Court Opinion

ID: 9927294
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-26 18:03:41.19693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:13.288628
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                                 Electronically Filed
                                                 Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                                 CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                 26-JAN-2024
                                                 07:51 AM
                                                 Dkt. 150 SO

                           NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

                 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

                         OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

           TERI LYNN JENSEN PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                  v.
         LEWIS BENJAMIN EUGENE PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant

         APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                      (CASE NO. 3DV19100218K)

                     SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
  (By:   Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)

           Defendant-Appellant Lewis Benjamin Eugene Phillips

(Husband) appeals, self-represented, from the Decree Granting

Absolute Divorce (Divorce Decree) filed on July 6, 2021 and

amended on July 1, 2022 by the Family Court of the Third Circuit

(family court).1

      1     The Honorable Mahilani E.K. Hiatt presided over entry of the
July 2021 Divorce Decree. The Honorable Kimberly B. Taniyama presided over
entry of the July 2022 Amended Divorce Decree.
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

           Husband raises three points of error on appeal. From

what we are able to discern,2 Husband contends that the family

court erred: (1) by failing to allow him a continuance "to

obtain substitute and effective counsel"; (2) "in failing to

recognize the procuring of [his] agreement at mediation was the

result of grossly ineffective assistance of counsel, the

appearance of collusion between counsels and the mediator, and

[his] detrimental reliance upon erroneous facts and

information"; and (3) in entering the Divorce Decree because

"the decree and property settlement resulting from mediation are

patently unconscionable, one-sided and inequitable, [and] the

result of duress and unfair surprise[.]"

           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 affirm.

                               I.    Background

           Husband and Plaintiff-Appellee, Teri Lynn Jensen

Phillips (Wife), were married on August 3, 2004.           On December 9,

2019, Wife filed a complaint seeking a divorce.           Husband and

     2       This court granted Appellee's Motion to Strike Husband's
December 3, 2021 Opening Brief, and December 6, 2021 Schedule of Points and
Error; Husband's September 23, 2022 Amended Opening Brief (Amended Opening
Brief) is the operative opening brief in this appeal. The Amended Opening
Brief is non-compliant with Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP)
Rule 28(b) in various respects. We apply a liberal interpretation to
pleadings prepared by self-represented litigants, so as not to foreclose them
from appellate review for failure to comply with court rules. See Erum v.
Llego, 147 Hawaiʻi 368, 380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-828 (2020). The arguments
Husband raises in his Amended Opening Brief are thus addressed to the extent
discernible.
                                        2
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Wife have no children together, and this matter solely involves

the division of Husband and Wife's marital assets and debts.

          Prior to the court granting the Divorce Decree,

Husband and Wife participated in mediation on January 26-27,

2021.   Husband was represented by attorney Christopher Eggert,

Esq. (mediation counsel) at the mediation.          The record reflects

that the parties reached agreement to the terms of a mediated

settlement agreement (Mediation Agreement).          Husband assented to

the terms of the Mediation Agreement at the mediation

proceeding.   However, Husband subsequently refused to sign the

proposed Divorce Decree that incorporated the terms of the

Mediation Agreement.    Husband's mediation counsel filed a Motion

to Withdraw as Counsel (Motion to Withdraw), representing that

the relationship between Husband and mediation counsel had

"irrevocably broken down."     The court heard the Motion to

Withdraw on March 29, 2021, and granted mediation counsel's

request to withdraw.

          At the hearing on the Motion to Withdraw, Husband

informed the family court that he had already retained William

Reece, Esq. (Reece) as his new attorney going forward,

                MR. OLSON [Wife's counsel]: . . . If Mr. Phillips
          does retain another attorney, if that attorney would
          contact me and I will be happy to discuss this matter with
          him.

                MR. PHILLIPS: Already been hired.

                MR. OLSON: And who is that, sir?

                MR. PHILLIPS: William.

                                    3
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                 THE COURT: Is that the first name or the last name?

                MR. PHILLIPS: First name. I'm sure he knows who he
          is. He's a criminal justice attorney. Okay. All right.
          I don't have his last name memorized.

