In Re the Thomas H. Gentry Revocable Trust
138 Haw. 158
| Haw. | 2016Background
- Thomas H. Gentry died in 1998; successor co‑trustees (Vorsatz and First Hawaiian Bank/Hawaiian Trust Company earlier) administered the Revocable Trust and the Marital Trust, which held substantial real‑estate business interests (the Gentry Companies).
- After prolonged accounting disputes, all beneficiaries and co‑trustees executed a December 21, 2007 Settlement Agreement requiring the co‑trustees to sell specified Gentry entities/assets within 30 months (with an 18‑month extension for good cause) and distribute proceeds to beneficiaries.
- The co‑trustees sold many assets but, citing the 2008 recession, proposed an in‑kind pro rata distribution of remaining assets rather than forced sales; beneficiaries split on that approach.
- Kiana Gentry filed a Petition to Enforce the Settlement Agreement (Aug. 25, 2010). The co‑trustees later filed a Petition for Instructions on distribution (Dec. 1, 2010). The probate court on March 25, 2013 denied Kiana’s Petition to Enforce (Enforcement Judgment) and ordered a pro rata in‑kind distribution of remaining assets (Distribution Judgment).
- Kiana appealed only the Enforcement Judgment to the ICA; the ICA dismissed the appeal as an improper collateral attack on the unappealed Distribution Judgment and as moot. The Hawai‘i Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kiana) | Defendant's Argument (Co‑Trustees) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of collateral‑attack doctrine | Kiana: her Petition to Enforce preceded co‑trustees’ Petition for Instructions; not an attack on an existing judgment | Co‑trustees: reversal of Enforcement Judgment would necessarily impeach the Distribution Judgment; so appeal is collateral attack | Court: Collateral‑attack doctrine does not apply — Kiana filed before co‑trustees’ petition and there was no prior final judgment to impeach; ICA erred |
| Mootness / availability of effective relief on appeal | Kiana: assets remain unsold and co‑trustees still control them; appellate relief (enforce sale) could be effective; probate court could conform distributions to its order | Co‑trustees: Distribution Judgment not appealed and remains binding; appellate court cannot give effective relief without overturning it; appeal moot | Court: Appeal not moot — effective relief remains possible; Distribution Judgment can be reopened or conformed and proceeds could be distributed per that judgment; ICA erred |
| Whether Distribution Judgment and Settlement Agreement conflict (scope) | Kiana: Settlement covers many issues beyond mere distribution and requires sale; Distribution Judgment is narrower and does not embrace the whole subject matter | Co‑trustees: Settlement silent about unsold assets after 30 months; probate court equitably approved pro rata distribution | Court: Settlement and Distribution Judgment do not embrace identical subject matter; Kiana retains concrete interests; appeal not foreclosed |
| Post‑judgment relief / probate power to alter distribution | Kiana: probate court retains HPR Rule 36 power to vacate/amend Distribution Judgment, so appellate relief remains meaningful | Co‑trustees: (implicitly) final Distribution Judgment forecloses relief | Court: HPR Rule 36 permits reopening/amendment for sufficient cause; this supports that effective relief is still available |
Key Cases Cited
- Kim v. Reilly, 105 Haw. 93, 94 P.3d 648 (Haw. 2004) (discussing collateral‑attack limitations where a party sought to evade an existing adjudication)
- Lingle v. Hawai'i Gov't Emps. Ass'n, 107 Haw. 178, 111 P.3d 587 (Haw. 2005) (holding proceedings filed before an award/decision cannot be treated as collateral attacks on a subsequent judgment)
- Smallwood v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 118 Haw. 139, 185 P.3d 887 (App. 2008) (summarizing elements for identifying impermissible collateral attacks)
- City Bank v. Saje Ventures II, 7 Haw. App. 130, 748 P.2d 812 (Haw. App. 1988) (mootness where property sale closed and appellate court could not provide effective relief)
- In re Doe Children, 105 Haw. 38, 93 P.3d 1145 (Haw. 2004) (mootness doctrine framed by adverse interest and effective remedy)
- First Hawaiian Bank v. Weeks, 70 Haw. 392, 772 P.2d 1187 (Haw. 1989) (defining collateral attack as attempt to impeach a judgment outside of direct post‑judgment remedies)