Hashimoto v. Hashimoto
| Decision Date | 08 September 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 10856,10856 |
| Parties | Barbara HASHIMOTO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glenn Takeo HASHIMOTO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
Syllabus By the Court
1. Divorce cases involve up to five (5) separate categories of property net market values, as follows:
Category 1. The date-of-marriage net market value of all property separately owned at the date of marriage but excluding the value attributable to property that is subsequently legally gifted by the owner to the other party, to both parties, or to a third party.
Category 2. The during-the-marriage increase in the net market value of category 1 property that the owner separately owns at the time of the divorce.
Category 3. The date-of-acquisition net market value of property separately acquired by gift or inheritance during the marriage but excluding the value attributable to property that is subsequently legally gifted by the owner to the other party, to both parties, or to a third party.
Category 4. The during-the-marriage increase in the net market value of category 3 property that the owner separately owns at the time of the divorce.
Category 5. The time-of-divorce net market value of all property owned by one or both of the parties at the time of the divorce minus the net market values included in categories 1, 2, 3, and 4.
2. Categories 1, 2, 3, and 4 are limited to a maximum 50% award to the non-owner spouse.
3. When deciding how to equitably divide the value of property in a divorce case, the "uniform starting points" are points from which to commence equitable distribution analysis and application of statutory and case law mandates.
4. The uniform starting point for dividing the net market values under categories 1 and 3 is 100% to the owner and 0% to the non-owner.
5. The uniform starting point for dividing the net market values under categories 2 and 4 is 75% to the owner and 25% to the non-owner.
6. The uniform starting point for dividing the net market values under category 5 is 50% to the Husband and 50% to the Wife.
Terence T. Yoshioka (Nakamoto, Yoshioka & Okamoto, of counsel), Hilo, for defendant-appellant.
Calvin J. Fukuhara (William J. Rosdil, of counsel), Hilo, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BURNS, C.J., and HEEN and TANAKA, JJ.
In this divorce case, Glenn Takeo Hashimoto (Husband) appeals from that part of the family court's August 8, 1985 decree dealing with the division of property. We vacate that part of the decree and remand for reconsideration in light of this opinion.
The parties were married on November 10, 1973 when both were 23 years of age. Wife had a college degree in social work and Husband had one in accounting. A daughter was born on February 6, 1975. The parties separated on July 7, 1984. Wife filed a complaint for divorce on November 23, 1984.
When the complaint was filed, Wife was a financial services representative at Honolulu Federal Savings and Loan Association, earning a gross monthly income of $1,352. Husband was an assistant vice president at Suisan Company, earning a gross monthly income of $2,194 per month plus a car allowance.
I.
Divorce cases involve up to five (5) separate categories of property net market values, as follows:
Category 1. The date-of-marriage net market value of all property separately owned at the date of marriage but excluding the value attributable to property that is subsequently legally gifted 1 by the owner to the other party, to both parties, or to a third party.
Category 2. The during-the-marriage increase in the net market value of category 1 property that the owner separately owns at the time of the divorce.
Category 3. The date-of-acquisition net market value of property separately acquired by gift or inheritance during the marriage but excluding the value attributable to property that is subsequently legally gifted 2 by the owner to the other party, to both parties, or to a third party.
Category 4. The during-the-marriage increase in the net market value of category 3 property that the owner separately owns at the time of the divorce.
Category 5. The time-of-divorce net market value of all property owned by one or 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 property in divorce proceedings. In Cassiday v. Cassiday, 6 Haw. App. 207, 716 P.2d 1145 (1985), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 68 Haw. 383, 716 P.2d 1133 (1986), we announced an additional "general rule" which, on certiorari, the Hawaii Supreme Court disapproved. 3
Apparently, the label "general rule" does not adequately describe our intended meaning. Our "general rules" are not intended to be "fixed rules for determining the amount of property to be awarded to each spouse in a divorce action[.]" Id. 68 Haw. at ----, 716 P.2d at 1137. They are merely "uniform starting points" from which to commence equitable distribution analysis and application of statutory and case law mandates. Therefore, we hereby replace the old label of "general rule" with a new label of "uniform starting point."
The need for such "uniform starting points" is obvious. If different family court judges commence deciding in what proportion to equitably divide the value of the property from different starting points, which could range from a 100-0 split to a 0-100 split, then their awards will be equally diverse. 4 There will be no uniformity, stability, clarity, or predictability. The ultimate decision will depend less on the facts and the law and more on who is the judge assigned to hear and decide the case. Since the standard of appellate review is the abuse of discretion standard, appellate courts will be relatively powerless to control or remedy the problem.
