Weinberg v. Dickson-Weinberg

138 Hawai'i 51

375 P.3d 1289 (Table)

Jan Michael WEINBERG, Plaintiff–Appellee

v.Brenda Irene DICKSON–WEINBERG, Defendant–Appellant.

No. CAAP–15–0000362.

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i.

May 31, 2016.

Leslie C. Maharaj, on the briefs, for Defendant–Appellant.

Earle A. Partington, (Law Office of Earle A. Partington), Greg Ryan, (Greg Ryan and Associates), on the briefs, for Plaintiff–Appellee.

LEONARD, Presiding Judge, REIFURTH and GINOZA, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Defendant–Appellant Brenda Irene Dickson–Weinberg (Wife) appeals from (1) the “Order Re Defendant's Motion for Post–Decree Relief Filed September 10, 2014,” (Order Re Post–Decree Relief) filed on December 5, 2014 and (2) the “Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration Filed December 15, 2014,” (Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration) filed on March 25, 2015 in the Family Court of the First Circuit (family court).¹

On appeal, Wife contends: (1) the family court denied Wife's right to due process of law under Article I, section 5 of the Hawai‘i Constitution ; (2) the family court erred when it denied Wife's “Motion and Declaration for Post–Decree Relief” (Motion for Post–Decree Relief); (3) the family court erred when it denied “Defendant's Non–Hearing Motion for Reconsideration” (Motion for Reconsideration); and (4) the family court erred when it did not submit Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (FOFs/COLs) prior to Wife submitting her opening brief.

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, as well as relevant statutory and case law, we resolve Wife's points of error as follows and affirm.

I. Background

This case involves a divorce proceeding that began in 2004 and has previously been appealed to this court and the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i on other issues.

On December 22, 2004, Jan Michael Weinberg (Husband) filed a Complaint for Divorce against Wife. On May 18, 2006, the family court filed a Divorce Decree, which, Inter alia, (1) dissolved the marriage; (2) denied alimony² to either spouse; and (3) divided and distributed the parties' real property, personal property, and debts.

On June 16, 2006, Wife filed a notice of appeal from the Divorce Decree. This court in Weinberg v. Dickson–Weinberg, 121 Hawai‘i 401, 220 P.3d 264 (App.2009), affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part and remanded the case with instructions on how to proceed. Id. at 450, 220 P.3d 264, 313. Husband appealed this court's decision to the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.

On April 7, 2010, the supreme court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case back to the family court. Weinberg v. Dickson Weinberg, 123 Hawai‘i 68, 80, 229 P.3d 1133, 1145 (2010).

On March 23, 2011, after a trial was held on remand, the family court entered a Decision and Order, which, inter alia, (1) divided the marital real property, personal property, and debts and (2) found that transitional alimony was appropriate for a period of thirty-six months at the rate of $12,000 per month, beginning April 1, 2011.³ On June 30, 2011, the family court filed the Judgment. Wife did not seek reconsideration on the Decision and Order or appeal the Judgment.

On December 9, 2011, Husband filed “Plaintiff's Motion and Declaration for Post–Decree Relief” requesting a reduction in alimony payments to no more than $2,000 per month. On June 4, 2012, the family court filed an “Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion and Declaration for Post–Decree Relief Filed December 9, 2011” (6/4/12 Order).⁴ The court, inter alia, reduced Husband's alimony payment to $5,000 per month effective January 2012. Wife did not file a motion for reconsideration or appeal the 6/4/12 Order.

On April 15, 2014, Husband filed “Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Full Satisfaction of Judgment Filed June 30, 2011 and Order Filed June 4, 2012.” On August 28, 2014, the family court filed an “Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Full Satisfaction of Judgment Filed June 30, 2011 and Order filed June 4, 2012, Filed April 15, 2014” (Order Re Satisfaction of Judgment).⁵ The Order Re Satisfaction of Judgment states, inter alia, (1) Husband “fully and completely satisfied the alimony award issued by the Judgment, as modified by the Order, and [Husband] does not owe [Wife] any additional sums as and for alimony”; (2) Wife's “oral motion for an award of immediate temporary alimony is denied”; and (3) “[t]he Court accepts [Wife's] request to reserve her rights, if any, regarding the alimony awarded by the Judgment and modified by the Order; The Court makes no findings or determination as to whether any such rights exist.” (Emphasis added.) Wife did not appeal the Order Re Satisfaction of Judgment.

