In re: Estate of Stephen Takeshi Taniguchi ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
10-JAN-2023
07:54 AM
Dkt. 54 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
THE ESTATE OF STEPHEN TAKESHI TANIGUCHI,
also known as STEPHEN T. TANIGUCHI
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1LP161000742)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)
Claimant-Appellant Paula E. Taniguchi appeals from the
"Judgment on Order Granting Petition to Transfer from Informal to
Formal Probate, for Resolution of Creditor's Claim, for Approval
of Final Accounts and Distribution and Complete Settlement of
Estate" entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit on
June 29, 2018.1 For the reasons explained below, we affirm.
Stephen T. Taniguchi died on March 29, 2016. His will
was informally admitted to probate. Stephen's widow, Kimii
Taniguchi, and son, Jonathan M. Taniguchi, were appointed co-
personal representatives.
On February 10, 2017, Paula, as purported successor
trustee to the Shirley S. Taniguchi Trust (Shirley's Trust) and
as trustee of the Paul Toshikazu Taniguchi Trust, filed a claim
1
The Honorable R. Mark Browning presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
for $267,000 against Stephen's estate.2 Kimii, as personal
representative, disallowed the claim.
Stephen's estate could not be informally closed due to
Paula's outstanding claim. On December 18, 2017, Kimii filed a
petition to transfer Stephen's estate from informal to formal
probate, for denial of Paula's claim, and for settlement of the
estate. Kimii filed a Certificate Re No Estate and Transfer Tax
Due, and the estate's Final Accounts. Jonathan joined in Kimii's
petition. Paula objected. Kimii's petition was heard on
April 12, 2018.3 The hearing was continued to May 24, 2018.
On May 15, 2018, Paula filed a petition for allowance
of her claim. Kimii filed an objection to Paula's petition. At
the continued hearing on May 24, 2018, the circuit court granted
Kimii's petition and denied Paula's claim.4 An order was entered
on June 29, 2018, along with the Judgment.
Paula filed a timely notice of appeal. The circuit
court entered its "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and
Decision and Order Granting Petition to Transfer from Informal to
Formal Probate, for Resolution of Creditor's Claim, for Approval
of Final Accounts and Distribution and Complete Settlement of
Estate" on September 6, 2018.
We take judicial notice, see Hawaii Rules of Evidence
Rule 201, of the "Trustees' Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,
and Decision and Order Granting Petition to Confirm Successor Co-
trustees" entered in In re Shirley S. Taniguchi Trust,
1TR171000040 (Haw. Cir. Ct. Aug. 23, 2017), JIMS No. 26. The
circuit court's findings and conclusions in that case are binding
on Paula, who was a party to that case, under the doctrines of
claim preclusion (res judicata) and issue preclusion (collateral
2
Paula is Stephen's sister. Shirley was their mother. Paul is
their father.
3
The record on appeal does not contain a transcript of the hearing.
4
The record on appeal does not contain a transcript of the hearing.
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
estoppel).5 We also take judicial notice of this court's summary
disposition order, In re Shirley S. Taniguchi Trust, No. CAAP-17-
0000517, 2020 WL 887738 (Haw. App. Feb. 24, 2020) (SDO) (In re
Shirley's Trust), and the supreme court's order rejecting Paula's
application for writ of certiorari entered in In re Shirley S.
Taniguchi Trust, SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX, 2020 WL 2537034 (Haw. May 19,
2020).
Paula challenges the circuit court's findings of fact
(FOF) nos. 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 18, and conclusions of law (COL)
nos. 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 16. The label of a finding
of fact or a conclusion of law does not determine the standard of
review. City & Cnty. of Honolulu v. Honolulu Police Comm'n, 151
Hawai#i 56, 62, 508 P.3d 851, 857 (App. 2022) (citing Crosby v.