                 THE COURT: Is he an attorney here in Kailua-Kona,
          sir?

                 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, on the Big Island.

                 THE COURT: Is it William Reece, R-E-E-C-E?

                 MR. PHILLIPS: William Reece.

                THE COURT: Okay. So if you have retained Mr. Reece,
          I think that that answers Mr. Olson's question. In which
          case, Mr. Olson will only be communicating with your
          attorney, just because you now are represented. So he
          wouldn't be having direct contact with you. I guess, Mr.
          Olson, you will reach out to Mr. Reece then?

                MR. OLSON: Yes, I will write him a letter and give
          Mr. Reece this April 15th deadline. Just to be clear,
          April 15th deadline, that's to reach a written agreement.
          It's not just to respond what's wrong with the agreement.
          So I expect a prompt response, and I would like to have, if
          there is going to be any agreement, be memorialized by the
          15th.

                THE COURT: Okay. Well, hopefully, if you reach out
          to Mr. Reece that you can get the ball rolling in that
          direction, Mr. Olson.

Despite his representation to the family court and Wife's

counsel, it appears that Husband had not in fact retained Reece.

Husband proceeded self-represented during the remainder of the

family court proceedings.

          The family court continued the matter to April 29,

2021, at which time it heard Wife's Motion to Enforce Settlement

Agreement (Motion to Enforce).       At the evidentiary hearing on

the Motion to Enforce, the family court accepted the video and

audio recording from the mediation into evidence without

objection from Husband.      Husband submitted no written argument

                                     4
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

and presented no evidence, but was permitted by the family court

to present his argument at the hearing as follows,

                THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Phillips, anything you
          want to say with respect to the motion to enforce the
          settlement agreement?

                The Court would note that there was no memo filed in
          opposition, but I will give you an opportunity now, if you
          want to make your argument.

                MR. PHILLIPS: I would certainly appreciate that, and
          thank you.

                THE COURT: Okay.

                MR. PHILLIPS: My response will only take one to two
          minutes of the Court's time.

                I have it written down, so please bear with me if the
          grammar doesn't come through appropriately. But before I
          can answer, I need to reveal a few things.

                My current lawyer has not communicated successfully
          to me. The last conversation was several weeks back, with
          him informing me as to additional fees being required to
          take on my case.

                This required a discussion with Christopher Eggert,
          which I can only assume that they had a discussion.

                Here is what I believe may be a possible Big Island
          lawyer nepotism occurring. That's my opinion. The Court
          can ignore it, if you want.

                I feel I must contain [sic] an off-island Kaua[‘]i
          attorney, who will not be prejudiced in any way with
          regards to the mediation dialogue and divorce.

                I beg for a continuance to discover this attorney so
          that they can continue with the answer, but I will continue
          with what I have written down. Then you may answer at
          will.

                My last Covid shot will be May 2nd, just for
          information purposes only, and the next time
          (indiscernible) will be in court, I would prefer to be in
          court in personal attendance.

                Mediation was asked by your Honor on the original
          predecree relief hearing. Both counsels answered yes. I
          have it in writing where I would have preferred to have
          gone to court, but mediation was not my preferred course of
          action.

                                    5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

              Because I was told by Mr. Eggert to keep quiet and
        (indiscernible) from your Honor, I could not voice my
        concerns for this during the court hearing.

              I was blind-sided in the mediation by what is called
        a Category --

                THE COURT: Go ahead, sir.   How much more time do you
        need?

                MR. PHILLIPS: Another minute.

                THE COURT: Okay.

              MR. PHILLIPS: I was blind-sided by what is called a
        Category 3, which I can prove without a shadow of a doubt
        that this does not apply to me. I attempted to settle
        under false pretenses.

              My attorney did not give me ample time during the
        meeting and was more concerned with leaving the meeting to
        work with other client's problem on my dime.

              I had a home equity loan with (indiscernible) Federal
        Credit Union on a (indiscernible) with that both of our
        names were on property, completely excluded altogether in
        the mediation process.

