Aoki v. Aoki
Decision Date | 02 September 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 25417.,25417. |
Citation | 98 P.3d 274,105 Haw. 403 |
Parties | Tammie Naomi AOKI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dean Takayuki AOKI, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
Pablo P. Quiban, Honolulu, on the briefs, for plaintiff-appellee.
Ronald P. Tongg, Honolulu, on the briefs, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant-Appellant Dean Takayuki Aoki (Dean) appeals from the following orders, entered in the Family Court of the First Circuit by Judge William J. Nagle, III: the July 19, 2002 "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Re Trial on March 4, 2002" (July 19, 2002 FsOF, CsOL and Order); and the September 20, 2002 (September 20, 2002 Order).
Concerning both the July 19, 2002 FsOF, CsOL and Order, and the September 20, 2002 Order, (A) we affirm all those parts that pertain to (1) the dissolution of the marriage, (2) child custody, visitation, and support, and (3) spousal support; and (B) we dismiss the part that pertains to the division and distribution of property and debts because the lack of a final decision as to that part has resulted in a lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Hawaii divorce cases involve a maximum of four discrete parts: (1) dissolution of the marriage; (2) child custody, visitation, and support; (3) spousal support; and (4) division and distribution of property and debts. Black v. Black, 6 Haw.App. 493, 728 P.2d 1303 (1986). In Cleveland v. Cleveland, 57 Haw. 519, 559 P.2d 744 (1977), the Hawaii Supreme Court held that an order which finally decides parts (1) and (4) is final and appealable even if part (2) remains undecided. Although we recommend that, except in exceptionally compelling circumstances, all parts be decided simultaneously and that part (1) not be finally decided prior to a decision on all the other parts, we conclude that an order which finally decides part (1) is final and appealable when decided even if parts (2), (3), and (4) remain undecided; that parts (2), (3), and (4) are each separately final and appealable as and when they are decided, but only if part (1) has previously or simultaneously been decided; and that if parts (2), (3), and/or (4) have been decided before part (1) has been finally decided, they become final and appealable when part (1) is finally decided.
Eaton v. Eaton, 7 Haw.App. 111, 118-19, 748 P.2d 801, 805 (1987) (footnote omitted).
Jackson v. Jackson, 84 Hawai'i 319, 333-34, 933 P.2d 1353, 1367-1368 (App.1997) (citations omitted).
In divorce cases, the five categories of net market values (NMVs) are as follows:
Tougas v. Tougas, 76 Hawai'i 19, 27, 868 P.2d 437, 445 (1994) (internal citations omitted).
Jackson, 84 Hawai'i at 332-33, 933 P.2d at 1366-1367 (footnote omitted).
Dean and Plaintiff-Appellee Tammie Naomi Aoki (Tammie) were married on April 10, 1982. A son was born on May 4, 1984, a daughter was born on March 18, 1987, and another son was born on June 16, 1989. On November 27, 2000, Tammie filed a complaint for divorce.
On January 10, 2001, pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Judge Christine A. Kuriyama entered an order (January 10, 2001 Order) stating, in relevant part, as follows:
On February 28, 2002, after a settlement conference on February 14, 2002, Judge Bode A. Uale entered Pretrial Order No. 2 which states "the existing agreements, made by, and the disputed issues between, the parties."
Regarding custody of the children, the disputes of the parties pertained to the following questions: Should Dean be awarded joint legal custody? Should Dean's visitation be reasonable or Type A? Should Dean be required to pay for the "extra-ord[inary] expenses [for child health care] which are not covered by health care insurance" and "are not agreed to" by him? What expenses are included within the children's "educational expenses"?
Regarding property and debts, the following are some of the agreements: "[Dean] has $168,586 Category 1 and 3 property";1 ; and
Pretrial...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Doe v. Doe, No. 28415 (Haw. App. 9/12/2008)
...circumstances are present. Tradewinds Hotel, Inc. v. Cochran, 8 Haw. App. 256, 264, 799 P.2d 60, 66 (1990). Aoki v. Aoki, 105 Hawai`i 403, 411, 98 P.3d 274, 282 (App. 2004). As this court held in Doe v. Doe, 118 Hawai`i 268, 188 P.3d 782 (App. 2008), the family court did abuse its discretio......
-
Kakinami v. Kakinami
...(1) is finally decided.Eaton, 7 Haw.App. at 118–19, 748 P.2d at 805 (emphasis added, footnote omitted); see also Aoki v. Aoki, 105 Hawai‘i 403, 404, 98 P.3d 274, 275 (App.2004) (quoting Eaton ); Camp v. Camp, 109 Hawai‘i 469, 477, 128 P.3d 351, 359 (App.2006) (same); Ferreira v. Ferreira, 1......
-
Camp v. Camp
...(1) is finally decided. Eaton v. Eaton, 7 Haw.App. 111, 118-19, 748 P.2d 801, 805 (1987) (footnote omitted). Aoki v. Aoki, 105 Hawai`i 403, 404, 98 P.3d 274, 275 (App. 2004). ARGUMENT Wailani's opening brief cites to HRS §§ 580-45 and -46 and sundry non-Hawai`i precedents and authorities in......
-
Hamilton v. Hamilton
...(4) of a divorce decree where the family court has not yet divided and distributed all of the property and debts); Aoki v. Aoki, 105, 403, 414, 98 P.3d 274, 285 (App. 2004) (holding, among other things, that, even after the family court has decided part (1) of the divorce case by dissolving......