State Dep't of Budget & Fin., 76 Hawai#i 332, 340, 876 P.2d 1300,
1308 (1994)). Whether a determination is a finding of fact or a
conclusion of law is a question of law; the accuracy of the label
is freely reviewable by an appellate court. Kilauea Neighborhood
Ass'n v. Land Use Comm'n, 7 Haw. App. 227, 229, 751 P.2d 1031,
1034 (1988).
We review findings of fact under the "clearly
erroneous" standard. Est. of Klink ex rel. Klink v. State, 113
Hawai#i 332, 351, 152 P.3d 504, 523 (2007). A finding of fact is
clearly erroneous when the record lacks substantial evidence to
support the finding or when, despite substantial evidence to
support the finding, we are left with a definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed. Id. "Substantial
evidence" is "credible evidence which is of sufficient quality
and probative value to enable a person of reasonable caution to
support a conclusion." Id. (citations omitted).
5
"Claim preclusion prohibits the parties or their privies from
relitigating a previously adjudicated cause of action; issue preclusion . . .
prevents the parties or their privies from relitigating any issue that was
actually litigated and finally decided in the earlier action." E. Sav. Bank,
FSB v. Esteban, 129 Hawai#i 154, 158, 296 P.3d 1062, 1066 (2013) (citation
omitted).
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
We review conclusions of law under the "right/wrong"
standard. Klink, 113 Hawai#i at 351, 152 P.3d at 523. A
conclusion of law that is supported by the trial court's findings
of fact and reflects an application of the correct rule of law
will not be overturned. Id. When a conclusion of law presents
mixed questions of fact and law, we review it under the "clearly
erroneous" standard because the court's conclusions are dependent
on the facts and circumstances of each individual case. Id.The circuit court found:
8. [Kimii] is also a Successor Co-Trustee of the
Shirley S. Taniguchi Trust, dated December 27, 2002, as
amended (Residuary). [Kimii] also filed a Petition to
Confirm Successor Co-Trustees, filed on or about March 23,
2017, under T. No. 17-1-0040, In the Matter of the Shirley
S. Taniguchi Trust, dated December 27, 2002, as Amended,
seeking to confirm that she and her son Jonathan M.
Taniguchi are the sole Co-Trustees of the Shirley S.
Taniguchi Trust.
9. The Order Granting Petition to Confirm Successor
Co-Trustees was filed on June 7,2017. Exh. "A" to the
Petition.
10. On August 23, 2017, the Court also filed
Trustees' Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision
and Order Granting Petition to Confirm Successor
Co-Trustees. Exh. "B" to the Petition.
These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, and by the Order Granting Petition to Confirm Successor
Co-trustees filed in In re Shirley's Trust. They are not clearly
erroneous.
The circuit court found:
15. Upon the death of Shirley S. Taniguchi, her son,
the decedent, Stephen Taniguchi, became the sole Successor
Trustee and sole Beneficiary of the Shirley S. Taniguchi
Trust ("Shirley Trust") and handled the trust assets
appropriately.
This is a combined finding and conclusion. It is supported by
substantial evidence in the record, and by the Order Granting
Petition to Confirm Successor Co-trustees filed in In re
Shirley's Trust. It is not clearly erroneous.
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
The circuit court found:
16. Claimant Paula Taniguchi claims that her father,
Paul Taniguchi, currently has a life estate in the [Mānoa
House], which is owned by the Shirley Trust. The Shirley
Trust provides that Paul Taniguchi may reside at the
property rent-free, but does not grant any rights or
privileges of a life estate. The drafting attorney has
stated several times that the Trust does not grant a life
estate and that was not the intention of the Settlor of the
Shirley S. Taniguchi Trust, the owner of the real property.
See Decl. of Curtis B.K. Yuen.
This is a combined finding and conclusion. It is supported by
substantial evidence in the record. It is not clearly erroneous.
And the circuit court's conclusion that Shirley's Trust
does not grant Paul Taniguchi a life estate is not wrong.
Shirley's Trust gave Paul "the right to live in the family house
rent-free[.]"
