NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-20-0000435

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

CURT LANCE NAKAMURA, Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v.

CHARLENE KEIKO NAKAMURA, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CASE NO. 1DV191000133)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and Guidry, JJ.) 

Defendant-Appellant Charlene Keiko Nakamura (wife) 

appeals from the Order Denying Defendant's Motion and 

Declaration for Post Decree Relief Filed on March 3, 2020, 

entered by the Family Court of the First Circuit (family court)

on June 15, 2020.1 

1 The Honorable Jessi L.K. Hall presided.

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-20-0000435

20-MAY-2024

07:49 AM

Dkt. 103 SO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

2

Wife raises seven points of error on appeal. Upon 

careful review of the record and relevant legal authorities, and 

having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the 

issues raised by the parties, we resolve wife's points of error 

as follows:

(1) With respect to wife's first five points of error, 

wife contends that she was entitled to relief: (1) from the 

divorce decree pursuant to Hawaiʻi Family Court Rules (HFCR) 

Rule 60(b); and on the grounds that (2) the divorce decree was 

unconscionable; (3) Curt Lance Nakamura (husband) "engaged in 

misconduct by not fully disclosing his financial status prior to 

wife entering into said divorce decree"; (4) husband 

"accelerated" the divorce process while she was "mentally weak"; 

and (5) she was not properly informed of husband's assets. 

"The standard of review for the grant or denial of 

a[n] HFCR Rule 60(b) motion is whether there has been an abuse 

of discretion." LaPeter v. LaPeter, 144 Hawaiʻi 295, 304, 

439 P.3d 247, 256 (App. 2019) (citation omitted).

With regard to unconscionability, 

Unconscionability encompasses two principles: one-sidedness 

and unfair surprise. Lewis [v. Lewis, 69 Haw. 497, 502, 

748 P.2d 1362, 1366 (1988)]. One-sidedness (i.e., 

substantive unconscionability) means that the agreement 

"leaves a post-divorce economic situation that is unjustly 

disproportionate." Id. Unfair surprise (i.e., procedural 

unconscionability) means that "one party did not have full 

and adequate knowledge of the other party's financial 

condition when the [marital] agreement was executed."

Balogh v. Balogh, 134 Hawaiʻi 29, 41, 332 P.3d 631, 643 (2014).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

3

As the record reflects, husband filed a complaint for 

divorce in February 2019. Husband was represented by counsel; 

wife appeared self-represented, and filed an Appearance and 

Waiver on February 22, 2019. Each party filed their respective 

Income and Expense Statements and Asset and Debt Statements. In 

March 2019, the family court issued a Divorce Decree that, inter 

alia, awarded no alimony to either party, and divided the 

parties' assets and debts. There is no reservation of alimony 

in the divorce decree. Both parties approved the divorce decree 

as to form and content.2 

2 The divorce decree, as signed by wife, included the following 

acknowledgement,

PARTIES' STATEMENT RE: ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION/VOLUNTARY 

EXECUTION. The parties acknowledge and understand that [husband] 

has been represented in this matter by COATES FREY TANIMOTO & 

GIBSON, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLLC. [Wife] was given the time and 

opportunity to obtain her own attorney. [Wife] further 

understands and acknowledges that [Wife] has been informed 

throughout these proceedings that said law firm represents only

[husband] and not [wife], and [wife] is aware that such is the 

case although she may have had voluntary contact(s) with various 

personnel associated with said law firm during the processing of 

this agreement. Instead, [wife] acknowledges that she has been 

advised from the beginning that she has the right to consult with 

and/or retain independent counsel to review this Divorce Decree 

and all other documents or agreements made in this case with 

regard to their propriety and fairness and/or to represent [wife] 

in this matter. [Wife] acknowledges that her decision regarding 

consultation of lack of same with her own attorney and to proceed 

with the signing of any documents or agreements without also 

having an attorney review and/or sign same on her behalf has been 

reached knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. Both [husband] 

and [wife] recognize, acknowledge and agree that in the event 

that any of [wife's] contacts or interactions with the Coates 

Frey Tanimoto & Gibson law firm could possibly be viewed in any 

way to constitute a conflict of interest or representation of any 

sort, then both [husband] and [wife] have hereby voluntarily, 

knowingly and intelligently waived any such conflict(s). Both 

[husband] and [wife] acknowledge that they have carefully read 

the Divorce Decree to be entered in this case and all the other 

supporting financial and other documentation pertinent to this 

(continued . . .)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

4

This appeal arises out of wife's second Motion and 

Declaration for Post-Decree Relief (Second Motion for Relief), 

filed in March 2020.3 In the Second Motion for Relief, wife, who 

was represented by counsel, requested alimony and a 

recalculation of the parties' assets and debts. After a hearing 

on May 21, 2020, the family court determined that wife had not 

presented any evidence or arguments justifying relief under 

HFCR Rule 60(b), and denied the Second Motion for Relief. 

