DL v. CL

• Decision Date: 29 April 2020
• Docket Number: SCWC-18-0000630
• Citation: 463 P.3d 1072
• Parties: DL, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CL, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

463 P.3d 1072

DL, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.CL, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

SCWC-18-0000630

Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.

APRIL 29, 2020

Philip Leas, Honolulu, for Petitioner

CL, Respondent pro se

RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, POLLACK, AND WILSON, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY McKENNA, J.

I. Introduction

This case arises from the Family Court of the First Circuit's ("family court") determination of child custody, child support, and property division in a divorce proceeding between DL ("Father") and CL ("Mother").

This is Father's third appeal in this divorce proceeding. We decided Father's first appeal in a published opinion, DL v. CL, 146 Hawai'i 348, 463 P.3d 1003 (April 16, 2020) (" DL I").¹

Father's application for certiorari ("Application") presents two questions:

(1) Did the ICA gravely err in finding [Father's] motions untimely, and not reviewing the motions on their merits?

(2) Did the ICA gravely err by not reviewing the family court's denial of [Father's] motion for new trial?

(Capitalization altered.)

We hold that the ICA erred in holding that Father's Hawai‘i Family Court Rules ("HFCR") Rule 52(b) (2015) motion to amend findings of fact and conclusions of law, enter additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and to amend judgment accordingly ("motion to amend" or "HFCR Rule 52(b) motion to amend") and motion for new trial pursuant to HFCR Rule 59 (2015) ("motion for new trial" or "HFCR Rule 59 motion for new trial") were untimely.

We also hold that the ICA erred in holding that the family court's orders denying Father's motion to amend and motion for new trial were void for lack of jurisdiction.

We therefore reverse the ICA's judgment on appeal except to the extent it affirmed the family court's order denying Father's HFCR Rule 60(a) (2015) motion for relief from judgment, and we affirm the family court's orders denying Father's motion to amend and motion for new trial on the grounds relied upon by the family court.

II. Background

A. Factual background

Father and Mother were married in 2008 and had two children, who were minors at the time of trial. In 2015, Father, Mother, and the children moved from Sacramento, California to Honolulu. While in Hawai‘i, Father, Mother, and the children lived in a cottage located on Father's parents' property.

On July 10, 2016, Mother took both children with her to Arizona due to family abuse by Father. On July 20, 2016, Mother filed for divorce in Arizona. On August 3, 2016, Father filed for divorce in Hawai‘i. On September 2, 2016, Mother's petition for divorce was dismissed. The family court ordered the children to be returned to Hawai‘i by May 16, 2017, and Mother returned with the children.

B. Family court proceedings

Trial commenced on July 31, 2017 and ended on January 9, 2018.² Near the end of the trial, Mother testified that she had accepted a job in Arizona, and that her start date was January 2, 2018. She testified that she "cannot make it [in Hawai‘i]" and had "no money." Mother remained in Hawai‘i until the end of trial.

In January 2018, shortly after the trial ended, Mother moved to Arizona to start her job. Because the family court had not yet ruled on child custody and relocation, the parties' two minor children remained in Hawai‘i with Father.

On March 26, 2018, Father filed his notice of appeal in DL I.

On April 3, 2018, the family court ordered both parties to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. On April 20, 2018, Mother submitted four separate sets of proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and orders, and Father submitted 484 proposed findings of fact and 48 conclusions of law, not including subparts.

On April 23, 2018, the family court entered four separate orders of findings of fact and conclusions of law ("April 23, 2018 FOFs/COLs"), adopting Mother's proposals.

On April 26, 2018, the family court entered a divorce decree ("Divorce Decree") awarding Mother sole physical custody of the children and authorizing the children to relocate to Arizona after July 1, 2018.

Later on April 26, 2018, the family court filed its first amended findings of fact and conclusions of law ("Amended FOF/COL"), which replaced the first of the four April 23, 2018 FOFs/COLs. There were no substantial changes to the April 23, 2018 findings. The family court found that Father had committed family violence, and that it was in the best interest of the children to relocate with Mother to Arizona.

On May 7, 2018, Father submitted to the family court: (1) a HFCR Rule 52(b) motion to amend; (2) a HFCR Rule 59 motion for new trial; and (3) a HFCR Rule 60(a) motion for relief from judgment.³ Father's motions were stamped as "REC'D" on May 7, 2018. However, the motions were not stamped as "filed" until May 22, 2018.