              She wishes to return to her motion to her state home
        to (indiscernible) items after the sale of that home, all
        of which were brought from Alaska.

              This was my choice to make a home for me -- by her.
        Excuse me. This was her choice to make home with me in New
        York state. My second home in Hawai[‘]i was on --

              THE COURT: Mr. Phillips, what I want to hear is any
        objection to the motion to enforce the settlement
        agreement.

                MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.

              THE COURT: That's what's before the Court now. Can
        you address the motion, please? This is just saying you
        don't agree to what happened. I want to know specifically
        why you think the Court should not enforce the settlement
        agreement, please.

              MR. PHILLIPS: That I was -- coerced, I guess. That I
        was blind-sided, and that there was property that was
        completely out of the mediation agreement. And I also did
        not wish to go to a mediation. I don't know how to answer
        that for you, your Honor.

              THE COURT: Okay. I think because you are unable to
        answer that and provide any evidence of that.

                                     6
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                 So, Mr. Olson, any further argument or can the Court
           go ahead and rule?

                   MR. OLSON:   I would ask the Court to go ahead and
           rule.

(Emphasis added.)

           After hearing Husband's argument, the family court

orally granted Wife's Motion to Enforce.            The family court

explained the basis for its enforcement of the Mediation

Agreement as follows,

           [I]t is crystal clear to the Court that both parties were
           represented by counsel, certainly during the mediation, as
           well as the recording that the Court watched in full, in
           which Mr. Peters, Daniel Peters, the mediator, neutral
           mediator who facilitated the mediation put on the record
           specifically all of the terms of the settlement agreement.
           It was clear, plain and unambiguous.

                   . . . .

                 You [Husband] have presented no evidence of any
           fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, coercion, being
           blind-sided or any other misleading incidents.

                 The Court would note that you [Husband] were
           attentive during the entire recording, that at the end of
           it in response to Mr. Peters' questions you indicated
           verbally affirmatively that you understood the allocation
           of the debts and the assets, quote, "exactly what we
           discussed," quote, "yes, let [sic] make this divorce
           happen." You gave a thumbs up at the end of the recording.

(Emphasis added.)

           The family court entered its Order Granting Plaintiff

Teri Lynn Jensen Phillips's Notice and Motion to Enforce

Settlement Agreement and for Attorneys [sic] Fees on June 16,

2021, and the Divorce Decree on July 6, 2021.             The Divorce

Decree memorialized the terms of the mediation agreement.3

     3      Husband did not appeal the family court's Order granting the
Motion to Enforce. He appealed from the Divorce Decree. On June 7, 2022,
                                                             (continued . . .)
                                       7
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

           We address Husband's three contentions of error in

turn.

                               II.   Discussion

A. Husband's Request for a Continuance

           Husband contends that the family court erred by

failing to allow him a continuance "to obtain substitute and

effective counsel."      We review the family court's ruling under

the abuse of discretion standard.

           [T]he family court possesses wide discretion in making its
           decisions and those decision[s] will not be set aside
           unless there is a manifest abuse of discretion. Thus, [an
           appellate court] will not disturb the family court's
           decisions 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.

Fisher v. Fisher, 111 Hawaiʻi 41, 46, 137 P.3d 355, 360 (2006)

(quoting In re Doe, 95 Hawaiʻi 183, 189-90, 20 P.3d 616, 622-23

(2001)).

           At the outset, we note that Husband represented to the

family court, at the March 29, 2021 hearing on the Motion to

Withdraw, that he had retained new counsel.           The family court

proceeded on Husband's representation that he was being

represented by attorney Reece.        Husband appeared self-

(. . . continued)
this court issued an "Order for Temporary Stay and Temporary Remand" to the
family court because the Divorce Decree was not "final and appealable because
it provides that it 'shall not be effective and shall have no legal effect
whatsoever until it is signed by both parties,' but does not reflect the
parties' signatures." The family court filed an Amended Decree Granting
Absolute Divorce (Amended Divorce Decree) on July 1, 2022.

