84 Hawai'i 319, Jackson v. Jackson, 16067
| Citation | 933 P.2d 1353 |
| Decision Date | 21 February 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 16067,16067 |
| Parties | 84 Hawai'i 319 Rebecca Jane JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Ernest James JACKSON, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Hawai'i |
1. The family court decided the property division part of this divorce case when the Uniform Starting Points were applicable. While the family court's decision was on appeal, the Partnership Model replaced the Uniform Starting Points. Therefore, we decide the appeal on the basis of the Partnership Model. Under the Partnership Model, assuming all valid and relevant considerations are equal, the Category 1 and 3 net market values (NMVs) are awarded to the contributing spouse, and the Category 2, 4, and 5 NMVs are awarded one-half to each spouse. This is the Partnership Model division (Partnership Model Division) of Marital Partnership Property.
2. The Partnership Model requires the family court, when deciding the division and distribution of the Marital Partnership Property part of the divorce case (as distinguished from Premarital Separate Property and Marital Separate Property), to proceed as follows: (1) find the relevant facts; start at the Partnership Model Division and (2)(a) decide whether or not the facts present any valid and relevant considerations authorizing a deviation from the Partnership Model Division and, if so, (b) itemize those considerations; if the answer to question (2)(a) is "yes," exercise its discretion and (3) decide whether or not there will be a deviation; and, if the answer to question (3) is "yes," exercise its discretion and (4) decide the extent of the deviation.
3. Question (2)(a) is a question of law to which the right/wrong standard of appellate review applies. Questions (3) and (4) are discretionary matters which are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard of appellate review.
4. Myers v. Myers, 70 Haw. 143, 764 P.2d 1237 (1988), is authority that the following is not a valid consideration authorizing a deviation from the Partnership Model Division:
[84 Hawai'i 322] (A) much of the Category 2 and 5 NMVs occurred after the parties separated.
5. Since the following considerations violate partnership policies, principles, and rules, they are not valid considerations authorizing deviation from the Partnership Model Division: (B) much of the Category 2 and 5 NMVs were the result of one party's skill and effort; (C) the Category 1 property of one of the parties funded the acquisition of the Marital Partnership Property; (D) throughout the relationship the parties maintained entirely separate estates and maintained their own separate income and expenses; (E) the shortness of the marriage; (F) the unhappy character of the marriage; (H) the premarital contribution of one of the parties to the improvement of a Category 1 property of the other party; (I) the lack of active contribution, financially or otherwise, by one of the parties to a Category 5 property. Consideration (F) also violates the policy in favor of no-fault divorces.
6. The (G) tax ramifications of a sale of Marital Partnership Property may or may not be a valid consideration authorizing deviation from the Partnership Model Division: if the sale of a Marital Partnership Property is not explicitly or implicitly ordered or enforceably promised, the family court is not allowed to consider the tax ramifications of that sale; if the sale of a Marital Partnership Property is explicitly or implicitly ordered or enforceably promised, the family court must consider the tax ramifications of that sale.
Dennis W. Jung, on the briefs, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee.
William C. Darrah and Lucinda John, on the briefs, Honolulu, for defendant-appellee/cross-appellant.
Before BURNS, C.J., and WATANABE and KIRIMITSU, JJ.
Plaintiff Rebecca Jane Jackson (Rebecca) appeals the family court's March 13, 1992 Divorce Decree (Divorce Decree). Defendant Ernest James Jackson (Ernest) cross-appeals the Divorce Decree and appeals the April 6, 1992 Order Granting Motion and Affidavit for Relief After Order or Decree (April 6, 1992 Order). We vacate the division and distribution of the marital partnership property (Marital Partnership Property) part of the Divorce Decree and remand for reconsideration in the light of this opinion. We affirm the April 6, 1992 Order. 1
Rebecca was born in 1941, married in 1963, and had a child in each of the following years: Niko in 1964, Kima in 1967, Kali in 1970, and Kobi in 1973. Rebecca was divorced in 1976.
Ernest was born in 1936, married Mary in 1953, had three children, and was divorced in 1963. Ernest married Pearl in 1965 and was divorced in 1985.
Ernest and Rebecca met in 1982. Commencing December 1983, Rebecca and her two youngest children lived on a ranch in Oklahoma owned by one of Ernest's corporations. In December 1984, Rebecca and three of her children moved to a property in Hale'iwa rented by Ernest. In June 1985, Ernest acquired a seven-acre property on Ahilama Street in Kahalu'u (Ahilama property) and Rebecca and three of her children lived there or nearby while the residence was renovated and an arena, barn, and garage were constructed.
Notwithstanding periods when their relationship deteriorated and they separated, Rebecca and Ernest married on March 28, 1987. The date of their final separation in contemplation of divorce (the DOFSICOD) was September On June 8, 1992 the family court entered its findings of fact (FsOF) and conclusions of law (CsOL). The FsOF state in relevant part as follows:
[84 Hawai'i 323] 21, 1990. The trial occurred on September 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, and 12, 1991. The date of the conclusion of the evidentiary part of the trial (the DOCOEPOT) was September 12, 1991. The family court orally decided the case on November 1, 1991. On November 21, 1991 each party filed a motion for reconsideration. On December 24, 1991 Ernest moved under Hawai'i Family Court Rules (HFCR) Rule 60(b) for an adjustment because a court settlement had caused the debt owed by Ernest's corporation, Oahu Interiors, Inc., to the Bank of Hawaii to be $1,100,000 rather than $1,715,043. The family court orally decided the motions on December 27, 1991. On March 13, 1992, the family court entered orders deciding the motions, and then it entered the Divorce Decree. The April 6, 1992 Order granted Rebecca's March 25, 1992 motion for various orders implementing certain details of the property division.
