ena clarifies that "[t]here must 11 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
be no ground for just suspicion that the fiduciary in rendering
the services was actuated by motives of personal gain rather
than of a proper regard for the interests of the estate." Id.
Herbert and Patricia identify no evidence presented in
opposition to the Approval Petition establishing that Amano was
motivated by personal gain.
not abuse its discretion in awarding compensation for time Amano
spent defending against arbitrations.
(4) Herbert and Patricia contend that the probate
court erred in approving Amano's $267,958.82 compensation for
non-trustee work. They contend that the ranch management work
should have been delegated, the real estate and legal work was
duplicative of work already performed by professionals, and the
remaining work was unnecessary, unreasonable, and not for the
sole benefit of the Trust.
Amano had discretion as trustee to, inter alia,
"continue the business or other enterprise and take any action
that may be taken by shareholders," and "construct, or make
ordinary or extraordinary repairs to, alterations to, or
improvements in, buildings or other structures." HRS § 554D-
816(6), (8) (Supp. 2021). A court will not interfere unless the
trustee, in exercising this discretion, "acts dishonestly, or
with an improper even though not a dishonest motive, or fails to 12 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
use his judgment, or acts beyond the bonds of a reasonable
judgment." Dowsett v. Hawaiian Tr. Co., 47 Haw. 577, 581, 393
P.2d 89, 93 (1964) (citation omitted).
opposition to the Approval Petition establishing that Amano
acted "dishonestly," with an "improper motive," or beyond the
bounds of reason in carrying out her duties as trustee. We
therefore conclude that the probate court did not abuse its
discretion in approving Amano's $267,958.82 in compensation for
non-trustee work.
(5) Herbert and Patricia contend that the probate
court erred in granting Amano "attorneys' fees for participating
in the arbitrations."
HRS § 554D-709(a)(1) (Supp. 2021), which governs
reimbursement of a trustee's expenses, provides that,
(a) A trustee or designated trustee who acts in good faith is entitled to reimbursement out of the trust property, with interest as appropriate, for:
(1) Expenses that were properly incurred in the administration of the trust, including the defense or prosecution of any action, whether successful or not, unless the trustee is determined to have wilfully or wantonly committed a material breach of trust[.]
(Emphasis added.)
By its plain language, "the defense or prosecution of
any action" includes arbitrations that Amano, as Successor
Trustee, was a party to. (Emphasis added.) Herbert and
13 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Patricia identify no evidence presented in opposition to the
Approval Petition demonstrating that Amano had "wilfully or
wantonly committed a material breach of trust." We therefore
conclude that the probate court did not abuse its discretion in
awarding Amano attorneys' fees.
(6) Herbert and Patricia contend that the probate
court erred in granting Amano attorneys' fees and costs for work
that was "unreasonable." As with point of error (5), the record
reflects that Amano's fees and costs were "incurred in the
administration of the trust," and Herbert and Patricia point to
no evidence presented in opposition to the Approval Petition
establishing that Amano "wilfully or wantonly committed a
material breach of trust" in carrying out her trust duties. We
conclude that the probate court did not abuse its discretion.
(7) Herbert and Patricia contend that the probate
court erred by denying reconsideration of the Approval Order.
We review the probate court's ruling on a motion for
reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki
Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Haw. 85, 114, 839 P.2d 10, 26 (1992).
Herbert and Patricia contend that reconsideration of
the Approval Order was warranted because the Arbitration Award
confirmed in case no. 1CSP-XX-XXXXXXX is "newly discovered
evidence" that "fundamentally changed the landscape" regarding
Amano's compensation and attorneys' fees. 14 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
HPR Rule 36(b) provides, in relevant part:
(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, etc. Upon petition and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve an interested person from an order or judgment for the following reasons:
(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time before the order was issued;
(6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the order.
Herbert and Patricia cite no legal authority to support their
contention that the arbitrator's findings, which were confirmed
in the separate circuit court proceeding, constituted "newly
discovered evidence" or "any other reason justifying relief"
pursuant to HPR Rule 36(b)(2) or (6). 9
"[T]he purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to
allow the parties to present new evidence and/or arguments that
could not have been presented during the earlier adjudicated
motion." Chen v. Mah, 146 Hawaiʻi 157, 172, 457 P.3d 796, 811
(2020) (citation omitted). Here, Herbert and Patricia do not
identify a specific error in the Approval Order; rather, they
seek to reopen and relitigate the Approval Petition based on a
judgment entered in a separate judicial proceeding. A motion
9 In denying reconsideration of the Approval Order, the probate court explained that its ruling was "without prejudice to any other remedy, including and especially obviously the enforcement of the arbitration award itself." 15 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
for reconsideration "is not a device to relitigate old matters."
Id. (citation omitted).
We conclude that the probate court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Herbert and Patricia's motion for
reconsideration.
II. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
(1) Amano contends that the Arbitration Award was a
non-final decision, and that the circuit court therefore lacked
subject matter jurisdiction to enter the Arbitration Order.
