Trusts, Wills, and Estates Flashcards

A testator in Honolulu handwrites a document that reads: 'In the event of my death, I give my entire estate to my daughter. This is my will.' The testator signs and dates the document but does not have it witnessed. Under the Hawaii Uniform Probate Code, what is the status of this document?

Answer: Valid as a holographic will because the signature and material portions are in the testator's handwriting.

Under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 560:2-502(b), a will that does not comply with the formal execution requirements (like having two witnesses) is still valid as a holographic will, whether or not witnessed, if the signature and material portions of the document are in the testator's handwriting.

A widower in Hilo dies intestate, survived by his only son and his own mother. How will the widower's estate be distributed under Hawaii's laws of intestate succession?

Answer: His son will inherit the entire estate.

According to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 560:2-103, if a decedent has no surviving spouse, the entire intestate estate passes to the decedent's descendants. The mother (an ancestor) would only inherit if there were no surviving descendants.

A testator in Maui properly executes a will in 2020. In 2023, with the intent to revoke it, the testator uses a black marker to completely black out the signature on the original will. Under Hawaii law, is this action an effective revocation of the will?

Answer: Yes, this is a valid revocatory act by obliteration.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 560:2-507(a)(2) provides that a will can be revoked by performing a 'revocatory act on the will,' which includes canceling, obliterating, or destroying it with the intent to revoke. Blacking out the signature is a classic example of obliteration performed with revocatory intent.

A woman dies in Kauai with a valid will that leaves only $1,000 to her husband of 20 years, with the remainder of her multi-million dollar estate going to a charity. The husband is dissatisfied with this amount. What is the primary purpose of the 'elective share' under the Hawaii Uniform Probate Code in this situation?

Answer: To protect a surviving spouse from being effectively disinherited by allowing them to claim a statutory percentage of the augmented estate.

The elective share, governed by HRS § 560:2-202 et seq., is a legal protection to prevent a decedent from completely disinheriting their surviving spouse. It allows the surviving spouse to 'elect' to take a statutorily defined portion of the decedent's 'augmented estate' instead of what was provided in the will.

A man dies in Honolulu without a will. He is survived by his wife and their two children. He also has a third child from a previous marriage. Under Hawaii's intestate succession rules, how will his estate be distributed?

Answer: His wife receives the first $220,000, plus one-half of the balance of the estate.

Under HRS § 560:2-102(4), if there are surviving descendants of the decedent who are not descendants of the surviving spouse, the surviving spouse's share is the first $220,000, plus one-half of the balance of the intestate estate. The remaining portion is then divided among the decedent's descendants.

A trustee in Kona manages a trust established for the benefit of a life beneficiary (who receives all income) and a remainderman (who will receive the principal after the life beneficiary's death). The trustee invests the entire trust principal in high-risk, high-growth stocks that produce very little income but have the potential for significant capital appreciation. Which fiduciary duty has the trustee most likely breached?

Answer: The duty of impartiality, because the investment strategy heavily favors the remainderman over the life beneficiary.

The duty of impartiality, codified in Hawaii under the Uniform Prudent Investor Act (HRS Chapter 554C), requires a trustee to act impartially in investing and managing trust assets, taking into account the differing interests of the beneficiaries. By investing solely for growth with little income, the trustee has favored the interest of the remainderman at the expense of the income beneficiary.