A few weeks later, on September 10, 2014, Wife filed her Motion for Post–Decree Relief. Wife requested that the family court reinstate her alimony award of $12,000 per month because the court reduced the alimony based on Husband's disability and inability to work and the disability had resolved itself. On October 15, 2014, a hearing was held regarding Wife's Motion for Post–Decree Relief.

On December 5, 2014, the family court filed the Order Re Post–Decree Relief, in which the court found that “no material change of circumstance [existed] to re-open the issue of a thirty-six month award of transitional alimony, which terminated seven months ago and was finalized by an Order Re Satisfaction of Judgment.”

On December 15, 2014, Wife filed her Motion for Reconsideration. On March 25, 2015, the family court filed an “Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration Filed December 15, 2014.” On April 23, 2015, Wife timely filed her Notice of Appeal.

On August 28, 2015, Wife filed her opening brief. On September 1, 2015, the family court filed its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. On September 29, 2015, the family court filed its Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Amended FOFs/COLs).

II. Standard of Review

Generally, the family court possesses wide discretion in making its decisions and those decision[s] will not be set aside unless there is a manifest abuse of discretion. Thus, we will not disturb the family court's decisions on appeal unless the family court disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant and its decision clearly exceeded the bounds of reason.

Fisher v. Fisher, 111 Hawai‘i 41, 46, 137 P.3d 355, 360 (2006) (citation omitted).

III. Discussion

A. Motion for Post–Decree Relief.

1. The family court's jurisdiction.

As an initial matter, in Husband's answering brief, he contends that the family court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over Wife's Motion for Post–Decree Relief because once the period for alimony has run and the fixed alimony was fully paid, the family court did not have authority to order additional alimony. Thus, Husband contends that the family court lost jurisdiction when the alimony was satisfied as of March 1, 2014.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 580–47 (2006, Supp.2015) confers jurisdiction on the family court:

§ 580–47 Support orders; division of property. (a) Upon granting a divorce, or thereafter if, in addition to the powers granted in subsections (c) and (d), jurisdiction of those matters is reserved under the decree by agreement of both parties or by order of court after finding that good cause exists, the court may make any further orders as shall appear just and equitable ....(2) compelling either party to provide for the support and maintenance of the other party;

....

(d) Upon the motion of either party supported by an affidavit setting forth in particular a material change in the physical or financial circumstances of either party, or upon a showing of other good cause, the moving party, in the discretion of the court, and upon adequate notice to the other party, may be granted a hearing.... The court, upon such hearing, for good cause shown may amend, or revise any order and shall consider all proper circumstances in determining the amount of the allowance, if any, which shall thereafter be ordered.

HRS § 580–47(a) provides the family court with jurisdiction to compel either party to provide for support and maintenance of the other party. In addition, HRS § 580–47(d) grants the court discretion to “amend or revise any order” if it determines that a material change in circumstances exists. This court concluded “the family court's spousal support order is always subject to the further order of the family court upon a material change in the relevant circumstances of either party even when the order explicitly states otherwise.” Vorfeld v. Vorfeld, 8 Haw.App. 391, 401, 804 P.2d 891, 897 (1991) ; see Amii v. Amii, 5 Haw.App. 385, 391, 695 P.2d 1194, 1198 (1985) ( “Spousal support, however, is always subject to revision upon a substantial and material change in the relevant circumstances.”). Thus, the family court is granted broad authority under HRS § 580–47 in its ability to address alimony issues.

In its August 28, 2014 Order Re Satisfaction of Judgment, the family court stated: “The Court accepts [Wife's] request to reserve her rights, if any, regarding the alimony awarded by the Judgment and modified by the Order. The Court makes no findings or determination as to whether any such rights exist.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, the family court expressly reserved and limited its jurisdiction to the thirty-six-month period of the original alimony award.

When Wife filed her Motion for Post–Decree Relief, the family court had the authority and discretion under HRS § 580–47(d) to address Wife's Motion, but only as it pertained to the thirty-six month time frame of the original alimony award.

2. The family court did not abuse its discretion when it determined there was no material change in circumstances.

Wife contends that the family court erred when it denied her Motion for Post–Decree Relief...