Bloch v. Bloch

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 10, 2026
• Docket: CAAP-24-0000459
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 10-MAR-2026 08:00 AM Dkt. 190 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

ANNETTE BLOCH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID MICHAEL BLOCH, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 3FDV-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Guidry, JJ.)

Self-represented Defendant-Appellant David Michael

Bloch (Husband) appeals from the "Decree Granting Absolute

Divorce" (Divorce Decree) entered on June 13, 2024 by the Family

Court of the Third Circuit (family court). 1

1 The Honorable Jeffrey W. Ng presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Upon careful review of the record, the parties'

briefs, and relevant legal authorities, we affirm the Divorce

Decree. Husband's opening brief contains no statement of the

points of error, as required by Rule 28(b)(4) of the Hawaiʻi

Rules of Appellate Procedure, and provides no discernible

argument, references to the record on appeal, or citations to

legal authority. Husband did not order any transcripts of

proceedings for the record on appeal. See Bettencourt v.

Bettencourt, 80 Hawaiʻi 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." (cleaned up)).

Although we do not automatically foreclose self-

represented litigants from appellate review if they do not

comply with court rules, Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawaiʻi 368, 380-81,

465 P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020), we are unable to discern any basis

for Husband's apparent contention that the family court erred by

entering the Divorce Decree. See Kakinami v. Kakinami,

127 Hawaiʻi 126, 144 n.16, 276 P.3d 695, 713 n.16 (2012) (noting

that this court may "disregard a particular contention if the

appellant makes no discernible argument in support of that

position" (citation omitted)).

2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

We therefore affirm the family court's Divorce Decree. 2

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, March 10, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Presiding Judge David Michael Bloch, Self-represented /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Defendant-Appellant. Associate Judge

Jeremy J.K. Butterfield, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry for Plaintiff-Appellee. Associate Judge

2 Husband's February 20, 2026 "Appellant/Affiant Personal Affidavit, Consecution," and February 27, 2026 "CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX: Written Response in Opposition, Memorandum Entered Objection, (UNTIMELY Recordation, Dkt. 182 AF)(EXH A)," which we construe to be motions, are denied.