Ikuta's Estate, Matter of, 6175

• Decision Date: 30 December 1981
• Docket Number: No. 6175,6175
• Citation: 639 P.2d 400,64 Haw. 236
• Parties: In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Shunji Kay IKUTA, also known as Shunji K. Ikuta, also known as Shunji Ikuta, Deceased.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Page 400

639 P.2d 400

64 Haw. 236

In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Shunji Kay IKUTA, also known as Shunji K. Ikuta, also known as Shunji Ikuta, Deceased.

No. 6175.

Supreme Court of Hawai'i.

Dec. 30, 1981.

Syllabus by the Court

1. In a suit to enforce a foreign judgment, the jurisdiction of the court which rendered it is open to judicial inquiry, and where the question of law or fact necessary to establish jurisdiction was not litigated in the original suit, it is a matter to be adjudicated in a subsequent suit upon the judgment.

2. A foreign judgment is entitled to no further effect in another state than it has in the jurisdiction that rendered it.

3. Where the limit of the California court's power was to determine the community status of property located in Hawaii and where the California court did not have jurisdiction over the noncommunity property, Hawaii law determines the tenancy of the noncommunity Hawaii property rather than the California divorce decree.

4. An absolute divorce will convert title held as tenants by the entirety to a tenancy in common if the real property is not otherwise provided for, and property management agreement preceding divorce decree does not manifest intent to create joint tenancy, although property settlement agreement might.

5. The purpose of HRS § 509-2 (1976) and its antecedent, RLH § 12781 (1945) is to eliminate the common-law requisite of a "straw man" in creating a joint tenancy.

6. Having eliminated the common-law distinction between patent and latent ambiguities and having allowed extrinsic evidence to determine the true intent of a trust provision, it was not error for the lower court to admit extrinsic evidence to determine the true intent of the testamentary trust where a literal interpretation of the will provision would have defeated the trust from its inception.

7. The law abhors intestacy and presumes against it, and the reformation of decedent's will by changing the word "oldst" (sic ) to "youngest" son was not error where failure to reform the will would have defeated the testamentary trust from its inception and required the estate to be distributed pursuant to intestacy laws.

8. The doctrine of acceleration, as applied to the laws of property, "refers to a hastening of the owner of the future interest toward a status of present possession or enjoyment by reason of the failure of the preceding estate."

9. Application of the doctrine of acceleration is precluded where it would defeat the testator's general plan for distribution of his property and cut off contingent remainder interests.

10. The intent of the testator must prevail unless inconsistent with some positive rule of law.

11. Acceleration based on a beneficiary's election of her dower interests was properly denied where it would frustrate the testator's intent by cutting off the contingent remainder interests that would otherwise survive until the death of the beneficiary who made such election.

12. Actions in the nature of construing a will do not constitute a contest which would activate forfeiture clauses, and the actions of requesting the court to exclude certain real property from the trust res, taking a position inconsistent with the co-trustee's motion for instructions, and objecting to a petition for final accounts did not trigger the forfeiture clause.

13. Courts are empowered to appoint additional trustees when it would be conducive to the better administration of the trust and are not limited to filling vacancies, and appointment of a Hawaii corporate fiduciary as co-trustee was not error where the trust res includes Hawaii realty, the existing trustee is a resident of California, and the existing trustee is a litigant in a dispute between the first and second families of the testator regarding the trust property.

John A. Chanin, Honolulu, for appellants, cross-appellees Chiyoko Ikuta, Clyde Ikuta, Robert Ikuta and Michael Ikuta.

Clesson Y. Chikasuye, Honolulu, for appellees, cross-appellants Mary T. Ikuta and Paul Ikuta.

Before RICHARDSON, C. J., OGATA, LUM and NAKAMURA, JJ., and FONG, Circuit Judge, in place of MENOR, J., excused.

RICHARDSON, Chief Justice.

A petition for ancillary probate of the estate of Shunji K. Ikuta was presented to the circuit court of the first circuit in 1970. This appeal and cross appeal were brought upon the subsequent order of the probate judge approving accounts, determining trust, distributing the estate and discharging the ancillary executor.

On appeal, Shunji Ikuta's first wife and their three sons contest the following conclusions of the lower court:

I. Hawaii real property was properly includable in the inventory of decedent's estate;

II. Having considered the record, memoranda, and arguments of counsel for the respective parties, reformation of decedent's testamentary trust was required by changing the word "oldst" (sic ) to "youngest"; and

III. This is not a proper case for the application of the doctrine of acceleration.

On cross appeal, Shunji Ikuta's second wife and their son contest the following conclusions:

IV. The positions taken by Shunji Ikuta's first three sons were not acts which contested or attacked the Will or any of its provisions so as to cause a forfeiture of their interests and rights as provided in decedent's will; and

V. The court is empowered to appoint additional trustees and therefore Mary T. Ikuta and Bishop Trust Co., Ltd. are appointed co-trustees of the trust created by decedent's will.