                                      8
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

represented, however, at the April 29, 2021 hearing on the

Motion to Enforce.

          While Husband requested a continuance at the Motion to

Enforce, purportedly to retain "an off-island Kaua[ʻ]i attorney"

due to "Big Island lawyer nepotism," the record reflects that he

presented argument at the hearing.     In response to the family

court's question as to "why you think the Court should not

enforce the settlement agreement," Husband alleged that he was

"coerced," "blind-sided," "that there was property that was

completely out of the mediation agreement[,]" and that he "also

did not wish to go to a mediation."     The family court noted the

lack of evidence to support those allegations.

          We conclude, on this record, that the family court did

not abuse its discretion by not continuing the hearing on the

Motion to Enforce.

B. Husband's Allegations of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel,
Collusion, and Detrimental Reliance

          Husband contends the family court "erred in failing to

recognize the procuring of [his] agreement at mediation was the

result of grossly ineffective assistance of counsel, the

appearance of collusion between counsels and the mediator, and

[his] detrimental reliance upon erroneous facts and information

as to applicable law under the facts."     Husband contends,

without identifying any supporting evidence, "that but-for the

restrictions of COVID, the imposed remote litigation scenario

                                  9
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

outlined above,4 and the imperative nature of counsel's

inaccurate advice, [Husband] would have never allowed such an

obviously unfair settlement to have occurred."

            We construe Husband's contention of ineffective

assistance of counsel as a contention that his mediation

counsel's alleged ineffectiveness, and his mistaken reliance on

counsel's advice, caused him to enter into an unfavorable

Mediation Agreement.      Husband thus appears to have sought, on

this basis, a unilateral recission of the Mediation Agreement.

Husband does not point to any evidence that would support his

allegations of ineffective assistance, "collusion" between

counsel and the mediator, or his "detrimental reliance" on

"erroneous facts and information" provided to him by counsel.

            At the outset, we note that "[t]he family court in

divorce cases must enforce all valid and enforceable premarital

agreements, marital agreements, and/or divorce agreements."

Epp v. Epp, 80 Hawaiʻi 79, 88, 905 P.2d 54, 63 (App. 1995); see

also Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 572-22(c) (Supp. 2021)

("All contracts made between spouses, whenever made, whether

before or after June 6, 1987, and not otherwise invalid because

of any other law, shall be valid.").

      4     The record reflects that the mediation proceedings were conducted
remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the mediator, Husband, Wife,
and Husband and Wife's respective counsel appeared at the video conference.
The family court hearing on the Motion to Withdraw was conducted remotely,
with all parties appearing via Zoom. The hearing on the Motion to Enforce
was conducted in-person, but Husband was permitted to appear via Zoom.
                                      10
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

          Contrary to Husband's contention that he was not a

willing participant in mediation, the record reflects his active

and affirmative participation at the mediation proceeding and

his verbal consent to the terms of the Mediation Agreement.        The

recording of the mediation proceeding, which was introduced into

evidence and viewed by the family court at the hearing on the

Motion to Enforce, shows that Husband nodded his head several

times, raised issues, and expressly agreed to the allocation of

assets and debts as being "exactly what we discussed."       Husband

affirmatively represented to the mediator that he understood the

terms of the Mediation Agreement that he was entering into.        We

find no evidence in the record that Husband objected to the

mediation proceeding, or that he was unsatisfied with his

counsel's assistance or advice during the mediation proceeding.

          Moreover, the record does not support a contention

that Husband's active and affirmative participation during the

mediation resulted from his "detrimental reliance" on "erroneous

facts or information" presented during the course of the

mediation proceeding.   Husband's conclusory allegations to the

family court below, that "[the] entire recording [of the

mediation proceeding] is moot, because I never wished to go to

mediation, and [Husband's mediation counsel] had fired a whole

bunch of stuff at me the day before, which I had no idea what

any of it meant[,]" are not supported by the record.      In the

absence of any supporting evidence, Husband presents no
                                  11
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

discernible argument of ineffective assistance or detrimental

reliance.    See In re Guardianship of Carlsmith, 113 Hawaiʻi 236,

246, 151 P.3d 717, 727 (2007) ("[An appellate] court may

disregard a particular contention if the appellant makes no

discernible argument in support of that position.") (cleaned

up).     We conclude that the family court did not err in enforcing

the Mediation Agreement through entry of the Divorce Decree.

