Court Opinion

ID: 9792976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:40:16.245404+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:09.612919
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION OF
LEVINSON, J.
I dissent.
The decree of divorce that was entered by the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit on September 4, 1963 included the following paragraph:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Property Settlement Agreement, dated August 27, 1963, by and between the parties, a copy of which was received in evidence at the hearing on the libel had herein, be and the *129same is hereby approved pursuant to Section 325-2, R.L.H. 1955.
The Property Settlement Agreement referred to in the decree included the following provisions:
13. Continuing Jurisdiction of Court: Husband and wife irrevocably agree that the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawaii, or its successor, shall have continuing jurisdiction in the matter until all of the parties’ obligations under the terms of this agreement have been fully discharged ....
17. This agreement is made in contemplation of a Decree of Divorce being granted .... in any event, this agreement shall be presented to the Court with the request that it be incorporated into and form a part of any decree of divorce that may be entered dissolving the marriages of the parties.
Unless we are to exalt form above substance, no magic words are required for a property settlement agreement to be incorporated by reference in a decree of divorce. In this case the written agreement of the parties clearly contemplated incorporation by reference. On September 4, 1963 the agreement was presented to the court by the husband’s attorney and it was received in evidence. The court approved the agreement pursuant to R.L.H. 1955, § 325-2, now HRS § 573-2, and embodied its approval in the decree. I consider that to be an incorporation by reference in this case.
The nunc pro tunc order entered September 9, 1970 did not alter the meaning of the original decree. All it did was to use the magic words which the majority of this court now holds were required to incorporate a document by reference. I think such a holding harks back to an unenlightened era in judicial procedure from which I had thought we were emancipated.
I would affirm.