We affirm the lower court on all issues for the following reasons.

I.

Soon after their marriage, Shunji Ikuta and his first wife, Chiyoko, obtained real property in Wailupe through a deed dated December 29, 1936. The deed provided in part as follows:

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the granted premises, with all the privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to the said Shunji Kay Ikuta (k) and Chiyoko Lucille Ikuta (w), husband and wife as aforesaid, as tenants by the entirety, per tout et non per my, (and not as tenants in common nor as joint tenants) and to the survivor of the two, in fee simple, absolute and forever.

This deed was recorded at the Bureau of Conveyances, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Due to domestic difficulties, Shunji and Chiyoko Ikuta entered into a property management agreement which they executed on October 12, 1948. The agreement stated in pertinent part as follows:

WHEREAS, the First (Shunji) and Second (Chiyoko) Parties have joint tenancy property located at Wailupe, Oahu, Territory of Hawaii ....

Their marital problems increased and, on December 14, 1950, Judge Curtis of the California Superior Court issued an interlocutory decree of divorce, which was finalized on July 22, 1953. The Interlocutory Judgment of Divorce provided as follows with respect to the Wailupe parcel:

That the following described property (situate at Wailupe) was prior to the 12th day of October, 1948, and has been at all times since and still is the separate property of plaintiff and defendant, Dr. Shunji K. Ikuta, and held by them as joint tenants(.)

There is no other documentary reference to the nature of the tenancy of the Wailupe property as between Shunji and Chiyoko. In June of 1969 Shunji Ikuta executed his last will and testament. He died in Honolulu, Hawaii the next month. His will was admitted to probate in California later that year and to ancillary probate in Hawaii in 1970. With regard to the Wailupe property, the Hawaii probate court determined that:

(U)p to the divorce of decedent and Chiyoko Ikuta on December 14, 1950, the Wailupe property was held and owned by them as tenants by the entirety, and upon their divorce, decedent and Chiyoko Ikuta, by operation of law, became each a one-half owner as tenants in common of the Wailupe property, with the result that one-half of said Wailupe property was includable in the inventory of the estate of the decedent.

Order on Motion for Instructions filed December 26, 1972.

Appellants, Shunji Ikuta's first wife Chiyoko and their three sons, contend that the California divorce court found Shunji and Chiyoko to be joint tenants with right of survivorship of the Wailupe property before and after their divorce, so that Shunji's death caused the title to vest in Chiyoko. Appellees, Shunji Ikuta's second wife Mary and their son, argue that the Hawaii probate court was correct in finding that the property was held as tenants by the entirety up until the divorce and as tenants in common afterwards, which thereby transferred one-half interest in the Wailupe property to Shunji Ikuta's testamentary trust. The resolution of this issue ultimately depends upon our interpretation of the documents involved in light of the applicable law.

Our first task is to decide whether the California court had jurisdiction to determine tenancy of real property in Hawaii. In a suit to enforce a foreign judgment, the jurisdiction of the court which rendered it is open to judicial inquiry, Adam v. Saenger, 303 U.S. 59, 58 S.Ct. 454, 82 L.Ed. 649 (1938), and where the question of law or fact necessary to establish jurisdiction was not litigated in the original suit, it is a matter to be adjudicated in a subsequent suit upon the judgment. Id.

It is the general rule in California that a court has no jurisdiction to assign separate property of one spouse to the other, Fox v. Fox, 18 Cal.2d 645, 117 P.2d 325 (1941); Mitchell v. Marklund, 238 Cal.App.2d 398, 47 Cal.Rptr. 756 (Dist.Ct.App.1965); Citizens National Trust & Savings Bank v. Hawkins, 87 Cal.App.2d 535, 197 P.2d 385 (Dist.Ct.App.1948); and when it does, that part of its decision is not res judicata nor binding on other courts. Mitchell, supra; Sonnicksen v. Sonnicksen, 45 Cal.App.2d 46, 113 P.2d 495 (Dist.Ct.App.1941). There was no express authority for the California court to dispose of either spouse's separate property in this case. At the time of the Ikuta divorce, the relevant California statute referred only to the assignment of...