Black v. Black

• Decision Date: 05 December 1986
• Docket Number: No. 11013,11013
• Citation: 728 P.2d 1303,6 Haw.App. 493
• Parties: Charles Montague BLACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. Sandra Lee Rundall BLACK, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant.
• Court: Hawaii Court of Appeals

Page 1303

728 P.2d 1303

6 Haw.App. 493

Charles Montague BLACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. Sandra Lee Rundall BLACK, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant.

No. 11013.

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai'i.

Dec. 5, 1986.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The four discrete parts of a divorce case are 1) the divorce, 2) spousal support, 3) child custody, visitation, and support, and 4) division of property (assets and liabilities).

2. The decree of divorce is final and appealable when it is effectively entered. Each of the other three discrete parts is final and appealable when 1) the decree of divorce has been entered and 2) that discrete part has been fully and finally decided.

3. With rare exception, no property division decisions in divorce cases are final and appealable until 1) the decree of divorce has been effectively entered and 2) all property has been expressly or implicitly finally divided in the case.

Gregory T. Grab, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellant, cross-appellee.

Jack Durham, Lau & Durham, Kaneohe, for defendant-appellee, cross-appellant.

Before BURNS, C.J., and HEEN and TANAKA, JJ.

BURNS, Chief Judge.

In this divorce case plaintiff Charles Montague Black (Husband) appeals, and defendant Sandra Lee Rundall Black (Wife) cross-appeals, the family court's decrees regarding the division of contested property. ¹ Sua sponte, we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. See Bacon v. Karlin, 68 Haw. 648, 727 P.2d 1127 (1986).

The dispositive issue is whether the family court's contested property division decisions in the divorce decree that did not directly involve the valuation of Charles Black and Associates, Inc., and the amount, if any, Husband had to pay to Wife regarding that asset were final and appealable when the family court partially granted Husband's Rule 59, Hawaii Family Court Rules (HFCR), motion and ordered a new trial solely on the issue of the valuation of Charles Black and Associates, Inc., and the amount, if any, Husband would be required to pay to Wife regarding that asset. Our answer is no. With rare exception, ² no property division decisions in divorce cases are final and appealable until 1) the divorce decree has been effectively entered and 2) all property has been finally divided in the case. Here, requirement 2 was not satisfied.

Husband filed his complaint for divorce on May 18, 1984. A "Stipulation Re Motion to Set and Pre-Trial Agreement" was approved by the family court and filed on January 3, 1985. The stipulation expressed the agreement of the parties as to all issues except the issue whether Husband should pay to Wife a property equalization payment and, if so, in what amount. The trial was held on April 26, 1985. The family court issued a written decision on June 25, 1985 and a divorce decree on August 20, 1985.

In its June 25, 1985 decision, the family court, inter alia, 1) found that Husband's business, Charles Black and Associates, Inc., was worth $78,750 and ordered Husband to pay to Wife one-half of its value ($39,375) no later than September 1, 1985; 2) found that the parties' equity in the Puu Alii apartment 1514 was $36,752 and ordered Husband to pay to Wife one-half of its value ($18,376) no later than September 1, 1985; 3) found that the 3959 Round Top Drive property was gifted in early 1978 solely to Husband; and 4) ordered Husband to pay to Wife an equalization payment of $68,000 no later than September 1, 1985. The $68,000 included the amounts specified in findings 1 and 2 above.

On August 20, 1985 the family court entered a divorce decree consistent with its June 25, 1985 decision. On August 29 1985 Husband filed a motion under Rule 59, HFCR, for reconsideration or a new trial with respect to the Puu Alii apartment and Charles Black and Associates, Inc.

On October 7, 1985 the family court partially granted Husband's motion by ordering a new trial solely on the issue of the valuation of Charles Black and Associates, Inc., and the amount, if any, Husband had to pay Wife regarding that asset. In all other respects the June 25, 1985 decision and the August 20, 1985 divorce decree were not disturbed.

On November 5, 1985 Husband filed a notice of appeal of the August 20, 1985 divorce decree. On November 19, 1985 Wife filed a notice of cross-appeal.

All of the contested property in this case was not fully and finally divided on or before November 5, 1985 or November 19, 1985. It was not fully and finally divided until the family court finally decided the issue for which it had granted a new trial. Thus, as to the division of contested property in this case Husband's November 5, 1985 notice of appeal and Wife's November 19, 1985 notice of cross-appeal were premature and ineffective.

Husband contends that we have appellate jurisdiction because 1) the October 7, 1985 order for partial new trial "merely stayed a portion of the equalization payment to be paid, but did not vacate or modify any provision" (emphasis in original) or 2) the unstayed portion of the June 25, 1985 decision and the August 20, 1985 divorce decree were appealable under the collateral...