Title: Matter of Trust Estate of Kanoa
Citation: 393 P.2d 753, 47 Haw. 610
Docket Number: 4363, 4364
State: Hawaii
Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court
Date: June 26, 1964

47 Haw. 610 (1964) 393 P.2d 753 IN THE MATTER OF THE TRUST ESTATE OF KALEIPUA KANOA, DECEASED. Nos. 4363 AND 4364. Supreme Court of Hawaii. June 26, 1964. TSUKIYAMA, C.J., CASSIDY, WIRTZ, AND LEWIS, JJ., AND CIRCUIT JUDGE OKINO IN PLACE OF MIZUHA, J., DISQUALIFIED. *611 Paul F. Cronin (Pratt, Moore, Bortz &amp; Vitousek of counsel) for Charles Lewis Kreuter, et al., respondents-appellants in No. 4363. William H. Dodd and Herbert Y.C. Choy (Fong, Miho, Choy &amp; Robinson of counsel) for Magoon Estate, Ltd., respondent-appellant in No. 4364. F.D. Padgett (Robertson, Castle &amp; Anthony) for Bishop Trust Co., Ltd., petitioner-appellee, neither filed a brief nor argued. Robert G. Dodge (Heen, Kai &amp; Dodge of counsel) for John D. Kaupiko and Simeon K. Aylett, respondents-appellees. Eichi Oki (Vincent H. Yano of counsel) for Manuel Victorino, respondent-appellee. Harry T. Tanaka (Yamaguchi &amp; Tanaka of counsel) for Walter Lloyd Kreuter, et al., respondents-appellees. Per Curiam. This proceeding was initiated by a bill for instructions filed by Bishop Trust Co., Ltd., successor trustee of the testamentary trust created by Kaleipua Kanoa, who died on September 21, 1897. By her will, which was written in the Hawaiian language, the testatrix set up a trust of her residuary estate, naming five individuals, Kanehiwa (k), Hoomalu (w), Kaleipualiilii (w), Eva Kapualanilehua (w), and Lukela (k), as initial income takers, with provision made for substitution upon the death of any of them. The trust was to terminate on the death of the survivor of the five named beneficiaries, which occurred with the death of Lukela on March 29, 1962. An acceptable translation of the distribution clause of the trust, without interpretation of the word "keiki," is as follows: By its bill the trustee requested to be instructed to *612 whom and in what shares the trust corpus should be distributed. The trial court construed the trust to provide for a stirpital distribution among the surviving descendants of the named income beneficiaries. Two separate appeals have been taken from the holding. One of the appellants, Magoon Estate, Ltd., contends that under a proper construction of the will, a child of an original life beneficiary acquired an indefeasibly vested remainder interest in the corpus upon his birth or at least upon the death of his parent. By mesne conveyances, Magoon Estate acquired all the right, title and interest in the trust estate of Esther K. Victorino who was the only child of Kanehiwa. She died in 1955. Her father, Kanehiwa, died in 1937. Magoon Estate's position is that it takes a share of the corpus of the estate to the exclusion of a surviving son of Esther Victorino. The other appellants, appealing jointly, are the seven surviving children of Hoomalu and the representatives of the estate of one of Hoomalu's children who died after the death of Lukela. They contend that the will provides for either a per capita distribution among the descendants of the original life beneficiaries or for a distribution limited to the blood children of such beneficiaries. Another child of Hoomalu died in 1958 leaving three children. They contended in the lower court for a per capita distribution. As appellees in this court they argue, with the three remaining individual appellees (a son of Lukela, a son of Kaleipualiilii and a grandson of Kanehiwa) to sustain the judgment entered below. (Eva Kapualanilehua died without issue a few years after the inception of the trust.) An incidental point raised below was whether an illegitimate child of a daughter of one of the named life beneficiaries could claim through his mother. The trial court's *613 ruling on the point was that he could not. However, that issue is not before us as the respondent adversely affected by the particular ruling has not appealed. With the deletion of the portions pertaining to the ruling on the status of the illegitimate child, the trial court's decision is set out hereunder. We fully agree with the trial court's holding and with the basic reasoning upon which it is founded. The decision is adopted as the opinion of this court.[1] *627 Judgment affirmed. [1] The decision of the court below did not consider the alternate contention of Magoon Estate, Ltd., apparently made for the first time in this court, that Esther Victorino acquired an indefeasibly vested remainder interest in the corpus upon the death of her parent, Kanehiwa, in 1937. However, this additional contention adds nothing to that appellant's case as it is also disposed of by our adoption of the trial court's holding that "the heirs of the body of the named initial income takers are ascertained in the instant case at the termination of the trust."