Father's HFCR Rule 52(b)⁴ motion to amend argued that many of the family court's findings were "contrary to the actual uncontroverted evidence at trial" and that several findings were "unsupported by any credible evidence in the record." Father contended that nearly every finding of fact and conclusion of law in the April 23, 2018 FOFs/COLs and Amended FOF/COL should be stricken or amended. Father then requested that the family court enter additional findings of fact and conclusions of law and amend its judgment, and he attached 491 proposed findings of fact and 40 conclusions of law substantively similar to the proposed findings and conclusions he had submitted to the court on April 20, 2018.

Father stated that his motion for new trial was made pursuant to HFCR Rule 59,⁵ Hawai‘i Revised Statutes ("HRS") § 571-50 (Supp. 1998),⁶ HRS § 635-56 (2016),⁷ and Waldecker v. O'Scanlon, 137 Hawai‘i 460, 375 P.3d 239 (2016). Father requested that the court order a new trial on physical child custody, legal child custody, visitation, relocation, child support, the division of the parties' assets and debts, and attorney's fees. Father argued the facts of the case had changed "in significant and material ways" since trial because Mother had moved to Arizona and the children had been living exclusively with him.

On June 21, 2018, Mother filed oppositions to Father's motion to amend and motion for new trial. Mother argued that Father's motion to amend should be denied because Father had the opportunity to present proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law after trial, which he actually did. Mother argued Father's motion for new trial should be denied because she had testified about her job offer in Arizona and the family court "knew there would likely be a separation between Mother and the children" if she returned to Arizona to start her new job.

On July 5, 2018, Father filed his second notice of appeal ("DL II").

On July 11, 2018, a hearing was held on Father's motion to amend and motion for new trial. Near the end of the hearing, Father's counsel brought the timeliness of Father's motions to the attention of the court and the following exchange took place:

[FATHER'S COUNSEL]: Your Honor, before we close the record, at the beginning I think you identified the motions as having been filed May 22. They were actually filed technically and received on May 7th. The importance is that those are ten-day motions. And so we just ... want the record to be clear that they were timely.

THE COURT: Okay. Yeah. I mean, it was – I'm just going by the date that the file stamp appears when I look at the motion.

[FATHER'S COUNSEL]: I understand. I think on the original copy it has the received stamp of May 7th, which is when they were actually submitted. And technically that was the file date for purposes of compliance with the ten-day rule.

THE COURT: I understand. Okay. Thank you.

On July 16, 2018, the family court issued orders denying Father's motion to amend and motion for new trial. Both orders stated that the family court had reviewed the parties' motions and memorandums, reviewed the files, heard the arguments of the parties, and was "fully informed of the facts and circumstances involved ...."

On August 15, 2018, Father appealed the family court's July 16, 2018 orders.

C. ICA proceedings

1. Father's arguments

Father argued the family court erred in denying his motion to amend because the family court lacked authority to enter the Amended FOF/COL pursuant to HFCR Rule 52, which he contended "expressly forbids the entry of any such findings if the previously entered order already contains them."

Father argued the family court erred in denying his motion for new trial because he had "raised significant and material new facts" regarding relocation, and it was an abuse of discretion for the court to "not consider all evidence relevant to the Children's best interest."

2. Mother's arguments

Mother argued the family court properly denied Father's motion to amend because the Amended FOF/COL was supported by the "voluminous testimony and evidence."

Mother asserted the family court properly denied Father's motion for new trial because Mother had testified that she would likely have to leave the children with Father in Hawai‘i to accept a job offer in Arizona.

3. The ICA's memorandum opinion

On December 26, 2019, the ICA filed its memorandum opinion. The ICA held that Father's HFCR Rule 52(b) motion to amend was untimely. DL III, mem. op. at 5-6. HFCR Rule 52 requires motions to amend the court's findings to be made "not later than 10 days after entry of judgment ...." Because the family court entered the Divorce Decree on April 26, 2018, Father's motion to amend was due on May 7, 2018.⁸ DL III, mem. op. at 6. However, the ICA noted that Father's motion to amend was not stamped as "filed" until May 22, 2018. Id. The ICA also determined that Father's July 5, 2018 notice of appeal for DL II divested the family court of jurisdiction to enter its July 16, 2018 order denying Father's motion to amend. Id. (citing Lowther v. Lowther, 99 Hawai‘i 569, 578, 57 P.3d 494, 503 (App. 2002) ). Therefore, the ICA held the order denying Father's motion to amend was void. Id.

The ICA similarly held...