DL v. CL

502 P.3d 1024 (Table)

DL, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.CL, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

SCWC-18-0000704

Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.

January 28, 2022

Philip J. Leas and DL for petitioner

CL Self-represented respondent

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION

This case arises from the Family Court of the First Circuit's determination of child custody, child support, and alimony in a divorce proceeding between DL (Father) and CL (Mother).

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant Father appeals from the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ (ICA) July 29, 2021 Judgment on Appeal pursuant to its Memorandum Opinion vacating in part the family court's June 5, 2018 Order Re: Motion and Declaration for Pre-Decree Relief and the July 16, 2018 Order Re: Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Re: Motion and Declaration for Pre-Decree Relief, with regard to alimony; vacating the August 13, 2018 Order Granting Defendant's Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; and remanding for proceedings consistent with the opinion. More specifically, the ICA remanded to the family court to recalculate the amount of delinquent pre-decree temporary child support, and to determine whether good cause existed to bifurcate with regard to past alimony.

In his current application for certiorari¹ , Father presents two questions:

[1] Did the ICA gravely err by finding bifurcation by the family court and remanding this case to the family court to determine whether good cause existed for the family court, post-trial and sua sponte, to "bifurcate" the issue of pre-decree spousal support requested by CL?

[2] Did the ICA gravely err in affirming the family court's decision, made after entry of the divorce decree, to award past child support applicable to the time before the decree?

For the following reasons, we vacate the ICA's judgment on appeal to the extent it holds that the "Mother's April 18, 2018 Motion and Declaration for Pre-Decree Relief was in the nature of an enforcement action to collect delinquent pre-decree temporary child support." DL v. CL, 149 Hawai‘i 206, 485 P.3d 1118, 2021 WL 1614343 at *7 (App. Apr. 26, 2021) (DL IV ) (emphasis omitted). In all other respects, the ICA's judgment is affirmed.

II. BACKGROUND

Father and Mother married in 2008 and have two children, both of whom were minors at the time of the divorce proceedings. In 2015, Father, Mother, and children moved from Sacramento, California, to Honolulu to live in a cottage located on Father's parents’ property.

On July 9, 2016, Mother took both children with her to Arizona due to alleged abuse by Father. Father then filed a Motion and Declaration for Pre-Decree Relief on August 12, 2016. The family court² heard Father's motion on September 19, 2016, and awarded Mother temporary physical custody of the children in Arizona, pending further proceedings. Three months later, on December 16, 2016, the family court ordered Father to pay child support in the amount of $1,381 per child for a total of $2,762 per month commencing November 1, 2016. The family court order did not mention alimony.

Mother and Father stipulated to, inter alia, the appointment of a custody evaluator on January 19, 2017. Following the custody evaluation, Father filed a Motion for the Immediate Return of the Children to the State of Hawai‘i. On May 12, 2017, the family court granted in part and denied in part Father's motion, and in particular, granted Father and Mother joint legal and physical custody. The court's order, however, specified that "[p]ending the Trial, [Father] shall have physical custody of the Minors" in Hawai‘i, and "[a]ll prior orders not inconsistent with this Order shall remain in full force and effect." The order did not specifically address child support or alimony.

Mother returned to Hawai‘i with the children in May 2017, and Father stopped making child support payments after July. Mother then filed a motion seeking, inter alia, that Father not have sole physical custody, that custody should instead follow a timesharing plan, and that Father should be required to pay Mother $2,762 per month for child support and $4,500 per month for alimony. On June 21, 2017, the family court ordered Mother and Father to mediation to resolve issues, including physical custody, child support, and alimony.³ On July 26, 2017, following mediation, Mother and Father filed a stipulation agreeing to share physical custody equally pending trial, and to address the issues of temporary child support and temporary alimony "at trial together." Eight days later, on August 3, 2017, the family court ordered that Mother's request for temporary alimony from June 1, 2017 and Father's request to modify or terminate temporary child support "[would] be added to the issues to resolve at trial."

