Malek v. Malek
| Decision Date | 26 January 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 12924,12924 |
| Citation | 768 P.2d 243,7 Haw.App. 377 |
| Parties | Michael L. MALEK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lorayn Tiffany MALEK, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. When premarital cohabitation matures into marriage and the parties thereafter divorce, the family court, in the exercise of its authorized range of discretionary equitable choice when dividing and distributing property in divorce cases, may consider the respective contributions of the parties to the net market value of their separate and joint property during the periods of their premarital cohabitation and their marriage.
2. The phrase "estate of the parties" as it is used in Hawaii Revised Statutes § 580-47 means anything of present or prospective value owned by either or both of the parties on the date of the conclusion of the evidentiary part of the trial.
3. In divorce cases, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals has developed five separate categories of net market values, uniform starting points for dividing Isaac Hall, Wailuku, for plaintiff-appellant.
and distributing each category of values, and various standards and rules defining the family court's range of discretionary equitable choice when dividing and distributing each category of values.
Lowell D. Chatburn, Wailuku, for defendant-appellee.
Before BURNS, C.J., and HEEN and TANAKA, JJ.
Plaintiff Michael L. Malek (Husband) appeals the family court's December 7, 1987 Divorce Decree; the December 7, 1987 Supplemental Decision and Order; and the March 7, 1988 Order Denying, in Part, and Granting, in Part, Motion for Reconsideration. We affirm.
Although Husband contests specific findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the division and distribution of property, his counsel failed to comply with the mandates of Rule 28(b)(4) of the Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appropriate sanctions will be imposed should counsel in the future fail to prepare briefs in conformity with the rules.
Husband has been living on Maui since June 1, 1975. He first met defendant Lorayn Tiffany Malek (Wife) in California in March 1982. They were married on April 29, 1984, and their son was born on June 10, 1984. Husband and Wife separated in contemplation of divorce on May 15, 1986. The trial commenced on August 28, 1987 and concluded on September 2, 1987.
The only major asset involved in this divorce is Husband's lease of a two-acre parcel of land in Ulumalu, Makawao, Maui, and the house on it. Both are unencumbered. The lease began on March 18, 1980 and terminates on March 17, 2010. In relevant part, the lease provides:
4. Use of Property. Lessee agrees that the demised property shall be used only for residential and farming purposes. * * *
11. Lessee shall not assign this Lease or any interest therein or any right thereunder, or sublet any portion or portions of the demised premises.
The family court valued Husband's unencumbered land lease and improvements as follows:
March 1, 1982 $ 92,000
May 1, 1984 $113,000
May 1, 1986 $115,000
The family court awarded Wife 50 percent of the $2,000 increase in value between May 1, 1984 and May 1, 1986 and 5 percent of the $113,000 value on May 1, 1984. Thus, it awarded $6,650 to Wife and $108,350 to Husband.
It appears that Husband's points on appeal are:
I. The family court's valuations of Husband's land lease and improvements are clearly erroneous.
II. The family court's conclusion that Husband and Wife commenced an "economic partnership" on December 24, 1982 is wrong.
III. The family court's award to Wife of more than one-half of the $2,000 increase in the value of Husband's land lease and improvements from May 1, 1984 to May 1, 1986 is an abuse of discretion.
Upon a review of the record, we disagree with all three of Husband's points.
The family court's valuations of Husband's land lease and improvements are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Moreover, we do not have a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Therefore, the valuations are not clearly erroneous. Yorita v. Okumoto, 3 Haw.App. 148, 643 P.2d 820 (1982).
Wife testified that six days after she and Husband met in California in March 1982, she came to Maui and lived with him. Wife returned to California in August 1982. On December 24, 1982 Wife permanently moved in with Husband on Husband errs when he confuses this case with a palimony case. Here, premarital cohabitation matured into marriage. When the parties thereafter divorced, the family court, in the exercise of its duty to divide and distribute property in divorce cases, allowably considered their respective contributions to Husband's separate property during both their premarital cohabitation and subsequent marriage.
