NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 08-FEB-2024 08:35 AM Dkt. 163 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
S.R., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.R., Defendant-Appellee
APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT (FC-D NO. 18-1-0032)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)
Self-represented Plaintiff-Appellant S.R. (SR) appeals
from the April 9, 2021 Written Findings of Facts [(FOFs)],
Conclusions of Law [(COLs)], Decisions and Orders Following
Divorce Complaint and Motion for Relocation Trial (Final Order)
entered by the Family Court of the Second Circuit (Family
Court).1
SR raises three points of error (POE) on appeal,
contending that: (1) the Family Court erred in denying SR shared
custody of the parties' child (Child) and limiting his visitation
to four-hour visits because SR had overcome the Family Court's
1 The Honorable Adrianne N. Heely presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
prior finding that SR committed family violence, and there is no
risk to Child or Defendant-Appellee J.R. (JR); (2) the Family
Court abused its discretion and violated statutory provisions in
the Final Order because it denied SR meaningful and reasonable
contact with Child and encouraged JR to allow that time to occur
via virtual contact or in person while in Florida and/or Maui;
and (3) SR was denied due process because JR made
misrepresentations throughout the litigation to gain an
advantage, and those alleged misrepresentations resulted in the Family Court approving false FOFs, which negatively impacted SR's
parenting rights and property division.
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 SR's points of error as follows:
(1) SR presents numerous arguments, and challenges
multiple FOFs and COLs, in conjunction with his first point of
error. We conclude, however, that the record does not support
SR's contentions that the Family Court prejudged the issues of
custody and relocation. Nor does the record support SR's
contentions that the Family Court erred, clearly erred, or abused
its discretion in evidentiary rulings and denial of SR's request
to testify again in rebuttal. The Family Court recognized,
considered, and evaluated testimony and other evidence concerning
SR's efforts to address the history of family violence and abuse.
We reject SR's contentions that the Family Court clearly erred in
weighing the evidence presented over a multi-day trial or abused
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
its discretion in its ultimate decisions as to custody and
visitation.
(2) In the second POE, SR argues, variously, that the
Family Court did not in fact grant him reasonable and meaningful
contact/visitation with Child in light of the limitations placed
on contact/visitation, particularly with respect to the Family
Court's decision (a) to allow JR to relocate to Florida, and (b)
to allow contact/visitation by FaceTime, Zoom, WebEx or similar
means when SR and Child are in different locations. It is clear from the record that the Family Court considered all of the
evidence from both parties, the findings of family violence, and
the extensive litigation in the Family Court, as well as the 2018
custody evaluation, and applied the best-interest-of-the-child
standard to the issues of custody, visitation and relocation.
Contrary to SR's arguments, the Family Court's decisions
concerning relocation and contact/visitation are grounded in
Child's needs, interests, and schedule. We cannot conclude that
the Family Court abused its discretion in determining the best
interests of Child, and we conclude that SR was not deprived of
reasonable and meaningful contact/visitation with Child.
(3) SR's third POE, in substance, challenges the Family
Court's findings that JR was credible and SR was not credible.
"[I]t is well-settled that an appellate court will not pass upon
issues dependent upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight
of the evidence; this is the province of the trier of fact." LC
v. MG & Child Support Enf't Agency, 143 Hawai#i 302, 310–11, 430
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
P.3d 400, 408–09 (2018). We decline to disturb the Family
Court's determinations of credibility.
In conjunction with this POE, SR states multiple
challenges to the Family Court's calculations for income and
property division.
SR argues that the Family Court clearly erred in
establishing the value of his one Bitcoin as of April 9, 2020,
because it has since fluctuated in value, in a lower range. The
Family Court recognized the wide fluctuation in the value of Bitcoin and took into account that SR's Bitcoin was the one major
asset of the marital estate in conjunction with the court's
review of the parties' income and expenses, assets and debts.
Father fails to establish that the Family Court clearly erred in
assigning this asset a value at the conclusion of the evidentiary
portion of trial.
