in a legitimate rather than in an illegitimate fashion.” Hayes v. Beresford, 184 Conn. 558, 567, 440 A.2d 224 (1981); see also Lavigne v. Lavigne, 3 Conn.App. 423, 488 A.2d 1290 (1985). Hawaii recognizes the theory of quasi-estoppel, which is “a species of equitable estoppel which has its basis in election, waiver, acquiescence, or even acceptance of benefits and which precludes a party from asserting to another’s disadvantage, a right inconsistent with a position previously taken by [the party].” Anderson v. Anderson, 59 Haw. 575, 589, 585 P.2d 938, 947 (1978) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Aehegma v. Aehegma, 8 Haw.App. 215, 224, 797 P.2d 74, 80 (1990) (similarly defining quasi-estoppel); see also Hartmann v. Bertelmann, 39 Haw. 619, 626-31 (Haw.Terr.1952) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, the family court held
holding that beneficiaries of testamentary trust were estopped from claiming damages to trust allegedly caused by trustees failure to sell certain real property within reasonable time as provided for by will of testator where beneficiaries had contributed to delay in sale of real property by their insistence that property be sold for price in excess of price recommended by trustee and prices offered by potential purchasers holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property holding that a union health trust had standing to sue tobacco companies to recover medical expenses paid by the trust and allegedly caused by beneficiaries smoking holding that trust beneficiaries have no authority to maintain an action as third party beneficiaries of contracts between the trustee and agents of the trustee concerning the internal affairs of the trust holding that in contrast to foreclosure of a mortgage secured by personal property foreclosure of real property under a deed of trust need hot be at a commercially reasonable sale and the failure to conduct a commercially reasonable foreclosure sale of real property is not actionable