NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-20-0000039 

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS 

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, STATE OF HAWAI‘I, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v. 

E.L., Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

H.K., Defendant-Appellee 

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT 

(FC-P NO. 01-1-0200) 

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER 

(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Nakasone, JJ.) 

 This appeal involves a dispute over a family court 

child support order regarding the sharing of college expenses 

for the parties' child (Child). 

 Defendant-Appellant E.L. (Father) appeals from the 

(1) October 15, 2019 "Order Granting [Defendant-Appellee H.K. 

(Mother)]'s Motion of July 5, 2018" (Order Granting Second 

Motion for Relief); and (2) December 26, 2019 "Order Denying 

[Father]'s Motion for Reconsideration, Alter or Amend Order 

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-20-0000039

12-JUL-2024

08:01 AM

Dkt. 77 SO
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

2 

Granting [Mother]'s Motion of July 5, 2018" (Order Denying 

Reconsideration),1 both filed by the Family Court of the First 

Circuit (Family Court).2 

 On appeal, Father contends3 that the Family Court erred 

by granting Mother's July 5, 2018 "Motion for Relief After 

Judgment or Order and Declaration" (Second Motion for Relief) 

and "vacating a portion of the May 3, 2018 Order [(Order 

Granting First Motion for Relief)] that stipulated [Father]'s 

obligation to pay child support shall be replaced with the 

obligation to pay for one-half of the child's college tuition 

and costs."

 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 

Father's point of error as follows, and affirm. 

 On April 10, 2001, a "Stipulated Judgment of 

Paternity" was filed by the Family Court, giving full custody of 

Child to Mother, and requiring Father to pay $525.00 in child 

support. 

 On February 6, 2018, the Child Support Enforcement 

Agency's (CSEA) Office of Child Support Hearings filed an order 

reflecting Father and Mother's agreement increasing the child 

support payment to $1,376.00 per month due to an increase in 

Father's income.

 On February 9, 2018, Mother, self-represented, filed a 

"Motion for Relief After Judgment or Order and Declaration" 

1 Father does not present argument on the Order Denying 

Reconsideration that he challenges in his points of error, and this point is 

waived. See Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b)(7) ("Points not 

argued may be deemed waived."). 

2 The Honorable Steven M. Nakashima presided. 

3 We have consolidated Father's points of error. 
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

3 

(First Motion for Relief), requesting that Father "pay for 

college cost[s]" because there was no "court decree stating 

responsible parent [was] required to pay for education cost as 

well as any cost related to college." The First Motion for 

Relief did not seek to modify the existing child support 

payments. 

 On April 2, 2018, Father, represented by counsel, 

filed a response to the First Motion for Relief, requesting, 

inter alia, that the costs of Child's college education be 

"shared equally" between Father, Mother, and Child. 

 At the April 5, 2018 hearing on the First Motion for 

Relief, Mother and Father discussed Child's college plans, and 

that after accounting for Child's financial aid and 

scholarships, the amount remaining for college tuition would be 

$11,023.00. Initially, Mother and Father could not agree on how 

the $11,023.00 would be split, or whether Father could alternate 

with Mother on claiming Child as a dependent for tax purposes, 

but ultimately came to an agreement at the end of the hearing, 

as follows: 

THE COURT: . . . Okay. So we're going to continue the 

-- both motions. . . .

. . . .

[MOTHER]: Your Honor, I'll just go ahead and

close it out, then. They can have the tax every other

year. I don't want to come back. I don't want to come

back. This –– 

. . . . 

[MOTHER]: They can have it. Every other year he can 

claim [Child]. Because I don't want to come back.

And I don't want to deal -- have to deal with more court

papers.

THE COURT: Okay.

[MOTHER]: I've had so much court papers from

this lady. I am done.
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

4 

THE COURT: So -- so, [Mother], you're

claiming the exemption for 2017?

[MOTHER]: For 2 -- I've already -- I've

already claimed [Child] for the year 2017.

THE COURT: Yeah.

[MOTHER]: He can go ahead and claim [Child] for

2018. 

