Opinion ID: 1444915
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: During-Marriage Appreciation

Text: Wife also argues that the ICA erred in affirming the family court's deviation from the category 2 during-marriage appreciation USP of 75% Husband-25% Wife to 85% Husband-15% Wife, and in failing to find, as an abuse of discretion, the family court's application of the inflation factor, which further reduced Wife's share to 12%. In its consideration of dividing category 2 assets, the family court stated: With regard to the category two property. The [c]ourt is going to deny your request to increase [Wife's] award to twenty-five percent of any increase  of deficit for that matter  since there was category two property that had increased in value and other that depreciated in value. The [c]ourt in looking at the range of participation realizes it could be anywhere from zero to twenty-five percent with regard to category two property. Based on the [c]ourt's review of the evidence and the testimony presented the [c]ourt found that she's entitled to no more th[a]n fifteen percent. (Emphasis added.) The family court clearly erred in placing a limit on Wife's potential award at the USP of 25% because such limitation is directly contrary to this court's holding in Cassiday wherein we held that the trial court may award up to half of this [during marriage] appreciation to the non-owning spouse if under the totality of the circumstances, it is just and equitable to do so. The trial court also may determine that a lesser award, or no award, is in order. Cassiday v. Cassiday, 68 Haw. 383, 389, 716 P.2d 1133, 1138 (1986). It is apparent that the family court in this case divided and distributed the marital appreciation by attempting to comply with the requirement of the 75/25 USP and in doing so erroneously limited her range of choice by virtue of the applicable USP. The ICA found that the family court's factual considerations ... did not authorize any deviation from the USP. Gussin, ___ Haw.App. at ___, 836 P.2d at 505. However, the ICA affirmed the deviation because its calculation of the final division and distribution of the parties' estate premised on USP adjusted for inflation was less than what the family court awarded. [10] In view of our rejection of USPs and the family court's error in limiting her range of choices, the ICA's rationale in affirming this portion of the final award cannot stand. We are thus compelled to vacate that portion of the divorce decree relating to the 85/15 division of marital appreciation. On remand, the family court must reassess its division and distribution of the marital appreciation in the absence of the USPs as previously mandated by the ICA.