Traditionally, the descriptive words denoting a life tenancy
are "use and occupation." The distinction is critical as a
right of occupancy is a personal privilege only. . . .
Further indicia of a right of occupancy can be found where
there is no language from which the added rights and
responsibilities of a life estate can be implied and no
right exists to lease or collect rents and the
responsibility for maintenance falls upon someone other than
the life tenant.
In re Est. of Sauer, 753 N.Y.S.2d 318, 320 (Surr. Ct. 2002)
(cleaned up); accord Baker v. Puni, 14 Haw. 179, 180 (Haw. Terr.
1902) (holding that grantor's reservation of "the right to
jointly use and occupy said property during her natural life,
together with the grantee" "did not give or leave to [grantor] a
life estate in more than one-half of the land"). Shirley's Trust
gave Paul the right to occupy the Mānoa House; the record does
not establish that Shirley's Trust gave Paul the "use" of the
Mānoa House or the right to lease it and collect rents.
The circuit court found:
18. Collection of all sums known or believed to be
due and collectible for the Estate has been made.
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
The finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record
(the estate's Final Accounts). It is not clearly erroneous.
The circuit court concluded:
2. [Paula]'s declaration attached to her "Petition
for Allowance of Claim" was not based on personal knowledge
and contains statements that are speculative and are not
supported by any documentation or admissible evidence.
This is a combined finding and conclusion. The record contains
no evidence to the contrary. It is not clearly erroneous.
The circuit court concluded:
5. [Paula] carried the burden of proving her
Creditor's claim and failed to do so.
The circuit court was not wrong. D'Herblay v. Macomber, 20 Haw.
274, 276 (Haw. Terr. 1910) (requiring that "the plaintiff shall
have first established the fact that he is a creditor of the
decedent's estate, and that his claim is valid and genuine.").
The circuit court concluded:
10. All just claims against and debts of the Estate
and all expenses of administration thus far incurred and all
taxes that have attached to or accrued against the Estate
have been paid or will be paid prior to distribution.
11. All duties, required by law or orders of this
Court of which a faithful and prudent personal
representative should do, have been performed.
12. [Kimii]'s Final Account showing that the Estate
had no receipts or disbursements as all assets were held in
Trust is approved.
13. The Estate is in a condition to be closed.
These combined findings and conclusions are supported by
substantial evidence in the record (the Certificate Re No Estate
and Transfer Tax Due and Final Accounts) and reflect an
application of the correct rule of law. They will not be
overturned. See Est. of Klink, 113 Hawai#i at 351, 152 P.3d at
523 (noting that a conclusion of law that is supported by the
trial court's findings of fact and reflects an application of the
correct rule of law will not be overturned).
6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Paula also argues that she was deprived of her
constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. She
did not make that argument below. Her argument is directed to
the circuit court judgment in In re Shirley's Trust. She
contends: "By granting the Petition [in In re Shirley's Trust]
and appointing [Kimii and Jonathan] as Co-Trustees of [Shirley's]
Trust, the Circuit Court violated [Paula] Taniguchi's
constitutional rights to due process and equal protection by
denying [Paula] and [Paul] property, possession, and ownership
interests in the trust property in which [Paul] Taniguchi has a
life estate." But she appealed from the judgment in In re
Shirley's Trust. We affirmed. The supreme court rejected her
application for a writ of certiorari. Her collateral attack upon
the judgment entered in In re Shirley's Trust is barred. See
First Hawaiian Bank v. Weeks, 70 Haw. 392, 398, 772 P.2d 1187,
1191 (1989) ("As a general rule, a collateral attack may not be
made upon a judgment rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction.") (cleaned up).
For the foregoing reasons, the Judgment entered by the
circuit court on June 29, 2018, is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 10, 2023.
On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
R. Steven Geshell, Presiding Judge
for Claimant-Appellant.
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Emily Kawashima Waters, Associate Judge
for Personal Representative-
Appellee. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge
7