C. Husband's Allegations of Unconscionability

            Husband contends on appeal that the Divorce Decree was

"unconscionable, one-sided and inequitable, [and] the result of

duress and unfair surprise," claiming that he did not

voluntarily and knowingly enter into the Mediation Agreement.

"Unconscionability is a question of law this court reviews de

novo."    Balogh v. Balogh, 134 Hawaiʻi 29, 37, 332 P.3d 631, 639

(2014).

            Even assuming that Husband properly preserved his

argument that the Divorce Decree is unconscionable, one-sided,

and inequitable,5 his argument lacks merit.          Husband relies

entirely on Balogh to support his contention of

unconscionability.     The Balogh court, in recognizing that "the

      5     Husband argued below, without any supporting evidence, that he
was "blind-sided" and "attempted to settle under false pretenses." He did
not specifically contend at the hearing on the Motion to Enforce that the
Mediation Agreement was "unconscionable." "Legal issues not raised in the
trial court are ordinarily deemed waived on appeal." Ass'n of Apartment
Owners of Wailea Elua v. Wailea Resort, Co., Ltd., 100 Hawaiʻi 97, 107,
58 P.3d 608, 618 (2002).
                                      12
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

family court must enforce all valid and enforceable postmarital

and separation agreements[,]" explained that,

          [S]pouses may expressly contract for a different division
          of marital partnership property, and the family court must
          enforce all valid and enforceable agreements with regard to
          marital property division. See HRS § 572-22 (2006) ("All
          contracts made between spouses . . . not otherwise invalid
          because of any other law, shall be valid.")[.]

          . . . .

          A postmarital or separation agreement is enforceable if the
          agreement is not unconscionable and has been voluntarily
          entered into by the parties with the knowledge of the
          financial situation of the other spouse.

          . . . .

          Unconscionability encompasses two principles: one-sidedness
          and unfair surprise. One-sidedness (i.e., substantive
          unconscionability) means that the agreement leaves a post-
          divorce economic situation that is unjustly
          disproportionate. 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. A
          contract that is merely inequitable is not unenforceable.

Id. at 39-41, 332 P.3d at 641-43 (cleaned up) (emphasis added).

          Husband's contentions of unconscionability, unfair

surprise, and "one-sidedness" are not supported by the record.

The record shows that, pursuant to the terms of the Mediation

Agreement, real and personal property were divided between

Husband and Wife.   Debts were also allocated between Husband and

Wife.   Both Husband and Wife separately approved, at the close

of the mediation proceeding, the agreed-upon division of

property and debts outlined by the mediator.         Husband does not

demonstrate that the terms of the Mediation Agreement were

"unjustly disproportionate," or that he "did not have full and

                                    13
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

adequate knowledge of [Wife's] financial condition" at the time

of mediation.

          Moreover, Husband's contention that the Mediation

Agreement was reached under duress is not supported by the

record evidence.   In the absence of any supporting evidence, we

cannot conclude that the family court erred in enforcing the

Mediation Agreement through entry of the Divorce Decree.

          On this record, we conclude that the family court did

not err in enforcing the terms of the Mediation Agreement

through its entry of the Divorce Decree.

                           III.   Conclusion

          For the foregoing reasons, the Family Court of the

Third Circuit's Decree Granting Absolute Divorce, filed on

July 6, 2021 and amended on July 1, 2022, is affirmed.

          DATED:   Honolulu, Hawai‘i, January 26, 2024.

On the briefs:
                                       /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Lewis Benjamin Eugene                  Acting Chief Judge
Phillips,
Self-represented                       /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Defendant-Appellant.                   Associate Judge

Peter S.R. Olson,                      /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
for Plaintiff-Appellee.                Associate Judge

                                  14