83 Hawai'i 412, Labayog v. Labayog
| Decision Date | 18 September 1996 |
| Docket Number | 16310,Nos. 16096,s. 16096 |
| Citation | 927 P.2d 420 |
| Parties | 83 Hawai'i 412 Antonette LABAYOG, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dionicio LABAYOG, Defendant-Appellant, Felicitas A. Labayog, Petitioner-Appellant. The ESTATE OF Dionicio Mandac LABAYOG, Deceased. |
| Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
1. In Husband's and First Wife's divorce case, in accordance with their pretrial stipulation, the family court's Divorce Decree awarded Husband a parcel of improved residential real property, awarded First Wife a parcel of improved residential real property, and ordered each of them to convey his or her parcel to their five adult, financially emancipated children (First Marriage Children), per stirpes, subject to a reservation of a life interest. Prior to the divorce, Husband executed his Last Will and Testament (Will). After the divorce, Husband remarried and he and Second Wife had a son (Second Marriage Son). Husband died before he or First Wife complied with the Divorce Decree. After Husband died, First Wife complied with the Divorce Decree. As instructed by Husband's Will, the probate court appointed three of the five First Marriage Children as co-personal representatives (Co-PRs) of Husband's estate.
2. Thereafter, in the divorce case, First Wife asked the family court to substitute the Co-PRs as parties in place of Husband and to order the Co-PRs to comply with the Divorce Decree by conveying Husband's parcel of real property to the First Marriage Children. Second Wife, who was not a party in the divorce case, opposed the requested substitution. She sought for herself an omitted spouse share of the parcel and for her Second Marriage Son, a pretermitted child share of the parcel. When the family court granted First Wife's substitution request, Second Wife moved for (1) permission to intervene in the divorce case to put her in position to challenge the family court's jurisdictional power/authority to enter an order in the Divorce Decree which required Husband to convey his parcel of real property to his First Marriage Children, and (2) reconsideration of the order granting First Wife's substitution request. The family court denied both requests.
3. This opinion decides that (1) the family court's order denying Second Wife's request for permission to intervene is a final and appealable order; (2) although the family court was wrong when it entered the order denying permission to intervene, the error was harmless; (3) the family court's order denying Second Wife's motion for reconsideration of the substitution order is an interlocutory order that is not appealable; (4) when required by a valid and enforceable premarital agreement, marital agreement, or divorce agreement, the family court's divorce decree must include an order requiring the divorcing parties to convey the remainder interests in their respective parcels of real property to the five children of their marriage, reserving life interests; and (5) after Husband's death, the family court was authorized to enforce the Divorce Decree's order requiring Husband to convey, to his First Marriage Children, his remainder interest in a parcel of real property, and to do so by substituting the Co-PRs of Husband's estate in Husband's place as a party in the divorce case and ordering the Co-PRs to comply with the Divorce Decree.
4. In the probate case, when the Co-PRs did not list Husband's parcel of real property in the inventory of his estate, Second Wife, for herself and as guardian of the property of Second Marriage Son, petitioned for alternative remedies: first, for removal of the Co-PRs from office and appointment of Second Wife in their place; or second, for an order requiring the Co-PRs to list Husband's parcel of real property in the inventory of Husband's estate. This opinion (1) decides that the probate court's order denying Second Wife's removal request is an interlocutory order that is not appealable under any exception to the general rule against appeals Wesley H. Ikeda (Reynaldo D. Graulty, with him on the briefs) (Graulty Ikeda & Ching, of counsel), Honolulu, for appellant in P. No. 91-0582 and FC-D No. 83-1132.
[83 Hawai'i 415] of interlocutory orders; (2) decides that the probate court's order denying Second Wife's listing request is an interlocutory order that is appealable under the collateral order exception to the general rule; (3) vacates the probate court's order denying Second Wife's listing request and remands for the entry of the order requested, with the proviso that the listing must note that the property is subject to the mortgage and to the order in the Divorce Decree requiring Husband (or Husband's estate) to convey Husband's parcel of real property to the First Marriage Children; and (4) decides that where a divorce decree entered prior to decedent's death ordered the decedent to convey a parcel of real property, the rights of the person(s) to whom the decedent's parcel of real property is conveyed by the personal representatives of the decedent's estate pursuant to the family court's enforcement order have priority over the rights of an omitted spouse, and a pretermitted child, to shares of decedent's parcel of real property. In such a situation, a conveyance pursuant to the divorce decree will reduce the size of the decedent's estate distributable to the heirs, an omitted spouse, and a pretermitted child.
Paul T. Murakami (Duane M. Toyofuku *, on the brief), Honolulu, for co-personal representatives-appellees in P. No. 91-0582.
Joyce J. Uehara, Waipahu, for plaintiff-appellee in FC-D No. 84-1132.
Before BURNS, C.J., and WATANABE and ACOBA, JJ.