As argued by SR, the Family Court clearly erred in
stating that there was no evidence that JR had student loan debt
when the parties married. However, the Family Court determined,
inter alia, that all debt in JR's sole name, i.e., the student
loan debt, is JR's responsibility. (Likewise, for SR's sole
debts.) There were no joint debts, no equalization payments, and
no alimony. SR was fully allocated the value of his date-of-
marriage assets, retained the Bitcoin, seven vehicles of various
vintages (JR retained one Toyota), and the overall partnership
calculation left JR with a substantial negative "Total Value
Received" in the Partnership Model Calculation. We conclude that
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
the Family Court's error in not specifically identifying JR's
pre-marital student loan debt as such was harmless error.
SR's contention that the Family Court clearly erred in
calculating child support based upon the standardized methods set
forth in the 2020 Hawai#i Child Support Guidelines (starting with
gross monthly income), rather than using the net taxable income
calculated by SR's CPA for the purposes of calculating income
taxes, is without merit. See Hawaii Revised Statutes § 571-52.5
(2018) (mandating the use of the Guidelines). SR accurately points to evidence in the record of JR's gross wages in the 2016
tax year. However, SR's argument that the Family Court clearly
erred in establishing JR's income for child support calculations
– based on website data not in the record on appeal concerning
the "current" (2021) payscale at JR's former employer – is
without merit. SR has failed to demonstrate entitlement to
relief from the Family Court's child support calculation.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 08-FEB-2024 08:35 AM Dkt. 163 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
S.R., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.R., Defendant-Appellee
APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT (FC-D NO. 18-1-0032)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)
Self-represented Plaintiff-Appellant S.R. (SR) appeals
from the April 9, 2021 Written Findings of Facts [(FOFs)],
Conclusions of Law [(COLs)], Decisions and Orders Following
Divorce Complaint and Motion for Relocation Trial (Final Order)
entered by the Family Court of the Second Circuit (Family
Court).1
SR raises three points of error (POE) on appeal,
contending that: (1) the Family Court erred in denying SR shared
custody of the parties' child (Child) and limiting his visitation
to four-hour visits because SR had overcome the Family Court's
1 The Honorable Adrianne N. Heely presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
prior finding that SR committed family violence, and there is no
risk to Child or Defendant-Appellee J.R. (JR); (2) the Family
Court abused its discretion and violated statutory provisions in
the Final Order because it denied SR meaningful and reasonable
contact with Child and encouraged JR to allow that time to occur
via virtual contact or in person while in Florida and/or Maui;
and (3) SR was denied due process because JR made
misrepresentations throughout the litigation to gain an
advantage, and those alleged misrepresentations resulted in the Family Court approving false FOFs, which negatively impacted SR's
parenting rights and property division.
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 SR's points of error as follows:
(1) SR presents numerous arguments, and challenges
multiple FOFs and COLs, in conjunction with his first point of
error. We conclude, however, that the record does not support
SR's contentions that the Family Court prejudged the issues of
custody and relocation. Nor does the record support SR's
contentions that the Family Court erred, clearly erred, or abused
its discretion in evidentiary rulings and denial of SR's request
to testify again in rebuttal. The Family Court recognized,
considered, and evaluated testimony and other evidence concerning
SR's efforts to address the history of family violence and abuse.
We reject SR's contentions that the Family Court clearly erred in
weighing the evidence presented over a multi-day trial or abused
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
its discretion in its ultimate decisions as to custody and
visitation.
(2) In the second POE, SR argues, variously, that the
Family Court did not in fact grant him reasonable and meaningful
contact/visitation with Child in light of the limitations placed
on contact/visitation, particularly with respect to the Family
Court's decision (a) to allow JR to relocate to Florida, and (b)
to allow contact/visitation by FaceTime, Zoom, WebEx or similar
means when SR and Child are in different locations. It is clear from the record that the Family Court considered all of the
evidence from both parties, the findings of family violence, and
the extensive litigation in the Family Court, as well as the 2018
custody evaluation, and applied the best-interest-of-the-child
standard to the issues of custody, visitation and relocation.
