Background
The consolidated appeals concern the Tsugio Kurihara Revocable Living Trust dated August 21, 1997, as amended and restated. The appeals arose from proceedings in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit.
After the Intermediate Court of Appeals filed a memorandum opinion on September 29, 2026, self-represented beneficiary Ted Kurihara and self-represented beneficiary and successor trustee Douglas Kurihara separately moved for reconsideration under Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 40.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals denied both motions for reconsideration.
The court concluded that the motions presented no point of law or fact that it had overlooked or misapprehended, as required by HRAP Rule 40(b). The order did not alter the September 29, 2026 memorandum opinion.
Key Takeaways
- Reconsideration under HRAP Rule 40 requires identification of a point of law or fact the appellate court overlooked or misapprehended.
- The court found that neither Ted Kurihara’s nor Douglas Kurihara’s motion met that standard.
- The three-judge panel denied both motions in the consolidated trust appeals.
Why It Matters
The order reinforces that reconsideration is not available merely to revisit an appellate ruling. A movant must specifically identify controlling law or material facts that the court failed to consider or misunderstood.