In re: The Estate of Una C. Chin

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
17-OCT-2025
07:50 AM
Dkt. 80 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

THE ESTATE OF UNA CHUH CHINN, also known as UNA C. CHINN,
Deceased.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(PROBATE NO. 1CLP-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)

This appeal arises from a dispute between six siblings
regarding the probate of the will of their mother, Una Chuh
Chinn (Mother). Two of the siblings, Respondents-Appellants
Barbara Lau (Barbara) and Patricia L. Chinn (Patricia)
(collectively, Appellants), appeal the probate court's order
granting probate of Mother's March 8, 2018 will (2018 Will), and
the appointment of their brother, Petitioner-Appellee Eric K.H.
Chinn (Eric) as Personal Representative (PR) of Mother's estate
pursuant to the 2018 Will. We affirm.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Appellants appeal from the "Order Granting in Part
Petition for Probate of Will and Appointment of Personal
Representative" (Order Granting Probate and PR) and the
"Judgment on Order Granting in Part Petition for Probate of Will
and Appointment of Personal Representative" (Judgment), both
filed and entered on February 21, 2023 by the Circuit Court of
the First Circuit, sitting in probate (Probate Court). 1 They
raise four points of error (POEs), which do not comply with
Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4)(iii)'s
requirement that each POE state "where in the record the alleged
error was objected to or the manner in which the alleged error
was brought to the attention of the court or agency." The POEs
state:

(1) The Probate Court erred in naming Eric Chinn the
Personal Representative of the Estate of Una Chuh
Chinn, due to undue influence, which resulted in the
Fifth Amendment to the Una Chinn Trust dated May 3,
2017, Sixth Amendment to the Una Chinn Trust dated July
4, 2017, Seventh Amendment to the Una Chinn Trust dated
July 8, 2017, and any later amendments and/or
restatements of the Una Chinn Trust, which wrongfully
disinherited Barbara Lau and her sons, and increased
the Siblings' shares of Una Chinn's estate, to their
benefits.

(2) The Probate Court erred in rejecting the request for
the referral of the Petition to the Civil Trials
Calendar pursuant to Rule 20, HPR [(Hawai‘i Probate
Rules (HPR)]. RA#64.

(3) The Probate Court erred in failing to issue an order
and findings regarding the retention of the case in
contravention of Rule 20(a), HPR. RA#64.

(4) The Probate Court's refusal to refer the Petition to
the Civil Trials Calendar deprived Appellants of their
right to a jury trial.

1 The Honorable R. Mark Browning presided.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

There are only two record references above, to "RA#64" in POEs 2
and 3, which do not show where and how the errors were
preserved. "RA#64" refers to the Order Granting Probate and PR.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve
Appellants' POEs as follows.
HRAP Rule 28(b)(4) provides that "[p]oints not
presented in accordance with this section will be
disregarded[.]" The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court has stated, however,
that we must look for whether "the remaining sections of the
brief provide the necessary information to identify the party's
argument" in accordance with the public policy of affording
"litigants the opportunity to have their cases heard on the
merits, where possible." Marvin v. Pflueger, 127 Hawaiʻi 490,
496, 280 P.3d 88, 94 (2012).
Applying this liberal review standard to Appellants'
Opening Brief, we note that POEs 2 and 3 raise a challenge based
on the HPR Rule 20 requirement for a probate court to issue an
order assigning a contested case to the civil trials calendar or
retaining the case in the probate court. 2 The absence of such an
order is typically a dispositive, threshold issue. Our review
of the remaining sections of the Opening Brief, however, still
does not reveal where and how Appellants preserved their HPR
Rule 20 argument. While the brief contains argument regarding
the HPR Rule 20 challenge, the argument contains no record
references. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(7) (requiring argument to be

2 In In re Elaine Emma Short Revocable Living Tr. Agreement Dated
July 17, 1984, 147 Hawaiʻi 456, 468, 465 P.3d 903, 915 (2020), the Hawaiʻi
Supreme Court held that under HPR Rule 20(a), "when a case is contested the
probate court must, through a written order, either assign the case to the
circuit court or retain it."

