Court Opinion

ID: 9402959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-19 18:03:57.157307+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:03.696592
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                                    Electronically Filed
                                                    Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                                    CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                    19-JUN-2023
                                                    07:48 AM
                                                    Dkt. 89 SO

                             NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

                  IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

                          OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

                          RS, Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                       v.

                          MS, Defendant-Appellant

           APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                           (FC-D No. 97-3891)

                        SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
       (By:    Ginoza, Chief Judge, Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.)

              Self-represented Defendant-Appellant MS (Mother)
appeals from orders entered by the Family Court of the First
Circuit (Family Court) denying her motion for post-decree
relief.1 In her appeal, Mother challenges the Family Court's
"Order Re: Evidentiary Hearing on Motion for an Order of the
Court to Enforce Stipulations of Child Support Against
[Plaintiff-Appellee RS (Father)] to Continue to Pay for the
Child[']s Higher Education" entered on January 16, 2018 (1/16/18
Order), and the "Order" entered on April 3, 2018 (4/3/18 Order).2

      1
          The Honorable Gale L.F. Ching presided.
      2
         Mother does not designate the 1/16/18 Order as an order from which an
appeal was being taken. See Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule
3(c)(2). However, the Family Court utilized at least two post-judgment orders
to adjudicate all of the issues in Mother's motion for post-decree relief,
filed on November 17, 2016. Where a party is appealing from a post-judgment
                                                                 (continued...)
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

          Mother also challenges the "Order Re: Defendant[']s
Motion for Contempt of Court Charges Against Plaintiff's Non-
Compliance of Court Orders" (Order Denying Contempt of Court)
entered by the Family Court on February 14, 2018.
          Mother contends the Family Court erred by: (1) failing
to address her allegations that Father misrepresented his
finances to the court, including false representations of his tax
statements, assets, and the value of his furniture; (2) denying
Mother's motion to hold Father in contempt of court; and (3)
failing to address Child's medical deductible in the amount of
$4,000 which Mother contends is too high for the insurance Father
provides.3
           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 by the parties, we
resolve Mother's arguments below and affirm.
                        I. Brief Background
          Mother does not challenge any particular finding by the
Family Court. The following factual and procedural background is
taken from the record and the Family Court's unchallenged
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (FOFs/COLs) entered on

      2
       (...continued)
order, "this court will only consider other orders which were preliminary
rulings upon which the subject Order was predicated or were part of the series
of orders which collectively led to that Order." Cook v. Surety Life Ins. Co.,
79 Hawai#i 403, 409, 903 P.2d 708, 714 (App. 1995).
      3
         Mother's opening brief does not comply with HRAP Rule 28, including
failure to cite any record references as required by HRAP Rule 28(b)(3), and
to set forth where in the record she objected to the Family Court's alleged
errors or brought the errors to the court's attention as required by HRAP Rule
28(b)(4). Father argues that Mother's opening brief should thus be deemed
frivolous for failing to comply with HRAP Rule 28. We note that it is
difficult to review Mother's assertions on appeal given the deficiencies in
her opening brief. However, the Hawai#i Supreme Court instructs that pleadings
prepared by self-represented litigants should be interpreted liberally, and
such parties should not be automatically foreclosed from appellate review
because they fail to comply with court rules. Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai#i 368,
380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020). We thus address Mother's points and
arguments to the extent they can be discerned.

                                      2
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

May 30, 2018, with respect to the court's 4/3/18 Order. The
Family Court's unchallenged FOFs are binding on appeal.4
          On August 4, 1998, the Family Court entered a Divorce
Decree,5 awarding physical custody of Mother and Father's child
(Child) to Mother. The Divorce Decree reserved the issue of,
inter alia, Child's higher education expenses. The Divorce
Decree also required Father to provide health insurance coverage
for Child and ordered child support payments commencing in August
1998. The amount of child support has fluctuated over the years
and has been at $428 per month since 2012.
          Father has since remarried and currently resides in
Pennsylvania with his wife and teenage son from that marriage.
          On November 17, 2016, Mother filed a "Motion for an
Order of the Court to Enforce Stipulations of Child Support
Against [Father] to Continue to Pay for the Child[']s Higher
Education" (Mother's Post-Decree Motion). At that time, Child
was eighteen years old.
          After a hearing on Mother's Post-Decree Motion in
January 2017, the Family Court issued an Order setting the matter
for an evidentiary hearing and delineating, inter alia, the
following disputed issues:
             (a) Whether the Court will Order and [sic] audit of
             [Father's] individual income tax returns;

             . . .

             (e) Whether the adult child's healthcare insurance is
             adequate that [Father] provides;
             (f) Reimbursement of medical insurance paid by [Mother] for
             the child, if any; and

             (g) Reimbursement of the child's co-payments for
             unreimbursed or uncovered dental expenses and medical
             expenses.

       4
         Unchallenged findings of fact are binding on appeal. In re Doe, 99
Hawai#i 522, 538, 57 P.3d 447, 463 (2002).
      5
          The Honorable Kenneth E. Enright presided.