9. In 1964 [Ernest] formed Oahu Interiors. By 1968 it was one of the largest drywall contracting firms in Hawaii [Hawai'i].
10. In January 1977 Oahu Interiors entered into a contract with MGM, Inc. in Reno, Nevada to do the drywall work for construction of the MGM Grand Hotel. According to [Ernest], this was the largest drywall contract let in the United States up to that time. [Ernest] borrowed funds from Bank of Hawaii ("BOH") in connection with this job. Delays and cost overruns led to litigation with MGM and subsequently with BOH. Litigation started in 1979. The trial commenced in November 1982 and ended in February 1983. Oahu Interiors lost the suit against MGM, and was left with a substantial debt to BOH. See Finding 36.
11. In 1980 [Ernest] formed Jackson Construction Co., Ltd. ("Construction"), a general contracting firm, as a subsidiary of Oahu Interiors. Construction entered a partnership with Pacco (a subsidiary of Pacific Construction) which became known as Jackson Pacific Joint Venture ("JPJV").
12. In 1981 [Ernest] and Mr. [Patrick] Hart formed the partnership known as Jackson and Hart Associates ("JHA"). Before and after DOM [date of marriage] [Ernest] and Hart also engaged in other partnership ventures. They developed a warehouse and office complex at the airport known as South Ramp Partners, and engaged in such other enterprises as H.C. Halawa Center, 731 Associates and J & H Helicopters, Mauna Kea Partners and a partnership to acquire property in Texas. Those still in existence at DOCOEPOT are shown in Chart I attached hereto. Muraoka v. Muraoka, 7 Haw.App. 432 (1989).
13. The parties met at a trap shooting competition in Las Vegas on September 25, 1982.
* * *
17. In April 1983 the parties took a trip to Oklahoma to look for a ranch. [Ernest] signed an agreement to purchase 200 acres with a house in Sallisaw, Oklahoma. [Ernest] returned to Hawaii [Hawai'i] and [Rebecca] to California. In July the parties returned to Oklahoma together and [Ernest] took title to the property in a corporation known as Rocking J Ranch ("RJR").
* * *
19. Sometime in 1984 [Ernest] acquired an interest in 4,000 acres in Waialua and formed Waialua Ranch Partners, a limited partnership entity. A 6,000 square foot residence, employee dwellings, an arena, barns and other structures were eventually built. The ranch is an operating cattle and goat ranch with the limited partners being able to use the residence.
20. On September 5, 1984, [Ernest] signed an AITD [Agreement Incident to * * *
[84 Hawai'i 324] Divorce] with Pearl. However, problems continued and [Ernest] expressed his concerns to [Rebecca] that he was worried about economic claims against him should they eventually marry. [Rebecca] reassured him. A modification to [Ernest's] AITD was signed in January 1985, and a Divorce Decree was filed on March 25, 1985.... [Ernest's] property interests were valued on a Family Court Asset and Debt Statement as shown on the financial statements of Oahu Interiors, RJR and JHA. The totality showed a zero estate--real property with a net market value of approximately $250,000 and other assets with a net negative value of $258,444....
23. On August 20, 1985 [Ernest] signed a one-year lease on a rental property at Ahulimanu ['Ahulimanu] Place, Kahaluu [Kahalu'u] so that the parties could live close to the Ahilama Road property during construction of improvements. [Rebecca] and her three...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weinberg v. Dickson-Weinberg
...received in January 2006, post-DOFSICOD, clearly was marital property that was subject to division. See Jackson v. Jackson, 84 Hawai`i 319, 335, 933 P.2d 1353, 1369 (App.1997) (stating that "the marital partnership continues until the The more problematic issue is how Husband's unliquidated......
-
Collins v. Wassell
...and (4) decide the extent of the deviation. Helbush, 108 Hawai‘i at 514, 122 P.3d at 294 (citing Jackson v. Jackson, 84 Hawai‘i 319, 332–33, 933 P.2d 1353, 1366–67 (App.1997) ). In determining whether other relevant considerations warrant deviation from the Partnership Model, the family cou......
-
Kakinami v. Kakinami
...partner is generally awarded his or her capital contribution, while the appreciation is split fifty-fifty. See Jackson v. Jackson, 84 Hawai‘i 319, 332, 933 P.2d 1353, 1366 (1997). VARCs permit the family court to equitably deviate from the Partnership Model in dividing the parties' Marital ......
-
Hamilton v. Hamilton
...standard of appellate review." Gordon v. Gordon, 135 Hawai‘i 340, 348, 350 P.3d 1008, 1016 (2015) (citing Jackson v. Jackson, 84 Hawai‘i 319, 332–33, 933 P.2d 1353, 1366–67 (App.1997) ).C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law The family court's FOFs are reviewed on appeal under the "clea......
-
Premarital Economic Partnerships and the Division of the Marital Estate in Hawaii Divorces
...supra, at 7-9.57. Id. at 9.58. Myers v. Myers, 70 Haw. 143, 154, 764 P2d 1237, 1244 (1988).59. Jackson v. Jackson, 84 Haw. 319, 334-335, 933 P.2d 1353, 1368-1369 (Haw. App. 1997).60. Myers, supra, 70 Haw. at 154, 764 P2d at 1244.61. Gordon, supra, 135 Haw. at 353-354, 350 P3d at 1021-1022; ......
-
Property Division in Hawaii Divorces After Gordon v. Gordon
...estate values changed with the market. At trial, A's asset and debt statement did not match B's. Under Jackson v. Jackson, 84 Hawaii 319, 933 P.2d 1353 (App. 1997), the court had to divide the value of the marital estate as of the DOCOEPOT. Because of the necessary pretrial deadlines for di......