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

supported by citations to the record). In their argument,
Appellants claim they "raised" the HPR Rule 20 issue in "oral
argument" below, stating: "The Probate Court's announcement of
its decision likewise made no mention of the ruling on the Rule
20, HPR request, which counsel raised in his oral argument, nor
was any reason given on the record when the Court made its
findings." Opening Brief at 30 (emphasis added). Appellants do
not indicate where in the record, or where in the transcript of
the January 5, 2023 hearing such oral argument was made. A
review of that transcript does not reveal such argument.
Petitioners-Appellees Eric, Individually and as
Trustee of [Mother's] Revocable Living Trust dated May 12, 1993,
and the other siblings Herbert K.W. Chinn (Herbert Jr.), Stephen
K.B. Chinn (Stephen), and Wendy Vance (Wendy) (collectively,
Appellees) argue that Appellants are "judicially estopped from
claiming the court erred in appointing Eric Chinn as personal
representative, based on Appellants' claim of undue influence."
Appellees point to Appellants' counsel's statements at the
hearing on Eric's "Petition for Probate of Will and Appointment
of Personal Representative" (Petition), as evidence that
Appellants "abandoned their claim of undue influence" because
"when asked by the Probate Court why the [2018] Will should not
be probated, Appellants' counsel stated that he did not have a
problem with the probate"; and the Probate Court "relied upon
Appellants' position" and their "concession" to Appellees'
counsel's statements that the 2018 Will was "genuine" and "bona
fide," in ruling to grant the Petition. In light of Appellees'
arguments, we review the transcript of the January 5, 2023
hearing on the Petition to ascertain whether Appellants
"abandoned" their challenge to the probate of the 2018 Will.

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The relevant record reflects that Eric's November 1,
2022 Petition requested probate of the 2018 Will and for him to
be appointed PR pursuant to the 2018 Will. The 2018 Will
nominated Eric as PR, Herbert Jr. if Eric was unable to serve,
Wendy if Herbert Jr. was unable to serve, and Stephen if Wendy
was unable to serve. Appellants' December 2, 2022 objection to
the Petition (Objection) claimed the 2018 Will was the product
of undue influence; that the January 31, 2017 will (2017 Will)
should be probated; that "Henry Beerman" (Beerman) should be
nominated as PR because Patricia and Eric "are parties to
lawsuits, and conflicted out." The 2017 Will appointed Mother's
spouse Herbert Y.H. Chinn, Patricia, and Eric as co-Personal
Representatives (co-PRs), then "the survivor of them" as
"Alternate" PR, and Beerman as the "Next Alternate" PR.
Appellants' 20-page Objection contained a single sentence
request on the last page, that "the Court is requested to
declare the matter contested pursuant to [HPR] Rule 20 . . . and
assign the case to the Trials Calendar of the Circuit Court,
either Judge Ochiai or Judge Gary Chang, who are handling
related lawsuits involving the same parties." Eric filed a
December 12, 2022 response to Appellants' Objection.
At the January 5, 2023 hearing on the Petition, the
Circuit Court commenced the hearing by pointing out that: "the
only difference between the wills is who's the personal
representative[,]" as follows:

[THE COURT]: I've read everything. I'm laughing
because I can't believe I got 33 pages plus on an issue
regarding a probate of a personal representative. And I
got two wills, and the only difference between the wills is
who's the personal representative. Why did I need 33 pages
of -- of argument? Why can't we just settle on a neutral?

After hearing argument from Eric's counsel, the Circuit Court
then asked Appellants' counsel the following:

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

[THE COURT]: I'm aware of the facts, Mr. Kawata.

[MR. KAWATA]: Right. So anyway --

[THE COURT]: What I want to know is --

[MR. KAWATA]: -- what ended up happening --

[THE COURT]: -- why shouldn't I go ahead and probate
the will?

[MR. KAWATA]: Sorry?

[THE COURT]: It being presented.

[MR. KAWATA]: I don't necessarily have a problem
with the probate but I suggest a neutral.

[THE COURT]: Okay.

