Opinion ID: 871210
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Geraldine's application for a writ of certiorari

Text: Geraldine timely filed an application for a writ of certiorari on July 29, 2010. Nancy timely filed a response on August 12, 2010. In her application, Geraldine presents the following questions: A. Are estoppel or quasi estoppel available as affirmative defenses to bar relief from a clearly void ab initio Hawaii divorce decree, where allowing estoppel would vitalize that which multiple Hawaii statutes declare void, legalize what public policy and the law have forbidden, and violate this [c]ourt's holdings in Godoy v. County of Hawaii, 44 Haw. 312, 354 P.2d 78 (1960) and Alvarez Family Trust v. Ass'n of Owners, 121 Hawai`i 474, 221 P.3d 452 (2010) [(2009)]? B. Is the application of quasi estoppel in this case inconsistent with this [c]ourt's holding in Yuen Shee v. London Guaranty [ Guarantee ] and Accident, 40 Haw. 213 (1953), and in facial violation of Anderson v. Anderson, 59 Haw. 575, 585 P.2d 938 (1978)? C. Did the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) commit grave error when it afforded practical recognition to a void ab initio foreign divorce decree? D. Did the ICA commit grave error when it affirmed estoppel in favor of a litigant with unclean hands as a matter of law, and against one whose hands were clean as a matter of law? E. Did the ICA commit grave error when it held that the standard of review for findings of fact entered in the absence of any evidentiary hearing is clearly erroneous, rather than de novo, and refused to consider the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses when there was no live testimony? F. Did the ICA commit grave error when it held that undue influence and fraud on the court fall within HFCR Rule 60(b)(3), rather than HFCR Rule 60(b)(6), and that the alternative relief soughti.e., to set aside the property settlement portion of the decreewas therefore time barred?