Mochida v. Mochida, 9672
| Decision Date | 19 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 9672,9672 |
| Citation | 691 P.2d 771,5 Haw.App. 348 |
| Parties | Kathryn C. MOCHIDA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ivan S. MOCHIDA, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
In dividing the value of the residence in a divorce case, the family court did not err when, based upon evidence that the residence was owned by Husband prior to the marriage and that his conveyance of it to Husband and Wife as tenants by the entirety was made in the sixth year of a seven-year marriage in consideration of Wife's threats, it disregarded the conveyance and awarded Wife only one-half of the increase in the value of the residence during the marriage.
Katsuya Yamada, Hilo, on brief, for plaintiff-appellant.
Jeffrey Choi, Matthew G. Jewell, Hilo (Cook, Choi, Quitiquit, Crudele & Matsukawa, Hilo, of counsel), on brief, for defendant-appellee.
Before BURNS, C.J., and HEEN and TANAKA, JJ.
In this divorce action, plaintiff Kathryn C. Mochida (Wife) appeals that portion of the lower court's decree awarding the house and lot (residence) to defendant Ivan S. Mochida (Husband) subject to the mortgage and ordering Husband to pay Wife $9,750 as her share thereof. We affirm.
Husband purchased a parcel of land in 1974 and constructed and furnished a house on it. Husband and Wife were married on August 28, 1976 and thereafter lived in the house. At the time of the marriage, the residence had a value of $84,500 ($85,500 minus $1,000 for closing costs if it were sold) subject to a mortgage in excess of $47,000. 1 By deed dated September 24, 1981, Husband conveyed the residence to Husband and Wife as tenants by the entirety. There is no evidence in the record of the value of the residence or the amount due on the mortgage as of that time. Wife filed her complaint for divorce on May 26, 1983. At the time of the divorce in November 1983, the residence was worth $104,000 ($105,000 minus $1,000 for closing costs if it were sold) subject to a $47,000 mortgage.
The lower court awarded the residence to Husband subject to the mortgage and required him to pay Wife $9,750 as her share thereof. Thus, Husband was awarded a net value of $47,250 ($104,000 minus $47,000 minus $9,750) and Wife was awarded a net value of $9,750 ($104,000 minus $84,500 divided by two or $57,000 minus $37,500 divided by two).
This case involves three categories of net values as follows:
1. The less than $37,500 net value of the residence at the date of marriage. 2
2. The net value of the residence on September 24, 1981 when Husband conveyed the property to Husband and Wife.
3. The $57,000 net value of the residence at the time of divorce.
This case also involves the application of various general rules of equitable distribution as follows:
1. As a general rule, it is equitable to award each divorcing party the date of marriage net value of the property that he or she brought into the marriage. Raupp v. Raupp, 3 Haw.App. 602, 658 P.2d 329 (1983).
2. As a general rule, it is equitable to award each divorcing party the date of acquisition net value of the property that he or she received during the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Koontz v. Koontz
...a gift based on joint title, when the wife refused to move into the house unless her name was added to the title); Mochida v. Mochida, 5 Haw.App. 348, 691 P.2d 771 (1984) (refusing to consider the house as marital property because "by use of threats Wife 'forced' [husband] to place the resi......
-
Mortensen v. Mortensen
...of Komnick, 84 Ill.2d 89, 49 Ill.Dec. 291, 417 N.E.2d 1305 (1981). Other jurisdictions do not always do so. See Mochida v. Mochida, 5 Haw.App. 348, 691 P.2d 771 (1984). Once property acquired by gift or inheritance has been set over to the donee or heir spouse in accordance with the rules j......
-
Bennett v. Bennett
... ... Hashimoto was the seminal case establishing the USP, the concept really had its genesis in Mochida v. Mochida, 5 ... Page 605 ... Haw.App. 348, 691 P.2d 771 (1984), where we formulated "general ... ...
-
Hashimoto v. Hashimoto
...both of the parties at the time of the divorce minus the net market values included in categories 1, 2, 3, and 4. In Mochida v. Mochida, 5 Haw.App. 348, 691 P.2d 771 (1984), we generally summarized various "general rules" of equitability applicable to the division and distribution of proper......