The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to allow the 

parties to present new evidence and/or arguments that could 

not have been presented during the earlier adjudicated 

motion. Reconsideration is not a device to relitigate old 

matters or to raise arguments or evidence that could and 

should have been brought during the earlier proceeding.

Tagupa v. Tagupa, 108 Hawai‘i 459, 465, 121 P.3d 924, 930 (App. 

2005) (cleaned up). 

On this record, we conclude that wife has not shown 

that she presented any evidence or arguments that could not have 

2(. . .continued)

matter. They both confirm that all said documents are current 

and accurate, and that they are completely aware of, and in 

agreement with, the contents of same. This document is the 

complete and final expression of all agreements made by the 

parties to this divorce. There are no other express or implied 

promises, or agreements, which are not set forth herein. Both 

parties acknowledge that they have voluntarily executed the 

Divorce Decree and any other documents or agreements pertaining 

to this case with sufficient knowledge of the facts, both 

parties' respective finances, and the applicable law; and that 

this Divorce Decree is fair and reasonable, and as such they both 

agree to be bound by this Decree and by their representations as 

contained herein.

(Emphasis added.) 

3 Wife, represented by counsel, filed a first Motion and 

Declaration for Post-Decree Relief in June 2019. Wife withdrew this first 

motion on June 27, 2019.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

5

been presented prior to entry of the divorce decree that the 

decree was unconscionable, that husband did not disclose his 

financial records prior to entering the divorce decree, that 

husband improperly "accelerated" the divorce process while wife 

was "mentally weak," or that she was not properly informed of 

husband's assets. 

The family court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying wife's Second Motion for Relief.

(2) Wife contends that the family court erred in 

refusing to set a trial on her Second Motion for Relief. 

"Decisions relating to the conduct of a trial or hearing and the 

adequacy of process usually involve the exercise of discretion, 

and thus warrant review under the abuse of discretion standard 

on appeal." TSA Int'l Ltd. v. Shimizu Corp., 92 Hawaiʻi 243, 

252, 990 P.2 713, 722 (1999). In its discretion, a family court 

"may deny relief under Rule 60(b) without holding a hearing and 

may decide the issue on the basis of papers submitted." 

Cvitanovich-Dubie v. Dubie, 125 Hawaiʻi 128, 149, 254 P.3d 439, 

460 (2011) (citations omitted). 

At the hearing on wife's Second Motion for Relief, the 

family court determined that wife, who was present and 

represented by counsel, did not present any evidence or 

arguments that would support the motion. The family court noted 

that "[i]t is clear from the record that [wife] prepared and 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

6

signed her financial statements," and that "[s]he had the 

opportunity to request [husband's] financial statements prior to 

signing the Divorce Decree or even obtaining counsel prior to 

signing the Divorce Decree." Moreover, "[wife] [had] the 

opportunity to file her initial motion [for relief from the 

Divorce Decree]," and, with the advice of counsel, "she chose to 

withdraw it." The Second Motion for Relief thus lacked merit, 

and the family court did not abuse its discretion in denying the 

motion without a trial or evidentiary hearing.

(3) Wife contends that the family court mislabeled its

Findings of Fact (FOF) nos. 19, 20, and 21; i.e., that FOF no.

19 is actually a mixed FOF and conclusion of law (COL), and FOF 

nos. 20 and 21 are actually COLs.4 The family court's FOF no. 23 

provides that, "[t]o the extent that any Finding of Fact herein 

is a Conclusion of Law, it shall be so construed." The family 

court's COL no. 4 provides that, "[t]o the extent any Conclusion 

of Law herein is a Finding of Fact, it shall be so construed." 

"[T]he trial court's label is not determinative of the standard 

of review. A determination that embraces an ultimate fact is a 

factual finding subject to the clearly erroneous standard of 

review even though classified as a COL." Crosby v. State Dep't 

of Budget & Fin., 76 Hawaiʻi 332, 340, 876 P.2d 1300, 1308 (1994)

4 The family court entered its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 

Law, with regard to its Order Denying wife's Second Motion for Relief, on 

August 7, 2020.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

7

(citation omitted). We conclude that FOF no. 19 is not clearly 

erroneous, and, to the extent FOF nos. 20 and 21 could be 

construed as mislabeled COLs, they are not wrong. 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the family 

court's Order Denying Defendant's Motion and Declaration for 

Post Decree Relief Filed on March 3, 2020, entered on June 15, 

2020. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, May 20, 2024.

On the briefs:

Stephen T. Hioki,

for Defendant-Appellant.

Kai Lawrence,

for Plaintiff-Appellee.

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Presiding Judge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Associate Judge

/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry

Associate Judge