The trial lasted twelve days over a six-month period. After the trial ended on January 8, 2018, the family court issued its First Amended Order Re: Evidentiary Hearing on March 16, 2018, which in relevant part, provides:

3. Re: Child Support.

As to any past unpaid child support amount that is allegedly outstanding, the Parties are ordered to "meet and confer" on this matter within fourteen (14) days after receipt of this order to discuss this matter. In the event that the Parties are unable to reach an amicable resolution, then either Party may file a motion with the Court.

...

5. Re: Alimony.

As to any past alimony amount that is allegedly outstanding, the Parties are ordered to "meet and confer" on this matter within fourteen (14) days after receipt of this order to discuss this matter. In the event that the Parties are unable to reach an amicable resolution, then either Party may file a motion with the Court.

As part of its First Amended Order Re: Evidentiary Hearing, the family court also ordered Mother and Father to "meet and confer" regarding the Divorce Decree. Additionally, in the event the Parties did not reach a resolution, each party was instructed to submit a draft Divorce Decree within seven days of the "meet and confer" conference.

On March 29, 2018, Mother submitted a Notice of Submission, stating that "both parties met and conferred ... but no agreement on the language of the Decree was reached," and filed her proposed Divorce Decree with the court. Father filed a similar notice on April 3, 2018. According to Father's proposed Divorce Decree, "Neither party owes the other back child support for any period of time ... [and] [t]he Court, having found both Parties to be able to obtain gainful employment and presently employed, therefore denies any award of alimony."

On April 9, 2018, Father filed his objections to Mother's proposed Divorce Decree. Among his objections were the following:

9. [The family court's First Amended Order Re: Evidentiary Hearing] ordered Plaintiff to pay child support of $2,873 per month retroactive to February 1, 2018. Paragraph 9 of Defendant's proposed decree presents Defendant's desired version of child support on terms that have not been agreed or ordered by the Court. After trial ended Defendant left the children under the sole physical care of Plaintiff. If anyone should pay child support retroactive to February 1, 2018, it should be Defendant. Plaintiff objects to the retroactivity of an award of child support and objects to the amount of child support as unsubstantiated by the record or any identified rationale. As to the form of proposed decree, Plaintiff objects to the inclusion of anything more than is stated in the Order.

10. Plaintiff objects to paragraph 10 of Defendant's proposed decree. The issue of Past Child Support was specifically reserved and identified as an issue to be decided at trial. Trial concluded and the Court did not award past child support. In any event, Past Child Support is inappropriate, as the parties shared equal physical custody of the Children until Defendant left, and at all times have had effectively identical earning capacities, thereby rendering an award of child support improper during that time.

Prior to the family court issuing its Divorce Decree, Mother filed a Motion and Declaration for Pre-Decree Relief on April 18, 2018, requesting, among other things, that Father be ordered to pay $16,572 in child support and $5,501.68 in alimony ($22,073.68 total) for the period June 2017 to January 2018 (which was when the evidentiary portion of the trial concluded). According to Mother, she presented evidence during trial to support her request for temporary alimony and child support.

On April 26, 2018, the family court granted Mother's proposed Divorce Decree. The decree states in relevant part:

10. PAST CHILD SUPPORT. Pursuant to the First Amended Order Re: Evidentiary Hearing, filed March 16, 2018 counsel for the parties met and conferred on March 27, 2018 regarding the issue of past temporary child support. However, no agreement was reached. Pursuant to the First Amended Order Re: Evidentiary Hearing, either party can file a motion with the Court to address this issue.

...

13. ALIMONY/PAST TEMPORARY ALIMONY. Pursuant to the First Amended Order Re: Evidentiary Hearing, filed on March 16, 2018, counsel for the parties met and conferred on March 27, 2018 regarding the issue of past temporary alimony. However, no agreement was reached. Pursuant to the First Amended Order Re: Evidentiary Hearing, either party can file a motion with the Court to address this issue.

...

21. PRESENT AND FUTURE CLAIMS WAIVED. The parties shall release each other and relinquish all claims they have, or may have had with each other, whether growing out of their relationship as Husband and Wife or otherwise, from the beginning of time, either known or unknown, discovered or undiscovered, until the present. This means that the parties cannot (because they have voluntarily given up their rights to do so) sue or make any legal claims against each other based on any relationship they have had from the beginning of time to the present, whether they are aware of these

...