THE COURT: Okay.

[MOTHER]: That's fine.

THE COURT: And then --

[MOTHER]: And then we'll alternate it. 

THE COURT: And then you'll alternate.

So you'll -- you'll get the odd years; she'll --

he'll get the even years.

[MOTHER]: That's perfectly fine.

THE COURT: Okay. Until there -- there's no

exemption to be used.

[MOTHER]: That's fine.

And then we can go ahead and also do 50/50 split for 

the college costs. The numbers may change by a

few, but I'm not expecting it to go by thousands.

. . . .

THE COURT: Yes.

. . . .

[MOTHER]: And then we will not go ahead and

address these -- these [sic] summer child support split. 

THE COURT: Okay.

 [MOTHER]: That is -- should be withdrawn.

And we're good to go.

THE COURT: All right.

Okay. [Father's counsel]? 

[FATHER'S COUNSEL]: We're in agreement, then. 

THE COURT: Okay. We have an agreement. 
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

5

(Emphases added.) The Circuit Court ordered Father's counsel to 

prepare an order including all of the terms agreed upon.

On May 3, 2018, Father filed the proposed order

granting the First Motion for Relief, which stated that Mother 

and Father would share Child's college costs "equally, so that 

each party's maximum obligation is $5,511.50 per school year";

and that "[t]his support cost shall replace any child support 

obligation as of the time the Child" attends college. The 

Family Court signed the Order Granting First Motion for Relief. 

On July 5, 2018, Mother filed the Second Motion for 

Relief, requesting to vacate or modify the May 3, 2018 Order

Granting First Motion for Relief because it did not reflect the 

agreement reached at the April 5, 2018 hearing, and attached

emails between Mother and Father's counsel regarding the 

proposed order. The emails reflect that Mother told Father's 

counsel that the proposed order was "not consistent with the 

agreements that were reached" at the April 5, 2018 hearing. 

Mother claimed "[t]he prior child support obligation order is to 

remain intact." 

On August 9, 2018, a hearing on the Second Motion for 

Relief was held. The Family Court continued the hearing to 

review the transcript of the April 5, 2018 hearing and the 

May 3, 2018 Order Granting First Motion for Relief.

On June 14, 2019, after several continuances, another 

hearing was held on the Second Motion for Relief. Mother, now 

represented by counsel, and Father were ordered to submit 

written argument, and both did so on July 22 and July 23, 2019.

On October 15, 2019, the Family Court filed the Order 

Granting Second Motion for Relief, vacating in part the May 3, 

2018 Order Granting First Motion for Relief, based on the 

following pertinent findings of fact (FOFs):
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

6 

1. Based on the Court's review of the transcript of the 

April 5, 2018 hearing, it is clear that an agreement was 

reached that resolved [Mother]'s February 9, 2018 [First 

Motion for Relief]. There were various terms of that 

agreement but the Court's May 3, 2018 Order [Granting First 

Motion for Relief] did not accurately reflect the agreement 

that was placed on the record at the April 5, 2018 hearing. 

a. One agreement that was reached was that the 

Parties would equally share (50/50) the remaining 

costs of [Child]'s college education expenses, 

including tuition, books, living expenses and 

transportation costs. . . .

b. Another agreement reached by the Parties was that 

they would alternate the sharing of the tax exemption 

as it applied to their support of [Child]. [Mother] 

would have the tax exemption for 2017 and [Father] 

would have the tax exemption for 2018 and they would 

continue to alternate the tax exemption as long as 

the tax exemption was applicable.

. . . .