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

           The evidentiary hearing was conducted on July 26, 2017,
and completed on October 31, 2017.
           On January 16, 2018, the Family Court entered the
1/16/18 Order which resolved some, but not all of the issues from
Mother's Post-Decree Motion. The 1/16/18 Order denied Mother's
request for an audit of Father's individual income tax returns
and determined that the medical coverage provided by Father was
inadequate, improper and unworkable for the benefit of Child in
Hawai#i and further ordered Father "to provide medical and dental
health care coverage . . . without there being any required
deductible to be paid first by [Mother] and/or Minor."
           On April 3, 2018, the Family Court entered the 4/3/18
Order, resolving the remainder of the issues from Mother's Post-
Decree Motion and ordering, inter alia, that Father is
responsible for the deductibles on Child's medical insurance and
for out-of-pocket costs for medical, vision, or dental visits.
                          II. Discussion
             Mother's Request to Audit Father's Income
          Mother contends the Family Court abused its discretion
by failing to address Mother's allegations that Father's
financial statements contained false and misleading information.
Mother essentially argues that Father's representation of his
financial situation is suspicious and the Family Court
disregarded her evidence in denying her request for an audit.
          "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 Hawai#i 126, 136, 276 P.3d 695, 705 (2012).
          Mother has not provided the transcript of relevant
proceedings. See Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai#i 225,
230, 909 P.2d 553, 558 (1995) ("The burden is upon appellant in
an appeal to show error by reference to matters in the record,
and he or she has the responsibility of providing an adequate
transcript." (brackets and citation omitted)). We are thus
hampered in our review related to Mother's Post-Decree Motion.

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

          To the extent that Mother argues the Family Court
failed to address her concerns or disregarded her evidence
relating to Father's finances, her argument is without merit.
Based on our review of the record and the Family Court's 1/16/18
Order, the Family Court allowed Mother to enter all of her
exhibits into evidence during the two evidentiary hearings on
Mother's Post-Decree Motion. In the 1/16/18 Order, the Family
Court explained that Mother requested an audit of Father's
individual income tax returns, and denied her request based on
the evidence. Mother essentially asks this Court to re-weigh the
evidence. However, "[i]t is well-settled that an appellate court
will not pass upon issues dependent upon the credibility of
witnesses and the weight of evidence; this is the province of the
trier of fact." Fisher v. Fisher, 111 Hawai#i 41, 46, 137 P.3d
355, 360 (2006) (citation omitted).
          Therefore, Mother fails to show that the Family Court
erred in denying her request for an audit of Father's finances.
           Mother's Request to Hold Father in Contempt
           Mother contends the Family Court erred in denying her
request for a contempt of court charge against Father because he
violated the 1/16/18 Order by failing to meet with her "to
resolve[] issues."
           Father argues that this issue is not related to the
4/3/18 Order from which he contends Mother appeals. However,
given Mother's self-represented status and the arguments in her
opening brief related to the Family Court's denial of her request
for a contempt of court charge against Father, it can be fairly
inferred that Mother seeks appellate review of any and all
preliminary rulings that led up to the 4/3/18 Order, including
the Order Denying Contempt of Court. See State v. Graybeard, 93
Hawai#i 513, 516, 6 P.3d 385, 388 (App. 2000) (holding that,
although the notice of appeal designated a nonexistent judgment,
it could be fairly inferred the appeal was from the actual

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

judgment); see also Erum, 147 Hawai#i at 372, 465 P.3d at 819
("Hawai#i courts should liberally construe the filings of pro se
litigants."). Thus, we address Mother's argument on the merits.
           The 1/16/18 Order required Mother to meet with Father's
counsel within seven days from the date of the order to "discuss
an amicable child support amount for submission to the Court."
On February 1, 2018, Mother filed the Motion for Contempt of
Court, asserting that Father and his counsel failed to abide by
the court's order to "meet up and settle up in 7 days." On
February 14, 2018, the Family Court entered the Order Denying
Contempt of Court, denying Mother's motion without prejudice and
noting that Mother failed to provide the factual basis for the
requested relief in her motion, including "what efforts [Mother]
and/or [Father] has attempted in order to comply with the Court's
[1/16/18 Order]."
            Mother fails to provide any cogent argument beyond her
conclusory assertions of error. Thus, this point of error is
deemed waived under HRAP Rule 28(b)(7).6 State v. Vinuya, 96
Hawai#i 472, 486, 32 P.3d 116, 130 (App. 2001).
                     Child's Medical Deductible
          Finally, Mother asserts that the Family Court failed to
address Child's medical deductible in the amount of $4,000.
Mother is incorrect.
          As explained above, the 1/16/18 Order required Father
to provide Child with medical and dental coverage without there
being any required deductible to be paid first by Mother and/or
Child. The 4/3/18 Order also states that Father is responsible
for the deductibles on the medical insurance and if there is an
out-of-pocket cost for Child's medical, vision or dental visits,
Child shall call Father about the cost and Father shall be
responsible for said cost.

      6
         HRAP Rule 28(b)(7) states, in pertinent part, "Points not argued may
be deemed waived."

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

          Mother's argument that the Family Court failed to
address Mother's concerns related to Child's medical deductible
is without merit.
                         III. Conclusion
          Based on the foregoing, the following orders entered by
the Family Court of the First Circuit are affirmed:
          (1) "Order Re: Evidentiary Hearing on Motion for an
Order of the Court to Enforce Stipulations of Child Support
Against the Plaintiff to Continue to Pay for the Child[']s Higher
Education" entered on January 16, 2018;
          (2) "Order Re: Defendant[']s Motion for Contempt of
Court Charges Against Plaintiff's Non-Compliance of Court Orders"
entered on February 14, 2018; and
          (3) "Order" entered on April 3, 2018.
          DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 19, 2023.

On the briefs:                        /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
                                      Chief Judge
MS, Self-represented
Defendant-Appellant                   /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
                                      Associate Judge
Jared A. Washkowitz,
for Plaintiff-Appellee                /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
                                      Associate Judge

                                  7