Maui. They cohabited but were not betrothed. Wife was not employed. Husband was self-employed and actively involved in upgrading his house. Wife assisted him. Husband provided all of the financial support for the couple. Husband contends that
Husband states that "[n]o Hawaii appellate court has ever expressly held that separately owned premarital property is part of the 'estate of the parties' and, therefore, subject to division pursuant to" law. He further states that "[t]here is no explicit authority permitting the division of the appreciated value of separately owned premarital assets in divorce cases." Both statements are wrong. "[T]he phrase 'estate of the parties' as it is used in HRS § 580-47 means anything of present or prospective value," Linson v. Linson, 1 Haw.App. 272, 278, 618 P.2d 748, 751 (1980), owned by either or both of the parties on the date of the conclusion of the evidentiary part of the trial (DOCOEPOT). See Myers v. Myers, 70 Haw. 143, 764 P.2d 1237 (1988). The appreciated value of separately owned premarital assets is a combination of categories 1 and 2 net market values (NMVs). Woodworth v. Woodworth, 7 Haw.App. 11, 740 P.2d 36 (1987). When dividing and distributing property, the family court may award no more than 50 percent of the NMVs in categories 1, 2, 3 or 4 to the nonowner spouse. Woodworth v. Woodworth, supra.
Husband argues that the family court "has no authority to distribute property before the economic partnership even existed." What he is really saying is that the family court cannot consider anything that happened before the parties were legally married. We disagree. The family court's discretion when dividing and distributing property and debts in divorce cases is not so restricted.
In a progression of divorce cases from Raupp v. Raupp, 3 Haw.App. 602, 658 P.2d 329 (1983), to Woodworth v. Woodworth, 7 Haw.App. 11, 740 P.2d 36 (1987), this court has developed five separate categories of net market values, 1 uniform Here, the $113,000 net market value of Husband's land lease and improvements on May 1, 1984 is a category 1 NMV. The USP for dividing that value is 100 percent to Husband and zero percent to Wife. Woodworth, supra. The $2,000...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gussin v. Gussin
...both of the spouses on the DOCOEPOT minus the NMVs, plus or minus, includable in categories 1, 2, 3 and 4. Malek v. Malek, 7 Haw.App. 377, 380-81 n. 1, 768 P.2d 243, 246 n. 1 (1989). The USPs for dividing the NMVs under the various categories are as Categories Percentage 1 and 3 100% to the......
-
Chen v. Hoeflinger, 28808.
...partnership if "premarital cohabitation matured into marriage." Helbush, 108 Hawai‘i at 515, 122 P.3d at 294–95; Malek v. Malek, 7 Haw.App. 377, 380, 768 P.2d 243, 246 (1989) (the family court's discretion when dividing and distributing property and debts in divorce cases is not restricted ......
-
80 Hawai'i 274, Markham v. Markham
...not prove express agreement for equitable division of separate property acquired or improved during cohabitation); Malek v. Malek, 7 Haw.App. 377, 768 P.2d 243 (1989) (allowing the family court to consider parties' respective contributions to separate property during both their premarital c......
-
Collins v. Wassell
...relevant in distributing property upon divorce if the couple formed an economic partnership prior to marriage.In Malek v. Malek, 7 Haw.App. 377, 379, 768 P.2d 243, 246 (1989), the ICA held that the family court properly considered contributions made by one spouse to the other spouse's separ......
-
§ 5.03 Determining What Is "Marital Property"
...27 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1143 (Tenn. App. 2001). [85] See: Alaska: McLaren v. McLaren, 268 P.3d 323 (Alaska 2012). Hawaii: Malek v. Malek, 7 Haw. App. 377, 768 P.2d 243 (1989). Illinois: In re Ohrt, 154 Ill. App.3d 738, 107 Ill. Dec. 496, 507 N.E.2d 160 (1987) (house purchased shortly before m......
-
§ 13.03 Miscellaneous Equitable Distribution Issues
...27 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1143 (Tenn. App. 2001). [551] See: Alaska: McLaren v. McLaren, 268 P.3d 323 (Alaska 2012). Hawaii: Malek v. Malek, 7 Haw. App. 377, 768 P.2d 243 (1989). Illinois: In re Ohrt, 154 Ill. App.3d 738, 107 Ill. Dec. 496, 507 N.E.2d 160 (1987). Michigan: Neilsen v. Neilsen, 1......
-
§ 3.03 Equitable Distribution Systems
...of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. See, e.g., Ala. Code § 30-2-51. See also, Malek v. Malek, 7 Haw. App. 377, 768 P.2d 243 (1989). In Minnesota, the court may not award more than 50% of one spouse's separate estate to the other spouse. See Minn. Stat......
-
§ 1.02 Disputes Between Cohabitants
...353 (Idaho 2015).[124] See generally: Connecticut: Vine v. Vine, 7 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 2765 (Conn. Super. 1981). Hawaii: Malek v. Malek, 7 Haw. App. 377, 768 P.2d 243 (1989). Illinois: In re Marriage of Goldstein, 97 Ill. App.3d 1023, 53 Ill. Dec. 397, 423 N.E.2d 1201 (1981). Indiana: Chestn......