NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER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2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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.