If family court judges are required to commence deciding in what proportion to equitably divide the value of the property from a uniform starting point, and to identify each of the factors that cause them to deviate and award a different proportion, then their decisions will be more uniform and predictable and the process of appellate review under the abuse of discretion standard will be greatly facilitated.
In Cassiday, the supreme court stated that the family court may award the non-owner spouse no more than 50% of the net market values under categories 2 and 4. Since the net market values under categories 2 and 4 are generated within the marriage, whereas the net market values under categories 1 and 3 are generated outside of the marriage, the non-owner spouse has no less an equitable claim to the net market values under categories 2 and 4 than under categories 1 and 3. Consequently, we conclude that categories 1, 2, 3, and 4 are limited to a maximum 50% award to the non-owner spouse.
In Cassiday, the supreme court also stated that 68 Haw. at ----, 716 P.2d at 1138. It thereby confirmed that the uniform starting point for dividing the net market values under categories 1 and 3 is 100% to the owner and 0% to the non-owner.
In Cassiday, the supreme court disapproved a 50-50 uniform starting point for dividing the net market values under categories 2 and 4. Thus, the applicable uniform starting point could be 51-49 or 100-0 or any ratio in between. Considering that the maximum that can be awarded to the non-owner spouse is 50% and the minimum is 0%, we select a 75%-25% uniform starting point for dividing the net market values under categories 2 and 4.
In our view, the uniform starting point for dividing the net market values under category 5 is 50% to the Husband and 50% to the Wife.
II
This case involves only three categories
of property net market values as follows
Category 3.
-----------
Iwalani Street (rental) residence $ 53,500 5
Category 4.
-----------
Iwalani Street (rental) residence $ 20,500
Category 5.
-----------
Auahi Street (marital) residence $ 51,261 6
Wife's retirement cash value 15,626
Husband's retirement cash value 5,271
Wife's automobile 5,000
Furnishing 16,000
Wife's life insurance cash value 1,700
Husband's savings 1,738
Husband's life insurance cash value 1,004
Wife's account receivable from sister 3,000
--------------
Total $100,600
At the uniform starting points, the property net market values were divisible as follows:
Category Husband Wife
-------- ------- ----
3 $ 53,500 (100%) ( 0%)
4 15,373 ( 75%) $ 5,125 (25%)
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gussin v. Gussin
...and case law mandates[ ]" should begin. Myers v. Myers, 70 Haw. 143, 150, 764 P.2d 1237, 1242 (1988) (citing Hashimoto v. Hashimoto, 6 Haw.App. 424, 426, 725 P.2d 520, 522 (1986)) (footnotes omitted), recon. denied, 70 Haw. 661, 796 P.2d 1004 (1988). The five categories Category 1. The net ......
-
Kakinami v. Kakinami
...This court has adopted general partnership principles (Partnership Model), originating in the ICA, see Hashimoto v. Hashimoto, 6 Haw.App. 424, 426, 725 P.2d 520, 522 (App.1986), overruled on other grounds by Gussin v. Gussin, 73 Haw. 470, 836 P.2d 484 (1992), in order to guide the family co......
-
84 Hawai'i 319, Jackson v. Jackson, 16067
...that the Partnership Model was applicable. We apply the Partnership Model in this case because [84 Hawai'i 332] Hashimoto, 6 Haw.App. 424, 427-28, 725 P.2d 520, 523 (1986). Thus, the family court proceeded under the notion that, assuming all valid and relevant considerations are equal, Cate......
-
80 Hawai'i 79, Epp v. Epp
...point for dividing the net market values under category 5 is 50% to the Husband and 50% to the Wife. Hashimoto v. Hashimoto, 6 Haw.App. 424, 427-28, 725 P.2d 520, 523 (1986). Subsequent to the trial of the Epps' case, and except as modified by one or more valid and enforceable premarital ag......
-
§ 13.02 Division of Property at Divorce
...Carolina: N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-20. Wisconsin: Jasper v. Jasper, 107 Wis.2d 59, 318 N.W.2d 792 (1982). See also, Hashimoto v. Hashimoto, 725 P.2d 520 (Haw. App. 1986). Cf., Cassiday v. Cassiday, 716 P.2d 1133 (Haw. 1986). But see: Pennsylvania: Fratangelo v. Fratangelo, 360 Pa. Super. 487, 5......