Contrary to SR's arguments, the Family Court's decisions
concerning relocation and contact/visitation are grounded in
Child's needs, interests, and schedule. We cannot conclude that
the Family Court abused its discretion in determining the best
interests of Child, and we conclude that SR was not deprived of
reasonable and meaningful contact/visitation with Child.
(3) SR's third POE, in substance, challenges the Family
Court's findings that JR was credible and SR was not credible.
"[I]t is well-settled that an appellate court will not pass upon
issues dependent upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight
of the evidence; this is the province of the trier of fact." LC
v. MG & Child Support Enf't Agency, 143 Hawai#i 302, 310–11, 430
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
P.3d 400, 408–09 (2018). We decline to disturb the Family
Court's determinations of credibility.
In conjunction with this POE, SR states multiple
challenges to the Family Court's calculations for income and
property division.
SR argues that the Family Court clearly erred in
establishing the value of his one Bitcoin as of April 9, 2020,
because it has since fluctuated in value, in a lower range. The
Family Court recognized the wide fluctuation in the value of Bitcoin and took into account that SR's Bitcoin was the one major
asset of the marital estate in conjunction with the court's
review of the parties' income and expenses, assets and debts.
Father fails to establish that the Family Court clearly erred in
assigning this asset a value at the conclusion of the evidentiary
portion of trial.
As argued by SR, the Family Court clearly erred in
stating that there was no evidence that JR had student loan debt
when the parties married. However, the Family Court determined,
inter alia, that all debt in JR's sole name, i.e., the student
loan debt, is JR's responsibility. (Likewise, for SR's sole
debts.) There were no joint debts, no equalization payments, and
no alimony. SR was fully allocated the value of his date-of-
marriage assets, retained the Bitcoin, seven vehicles of various
vintages (JR retained one Toyota), and the overall partnership
calculation left JR with a substantial negative "Total Value
Received" in the Partnership Model Calculation. We conclude that
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
the Family Court's error in not specifically identifying JR's
pre-marital student loan debt as such was harmless error.
SR's contention that the Family Court clearly erred in
calculating child support based upon the standardized methods set
forth in the 2020 Hawai#i Child Support Guidelines (starting with
gross monthly income), rather than using the net taxable income
calculated by SR's CPA for the purposes of calculating income
taxes, is without merit. See Hawaii Revised Statutes § 571-52.5
(2018) (mandating the use of the Guidelines). SR accurately points to evidence in the record of JR's gross wages in the 2016
tax year. However, SR's argument that the Family Court clearly
erred in establishing JR's income for child support calculations
– based on website data not in the record on appeal concerning
the "current" (2021) payscale at JR's former employer – is
without merit. SR has failed to demonstrate entitlement to
relief from the Family Court's child support calculation.
Finally, SR argues that the Family Court abused its
discretion in awarding JR's "legal fees that exceeded 2/3 of
[SR's] remaining life savings and the award was based on [JR's]
... false information to the court[.]" Regarding the former
argument, SR provides no authority supporting reversal of the
significantly-reduced amount of fees awarded in this case based
solely on the amount of SR's remaining savings. SR provides no
other support for an appellate determination that the amount of
attorney's fees was unfair or unreasonable under the applicable
legal standard and in light of the overall financial abilities of
the parties and the amounts necessarily incurred under the
5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
circumstances of this highly-contested divorce litigation. See
Hamilton v. Hamilton, 138 Hawai#i 185, 209-10, 378 P.3d 901,
925-26 (2016).
Regarding the latter argument, we will not pass upon
the issue of JR's credibility.
We conclude that the Family Court did not abuse its
discretion in the award of attorneys fees.
For these reasons, the Family Court's April 9, 2021
Final Order is affirmed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 8, 2024.
On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Acting Chief Judge S.R., Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro Se. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge Benard M. Herren, (Cain & Herren, ALC), /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen for Defendant-Appellee. Associate Judge