Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
26-JAN-2024
08:21 AM
Dkt. 56 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
BECKY LYNN SWAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
ROY WILLIAM GILLETTE, JR., Defendant-Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(FC-D NO. 06-1-1864)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Roy William Gillette, Jr.
(Gillette) appeals from the July 17, 2019 Order Partially
Granting and Partially Denying Plaintiff's Motion and Declaration
for Post-Decree Relief (2019 Order re Post-Decree Relief) entered
by the Family Court of the First Circuit (Family Court)1 in favor
of Plaintiff-Appellee Becky Lynn Swan (Swan).
Gillette raises four points of error on appeal,
contending that the Family Court erred in: (1) assuming
jurisdiction over Swan's post-decree motion; (2) concluding that
the Stipulated Agreement to Modify Decree Granting Absolute
Divorce, Filed Herein on 11/2/2007; Order (2011 Stipulation and
1
The Honorable John C. Bryant, Jr. presided.
Order) was the original judgment; (3) its application of Hawaii
Revised Statutes (HRS) § 657-5 (2016); and (4) certain Findings
of Fact (FOFs) and Conclusions of Law (COL) supporting its
decision in the 2019 Order re Post-Decree Relief.
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 Gillette's arguments as follows:
A Decree Granting Absolute Divorce was entered on
November 2, 2007 (2007 Divorce Decree). It is undisputed that
the 2007 Divorce Decree awarded the Main House to Gillette,
subject to an equalization payment to Swan (Main House
Equalization Payment). In Plaintiff's September 19, 2019 FOFs
and COLs, the Family Court found, inter alia, that the 2011
Stipulation and Order "does not contain any provision addressing,
modifying, forgiving, or cancelling the equalization payment;"
the Family Court concluded, inter alia, that the 2011 Stipulation
and Order "did not address or amend the [2007 Divorce] Decree's
provisions regarding the Main House." This finding and
conclusion are undisputed, and upon review, we conclude that
neither one is wrong.
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the
ten-year statute of limitation to enforce the Main House
Equalization Payment runs from the 2007 Divorce Decree or the
2011 Stipulation and Order.
HRS § 657-5 provides:
§ 657-5 Domestic judgments and decrees. Unless an
extension is granted, every judgment and decree of any court
2
of the State shall be presumed to be paid and discharged at
the expiration of ten years after the judgment or decree was
rendered. No action shall be commenced after the expiration
of ten years from the date a judgment or decree was rendered
or extended. No extension of a judgment or decree shall be
granted unless the extension is sought within ten years of
the date the original judgment or decree was rendered. A
court shall not extend any judgment or decree beyond twenty
years from the date of the original judgment or decree. No
extension shall be granted without notice and the filing of
a non-hearing motion or a hearing motion to extend the life
of the judgment or decree.
In Estate of Roxas v. Marcos, 121 Hawai