2. However, as to any issue of modifying the child support, 

the Court concludes that there was no agreement by the 

Parties to modify the existing child support and the

issue of modifying child support was not an issue raised in 

[Mother]'s February 9, 2018 [First Motion for Relief]. 

a. In its February 6, 2018 Administrative Findings 

and Order, CSEA ordered that [Father] shall pay 

child support in the amount of $1376. . . . There 

was no appeal from this Administrative Order. Thus 

at the time of the hearing on April 5, 2018, [Father] 

was paying child support of $1376 per month.

b. [Mother]'s February 9, 2018 [First Motion for 

Relief] requested that [Father] "pay for college cost 

and anything related to college, i.e. fees, books, 

housing." [Mother] argued that "We do not currently 

have [sic] court decree stating responsible parent 

[Father] [sic] required to pay for education cost as 

well as any cost related to college." These were the 

only issues raised in [Mother]'s February 9, 2018

[First Motion for Relief]. 

c. At the April 5, 2018 hearing, although there were 

arguments raised in which the $1376 in child support 

was brought up, no agreement was ever reached to

modify the child support order. 

d. Thus, there being no agreement and there being no 

issue raised in [Mother]'s February 9, 2018 [First 

Motion for Relief] regarding the issue of modifying 

child support, it was incorrect for the Court to have 

ordered that the support costs related to the cost of 
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

7 

the [college] costs/expenses "shall replace any child 

support obligation as of the time the Child goes to 

[college] in the late summer 2018" as there was no 

basis for such an order.

e. Accordingly, the orders set forth in paragraph 2 

of the May 3, 2018 Order [Granting First Motion for 

Relief] are hereby vacated and shall no longer be 

effective. 

 

(Emphases added) (footnote omitted).

 On appeal, Father argues that the Family Court "abused 

its discretion" in the Order Granting Second Motion for Relief 

by erroneously "ordering child support and the payment of higher 

education expenses independently of each other," and stating 

that "it could not review child support upon a motion for 

educational support without an explicit request in a motion." 

Father claims that he "never agreed to pay both educational and 

guidelines support [(child support)]."

 "Generally, the family court possesses wide discretion 

in making its decisions and those decisions will not be set 

aside unless there is a manifest abuse of discretion." Kakinami 

v. Kakinami, 127 Hawaiʻi 126, 136, 276 P.3d 695, 705 (2012) 

(citation omitted). "Thus, we will not disturb the family 

court's decision on appeal unless the family court disregarded 

rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial 

detriment of a party litigant and its decision clearly exceeded 

the bounds of reason." Id. (citation omitted). 

 The unchallenged findings in the Family Court's Order 

Granting Second Motion for Relief set forth supra, reflect that 

the May 3, 2018 Order Granting First Motion for Relief "did not 

accurately reflect the agreement that was placed on the record 

at the April 5, 2018 hearing"; that the transcript of the April 

5, 2018 hearing confirmed that the parties "would equally share 

(50/50) the remaining costs of their [Child]'s college education 

expenses," and "would alternate the sharing of the tax 
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

8 

exemption"; that "there was no agreement . . . to modify the 

existing child support and the issue of modifying child support 

was not an issue raised in [Mother]'s February 9, 2018 [First 

Motion for Relief]"; and that Father had not appealed the 

February 6, 2018 CSEA order to pay $1,376.00 in monthly child 

support. FOFs 1 and 2. Father does not challenge these FOFs on 

appeal, which are supported by the record. See In re Doe, 99 

Hawaiʻi 522, 538, 57 P.3d 447, 463 (2002) ("Unchallenged findings 

are binding on appeal." (citation omitted)). 

 We conclude that the Family Court did not abuse its 

discretion by granting Mother's Second Motion for Relief and 

vacating a portion of the May 3, 2018 Order Granting First 

Motion for Relief. See Kakinami, 127 Hawaiʻi at 136, 276 P.3d at 

705. 

 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the (1) October 

15, 2019 "Order Granting [H.K.]'s Motion of July 5, 2018"; and 

(2) December 26, 2019 "Order Denying Defendant [E.L.]'s Motion 

for Reconsideration, Alter or Amend Order Granting [H.K.]'s 

Motion of July 5, 2018," both filed by the Family Court of the 

First Circuit. 

 DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, July 12, 2024. 

On the briefs:

Alethea K. Rebman 

for Respondent-Appellant. 

David B. Leas 

for Respondent-Appellee. 

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard 

Acting Chief Judge 

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka 

Associate Judge 

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone 

Associate Judge