[MR. KAWATA]: All right.

[THE COURT]: All right.

(Emphasis added.) After further questions by the Probate Court
and responses from both counsels, Appellees urged the court to
award them fees and grant the petition because of Appellants'
counsel's admission that "he doesn't have a problem with the
will" -- to which the Probate Court agreed, as follows:

[ERIC'S COUNSEL]: And we are requesting fees . . .
against respondents[.] . . . And he's -- he basically
admitted, I heard him say he doesn't have a problem with
the will. The will is genuine. It's bona fide. It should
be admitted to probate, judge. Thank you.

[THE COURT]: Thank you. That's my conclusion as
well. Petitioner's -- petition's granted in part subject
to the court's receipt and review of the declaration for
attorneys' fees and costs and a refiled docket 43. The
instrument dated March 8th [(2018 Will)] is admitted into
probate as the last will and testament of decedent. The
court will appoint petitioner as the personal
representative, serve without bond.

(Emphases added.)
Appellants' Reply Brief argues against judicial
estoppel, explaining that "Appellants' counsel was simply

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

stating that he welcomed a probate, as long as Eric Chinn was
not the Personal Representative and a neutral was appointed."
Appellants explain the context for their counsel's statements as
follows:

The Probate Court's approach was to query counsel about
whether there was a difference if either the January 31,
2017 Will or the March 8, 2018 Will was probated. The
Probate Court's observation was that under both Wills, the
Probate Estate would "pour over" to the Trust. As such, it
didn't matter which Will was probated, since, under each
Will, the dispositive provisions were the same, i.e. to the
Una Chinn Trust. . . .

Mindful of the Court's inclination, Appellants'
counsel argued that the Personal Representative should be a
neutral individual and not Eric Chinn, due to the
significant conflicts of interest because Barbara Chinn
[sic] and Patricia Chinn had both filed suit against Eric
Chinn in other cases which were detailed to the Probate
Court in the Objection to Eric Chinn's Petition filed by
Appellants . . . .

Appellants contend that "[t]he claim that Appellants' counsel
agreed to the Probate of the March 8, 2018 Will and appointment
of Eric Chinn is totally without merit"; and that "Appellants
consistently maintained their objections and their position with
respect to the request for a Rule 20, HPR referral of the
contested case to the Civil Trials Calendar." Appellants'
contentions are not supported by the transcript and are
unpersuasive.
Here, the relevant record reflects that Appellants did
not object to, and stated they "d[id]n't necessarily have a
problem with the probate" of the 2018 Will, when the Probate
Court directly asked Appellants' counsel for his position on
probating the 2018 Will presented in the Petition. The 2018
Will designated Eric as PR. The transcript also does not
reflect any argument based on HPR Rule 20. When the Probate
Court agreed with Eric's counsel's assertions that Appellants'

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

counsel "basically admitted . . . he doesn't have a problem with
the [2018] [W]ill" and the 2018 Will was "genuine" and "bona
fide[,]" Appellants did not object or attempt to correct the
Probate Court's agreement with, and adoption of, Eric's
counsel's assertions as its own conclusions. Given this record,
we conclude that Appellants waived their challenge to the
Petition to probate the 2018 Will and the Probate Court's
failure to refer the Petition to the Civil Trials Calendar.
See State v. Moses, 102 Hawaiʻi 449, 456, 77 P.3d 940, 947 (2003)
(stating the general rule that if a party fails to raise an
argument at trial, that argument will be deemed to be waived on
appeal).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Probate
Court's February 21, 2023 Order Granting Probate and PR and
Judgment.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, October 17, 2025.
On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Mark S. Kawata,
Chief Judge
for Respondents-Appellants
Barbara Lau and Patricia L.
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Chinn.
Associate Judge
Michael D. Rudy,
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
for Petitioners-Appellees
Associate Judge
Eric K.H. CHINN, Individually
and as Trustee of the Una Chuh
Chinn Revocable Living Trust
dated May 12, 1993, and
Herbert K.W. Chinn, Stephen
K.B. Chinn, and Wendy Vance.

8