This opinion involves two appeals, Appeal No. 16096, arising from a divorce case (FC-D No. 84-1132), and Appeal No. 16310, arising from a probate case (P. No. 91-0582). Appeal Nos. 16096 and 16310 were consolidated into Appeal No. 16096 on August 29, 1995.
In both appeals, the appellant is the woman whom the defendant in the divorce case married four months after the entry of the divorce decree. The defendant in the divorce case died thirteen months after he married the appellant and is the decedent in the probate case. The ultimate result sought by the appellant is a court order that (1) voids that part of the family court's divorce decree that ordered the defendant to convey his parcel of improved residential real property to his five children of his first marriage, reserving a life interest; or (2) decides that where a divorce decree entered prior to decedent's death ordered the decedent to convey his parcel of real property, the rights of an omitted spouse and a pretermitted child take precedence over the conveyance of decedent's parcel of real property by the personal representatives of the decedent's estate pursuant to the family court's enforcement order.
Dionicio Labayog (Dionicio) was the defendant in the divorce case and is the decedent. Antonette Horan (Antonette), formerly known as Antonette Labayog, was Dionicio's first wife and is the plaintiff in the divorce case. Felicitas Labayog (Felicitas) is Dionicio's second wife and widow and the appellant in both appeals.
Appeal No. 16096 is an appeal by Felicitas of the family court's March 30, 1992 Order Denying Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Motion for Substitution of Parties and Motion to Intervene entered in Dionicio's and Antonette's divorce case.
Appeal No. 16310 is an appeal by Felicitas of the July 20, 1992 Order Denying Petition to Remove Co-Personal Representatives entered by the circuit court sitting in probate (Probate Court). 1 This order denied the following two alternative requests by Felicitas: first, to remove the Co-Personal Representatives (Co-PRs) for failing to list decedent's parcel of improved residential real property in the inventory of the decedent's estate and
[83 Hawai'i 416] to appoint Felicitas in their place; or, second, to order the Co-PRs to include the residence in the inventory of Dionicio's estate.
Felicitas is the widow of Dionicio, who died on September 6, 1990. In both appeals, Felicitas is acting for herself and as guardian of the property of Dionicio Labayog, Jr. (Junior), born on December 26, 1990. Junior is the minor son of Felicitas and Dionicio.
Prior to his marriage to Felicitas, Dionicio had been married to and subsequently divorced from Antonette. Pursuant to Dionicio's and Antonette's February 16, 1989 Pretrial Stipulation, the March 31, 1989 Divorce Decree (Divorce Decree) entered in FC-D No. 84-1132 awarded the land and improvements located at 1915 Lohilani Street, Honolulu, Hawai'i (Lohilani Property) to Dionicio, and the land and improvements located at 98-1608 'Apala Loop, 'Aiea, Hawai'i ('Apala Property) to Antonette, and ordered each of them to convey the land and improvements awarded to him or her, respectively, to the five children (Five Children) of their marriage, per stirpes, subject to a reservation of a life interest. The Five Children are Marilyn, Lawrence, Lyric, Jennifer, and Donna. Prior to Dionicio's death, neither party had complied with the conveyance order contained in the Divorce Decree. After Dionicio's death, Antonette complied with the Divorce Decree with respect to the 'Apala Property.
The relevant events occurred as follows:
July 30, 1958 Dionicio and Antonette marry
Dionicio and Antonette have the Five Children, born on
the dates indicated
April 26, 1959 Marilyn
October 24, 1960 Lawrence
January 19, 1962 Lyric
January 1, 1967 Jennifer
March 5, 1968 Donna
October 1, 1984 Dionicio and Antonette
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chen v. Hoeflinger, 28808.
...court to order [a] conveyance" that was agreed to in a valid and enforceable marital agreement. Labayog v. Labayog, 83 Hawai‘i 412, 428, 927 P.2d 420, 436 (App.1996). Whether pre- or post-nuptial, marital agreements are enforceable if the agreement "is not unconscionable and has been volunt......
-
Weinberg v. Dickson-Weinberg
...CsOL as to the AITD: 18. A divorce agreement is valid and enforceable if otherwise valid as a contract. Labayog v. Labayog, 83 Hawai`i 412, 428, 927 P.2d 420, 436 (1996). "The elements a contract include offer and acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent to terms essential to the format......
-
Flores v. Barretto, 23071.
...881 P.2d at 1238. However, appealability and finality are related but distinguishable concepts. See generally Labayog v. Labayog, 83 Hawai`i 412, 422, 927 P.2d 420, 430 (App.), cert. dismissed, 83 Hawai`i 545, 928 P.2d 39 (1996). Appellate jurisdiction and collateral estoppel implicate diff......
-
Chen v. Hoeflinger, 28808
...court to order [a] conveyance" that was agreed to in a valid and enforceable marital agreement. Labayog v. Labayog, 83 Hawai'i 412, 428, 927 P.2d 420, 436 (App. 1996). Whether pre- or post-nuptial, marital agreements are enforceable if the agreement "is not unconscionable and has been volun......