NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORT}*ZI`{ d d
NO. 29370
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
y 43
v
l OF 'I'HE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
H.K., Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
R.L., Defendant~Appellee
APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRC6IT jj
(FC~DIVORCE NO. 07-l-22l4)
SUMMARY DISPOS ITION ORDER
(By: Nakamura, C.J., Foley and Leonard, JJ.)
Plaintiff-Appellant H.K. (Wife) appeals from the
Divorce Decree filed on August 25, 2008 in the Family Court of
the First Circuit1 (family court).
wife raises six arguments on appeal: (1) the family
court erred by failing to make findings on dissipation, making
inadequate findings on business valuations, and failing to find
the relevant facts or decide whether those facts justified a
deviation from partnership principles in property division; (2)
the family court's finding that the shares of stock owned by
Defendant-Appellee R.L. (Husband) in Honcad Corporation (Honcad)
were worth $26,7OO was clearly erroneous; (3) the family court
erred in failing to credit wife with $277,l86, the amount Husband
dissipated from the marital estate; (4) the family court's
finding that Husband had a $40,22O Category 1 Charles Schwab
account (Schwab Account) at the date of marriage (DOM) was
clearly erroneous and unsupported by the evidence; (5) the family
court abused its discretion in awarding the 66% ownership of
NextLevel Software (NeXtLevel) to Husband and refusing to
compensate Wife half of the $30,000 payable to Husband; and (6)
the family court abused its discretion in awarding a $l50,000
lump-sum payment of alimony to Wife.
1 The Honorable Kenneth E. Enright presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
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 the relevant statutory and case law, we conclude that
Wife's appeal is without merit.
(1) wife contends the family court violated Hawafi
Family Court Rules (HFCR) Rule 52(a)2 when the court failed to
make any finding as to her claim that Husband dissipated $277,186
in marital funds. Wife argues that this omission violates Rule
52(a) and leaves this court with an inadequate factual basis for
understanding the family court's decision. We disagree.
Rule 52(a) does not require the family court to address
every factual issue raised by the parties. 'It does require that
the family court enter findings upon the filing of a notice of
appeal, State v. Gonsales, 91 HawaiU_446, 449, 984 P.2d 1272,
1275 (App. 1999), and that these findings be "sufficiently
comprehensive and pertinent to the issues to disclose to this
court the steps by which [the family court] reached its ultimate
conclusion on each factual issue." Doe 1V v. Roe 1V, 5 Haw. App.
558, 566, 705 P.2d 535, 543 (l985). lt is within the family
court's broad discretion to recognize factual issues and craft
findings of fact addressing these issues. We will not interfere
with these decisions unless there has been a manifest abuse of
discretion. Schiller v. Schiller, 120 Hawafi 283, 287, 205 P.3d
548, 552 (App. 2009>.
2 Rule 52(a) provides in relevant part:
Rule 52. Findings by the court.
(a) Effect. In all actions tried in the family court, the
court may find the facts and state its conclusions of law thereon
or may announce or write and file its decision and direct the
entry of the appropriate judgment; except upon notice of appeal
filed with the court, the court shall enter its findings of fact
and conclusions of law where none have been entered, unless the
written decision of the court contains findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
NOT F()R PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REP()RTER
We conclude that the 49 Findings of Fact in the
November 10, 2008 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
(FOF/COL) sufficiently apprise this court of the basis upon which
the family court reached its conclusions.
Wife also argues that the family court violated Rule
52(a) by not making findings about the business valuations of
Husband's companies. However, the FOF/COL did make findings
regarding the business valuation of Husband's companies:
13. The value of [Husband's] present interest in
Honcad Corporation is $26,700.00.
19. There was no disagreement that [Husband] shall
receive all of his LLC interest in Pipeline FX subject to
all indebtedness associated therewith, which indebtedness
materially exceeds the value of the assets in the company.
The value of the interest is $0.00.
20. lt is highly unlikely that [Husband] will ever
be repaid the amounts he has lent to [NextLevel]. [Wife]
offered no credible evidence to prove that it could ever
repay the loans to [Husband]. The value of the loans is
$0.00. l
§ee Doe IV, 5 Haw. App. at 566, 705 P.2d at 543 (noting that
"short, direct, and concise" findings are adequate). We
therefore find no merit in Wife's argument.
Wife contends the family failed to find relevant facts
to determine a deviation from partnership principles pursuant to
Jackson v. Jackson, 84 HawaiU_319, 933 P.2d 1353 (App. 1997)F
The family court found 49 facts in its FOF/COL and ultimately
3
Jackson explains the steps the family court takes in dividing marital
property under partnership principles:
The Partnership Model requires the family court, when
deciding the division and distribution of the Marital Partnership
Property of the parties part of divorce cases, to proceed as
follows: (1) find the relevant facts; start at the Partnership
Model Division and (2)(a) decide whether or not the facts present
any valid and relevant considerations authorizing a deviation from
the Partnership Model Division and, if so, (b) itemize those
considerations; if the answer to question (2)(a) is "yes,"
exercise its discretion and (3) decide whether or not there will
be a deviation; and, if the answer to question (3) is "yes,"
exercise its discretion and (4) decide the extent of the
deviation.
84 Hawaii at 332, 933 P.2d at 1366 (footnote omitted).
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
refused to deviate from partnership principles. The family
court's discretion to find the "re1evant“ facts is broad. Fisher
v_ signer iii nawai‘i 41, 46, 137 93d 355, 360 (2006)
("Generally, the family court possesses wide discretion in making
its decisions and those decisions will not be set aside unless
there is a manifest abuse of discretion.") The family court did
not abuse its discretion in declining to deem Wife's dissipation
claim a relevant fact for purposes of Jackson.
(2) Substantial evidence supports the family court's
finding that Husband's shares in Honcad were worth $26,700. §§§
Clark v. Clark, 110 HaWafi 459, 465, 134 P.3d 625, 631 (App.
2006). Mr. Kuba, Husband's appraisal expert, provided valuation
reports on Honcad as of December 31, 1996 and January 31, 2008
and PipelineFX as of January 31, 2008.4 These reports supported
the family court's finding that Husband's interest in PipelineFX
was worthless and his interest in Honcad was worth $26,700.
Mr. Kuba also testified from his reports at trial. Additional1y,
Husband testified that his interest in Pipe1ineFX was worthless
because he could not "sell it today for anything." This
collective evidence substantially supports the family court's
findings as to the value of Husband's business interest.
Wife argues that the family court should have lent more
credence to her expert's valuations of Husband's business
interests. We do not reconcile conflicting testimony.
[I]t is axiomatic that reconciling conflicting
testimony is beyond the scope of appellate review.
See State v. Martinez, 101 Hawafi 332, 340, 68 P.3d
606, 614 (2003) ("But '[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.‘") . . . ; State v. Mitchell, 94 Hawafi 388,
393, 15 P.3d 314, 319 (App. 2000) ("The appellate
court will neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor
interfere with the decision of the trier of fact based
on the witnesses' credibility or the weight of the
evidence.")[.]
4 The valuation reports were introduced into evidence as Exhs. G-1
through G-3, but the exhibits are not part of the lower court record before
us.
NOT F()R PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS ANI) PACIFIC REPORTER
Una`!