"Whether a circuit court possesses subject matter jurisdiction
over a dispute relating to arbitration, including the threshold
issue of arbitrability, is a question of law reviewable de
novo." Mathewson v. Aloha Airlines, Inc., 82 Hawaiʻi 57, 69, 919
P.2d 969, 981 (1996) (cleaned up).
An arbitration award is subject to confirmation by the
circuit court as a final award under HRS Chapter 658A if it is
"intended by the arbitrator to be a complete determination of
every issue submitted." United Pub. Workers, AFSCME, Local 646
v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 124 Hawaiʻi 367, 371, 244 P.3d 604,
608 (App. 2010) (citation omitted). The record reflects that
the arbitrator resolved all issues submitted to arbitration, and
Amano does not contend otherwise. Amano therefore fails to
demonstrate that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enter
the Arbitration Order confirming the Arbitration Award. 16 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
(2) Amano contends that the circuit court erred by
enforcing an arbitration agreement that "violate[d] public
policy" by allowing piecemeal arbitrations. The record reflects
that Amano did not raise this argument in the circuit court
proceeding. The argument was therefore waived. 10 See Ass'n of
Apartment Owners of Wailea Elua v. Wailea Resort Co., 100 Hawaiʻi
97, 107, 58 P.3d 608, 618 (2002) ("Legal issues not raised in
the trial court are ordinarily deemed waived on appeal."
(citations omitted)).
(3) Amano contends that the Arbitration Award "decided
issues [the probate court] had already decided," and the circuit
court therefore erred by not vacating and remanding the matter
to the arbitrator "for clarification."
"Judicial review of an arbitration award is confined
to the strictest possible limits, and a court may only vacate an
award on the grounds specified in HRS § 658A-23 [(2016)] and
modify or correct on the grounds specified in HRS § 658A-24[
(2016)]." State of Haw. Org. of Police Officers, 135 Hawaiʻi at
461, 353 P.3d at 1003 (cleaned up). "This standard applies to
10 Amano identifies no controlling authority that a public policy objection to an arbitration award may be raised for the first time on appeal, and, even assuming she preserved the issue, she challenges the arbitration agreement, not the award itself. Cf. State of Haw. Org. of Police Officers (SHOPO) v. County of Kauaʻi, 135 Hawaiʻi 456, 465, 353 P.3d 998, 1007 (2015) (allowing parties to challenge arbitration awards that contravene public policy). 17 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
both the circuit court and the appellate courts." Id.
(citations omitted).
Here, Amano did not move to vacate the Arbitration
Award. Amano instead asked the circuit court to: (1) deny the
motion to confirm, pending instructions from the probate court;
or (2) remand the matter to the arbitrator for clarification
because the award was ambiguous. Amano has therefore waived any
argument, made for the first time on appeal, that the
Arbitration Award should be vacated.
We next turn to Amano's contention that the
Arbitration Award should be remanded to the arbitrator for
clarification. It is undisputed that the probate court, in
entering the Approval Order, denied Herbert and Patricia's
request to reduce Amano's trustee compensation. The probate
court, addressing the allegations presented in Herbert and
Patricia's Surcharge Petition, explained that if "the [probate
court] subsequently determine[d] that it is appropriate to
[Amano] may be ordered to return any improper compensation back
to the Trust." The record thus reflects that there was no
double compensation, and the arbitrator did not redecide claims
that the probate court already decided.
18 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
The record further reflects that Amano did not ask the
circuit court to modify or correct the Arbitration Award. 11
Thus, any argument that the circuit court failed to comply with
HRS § 658A-24(a)(1) or (2) is waived. See Ass'n of Apartment
Owners of Wailea Elua, 100 Hawaiʻi at 107, 58 P.3d at 618.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Approval
Order, Approval Judgment, and Order Denying Reconsideration
entered by the probate court in case no. 1TR141000145, and the
Arbitration Order and Arbitration Judgment entered by the
circuit court in case no. 1CSP-XX-XXXXXXX. 12
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, February 18, 2026.
On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Chief Judge Nickolas A. Kacprowski, Wendy F. Hanakahi, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen for Petitioner/Respondent/ Associate Judge Claimant-Appellant/Appellee and Respondent/Petitioner/ /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Claimant-Appellant/Appellee. Associate Judge
Richard P. Sybert, for Successor Trustee/ Petitioner/Respondent- Appellee/Appellant.
11 HRS § 658A-24(a)(1) and (2) (2016) provides, in relevant part, that a circuit court shall modify or correct an arbitration award if there "was an evident mathematical miscalculation or an evident mistake in the description of a person, thing, or property referred to in the award" or if the "arbitrator has made an award on a claim not submitted to the arbitrator."
12 It is further ordered that Patricia and Herbert's February 3, 2026 "Motion to Dismiss Point of Error 2 in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX" is dismissed as moot.