Eaton v. Eaton

• Court: Hawaii Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Before BURNS, C.J., TANAKA, J., and HONDA, Circuit Judge, in place of HEEN; BURNS
• Citation: Eaton v. Eaton, 748 P.2d 801, 7 Haw.App. 111 (Haw. App. 1987)
• Decision Date: 28 December 1987
• Docket Number: No. 11771,11771
• Parties: Shirley Ann EATON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Floyd Byron EATON, Defendant-Appellant, and Edna B. Fincher, Intervenor-Appellee.

Page 801

748 P.2d 801

7 Haw.App. 111

Shirley Ann EATON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Floyd Byron EATON, Defendant-Appellant and Edna B. Fincher, Intervenor-Appellee.

No. 11771.

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai'i.

Dec. 28, 1987.

Syllabus by the Court

1. 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. An order which finally decides part (1) is final and appealable when decided even if parts (2), (3), and (4) remain undecided. 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. 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. Part (4) of a Hawaii divorce case is not final and appealable until (a) part (1) has been finally decided and (b) the family court expressly or implicitly divides and distributes all of the property of the parties, including their personal property.

2. In divorce cases, the family court's decisions on issues that are pendent, ancillary, or incidental to part (4) (division and distribution of property and debts) of the case ordinarily are final and appealable when, and not before, part (4) is final and appealable.

Raymond Mundo, Honolulu (William K. Amona with him on the briefs), for defendant-appellant.

William C. Darrah, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellee.

Charles T. Kleintop, Honolulu (John W. Schmidtke, Jr., with him on the brief), for intervenor-appellee.

Before BURNS, C.J., TANAKA, J., and HONDA, Circuit Judge, in place of HEEN, Associate Judge, recused.

BURNS, Chief Judge.

Defendant Floyd Byron Eaton (Defendant) appeals the district family court's August 6, 1986 "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order" (FOF & COL), "Judgement After Hearing" (Judgment), and "Final Decree of Divorce" (Decree). Defendant does not challenge the dissolution of the marriage. He challenges only the following categories of the district family court's FOF & COL, Judgment, and Decree: (a) spousal support; (b) division and distribution of property and debts; (c) claims by Defendant against his mother-in-law, Edna B. Fincher (Intervenor); and (d) claims by Intervenor against her daughter, Plaintiff Shirley Ann Eaton (Plaintiff), and Defendant.

The issues and our answers are:

I. Did the district family court's orders as to spousal support constitute an abuse of discretion? No.

II. In a Hawaii divorce case where the district family court has entered a final decree dissolving the marriage, awarding periodic spousal support, and dividing and distributing most, but not all, of the property and debts over which the district family court has jurisdiction, is the decree appealable with respect to the award of spousal support and the division and distribution of the property and debts? As to the award of spousal support, yes. As to the division and distribution of the property and debts, no.

III. In a Hawaii divorce case, assuming the district family court has subject matter jurisdiction to decide ancillary civil claims in excess of $10,000 between plaintiff, defendant, and a third party, are those decisions final and appealable before that part of the case dealing with the division and distribution of property and debts (part (4)) is final and appealable? Absent special circumstances justifying a right to an immediate appeal, no.

On March 20, 1986 Plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce against Defendant. On April 1, 1986 Intervenor filed a motion to intervene which was granted on May 6, 1986. In her June 13, 1986 complaint against Plaintiff and Defendant, Intervenor asserted "an ownership and possessory interest in the marital residence" and "an ownership interest in other marital property as a result of monies she loaned to but was never repaid by Defendant" and prayed for the following relief:

A. Sale of the marital residence located at 3030 Diamond Head Road and distribution of the net proceeds as follows: 50 percent to Intervenor; 25 percent to Plaintiff; 25 percent to Defendant.

B. Payment of $77,729.92 ¹ plus interest to her from Defendant's share of the proceeds from the sale of the property at 3030 Diamond Head Road;

C. Return to her of her household effects, landscape items, and tools in Defendant's custody or control.

On August 6, 1986 the district family court filed the FOF & COL, Judgment, and Decree.

In relevant part, the August 6, 1986 FOF & COL state:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The parties are husband and wife having been married on June 30, 1956, in Reno, Nevada.

* * *

* * *

5. The Intervenor is Plaintiff's mother and Defendant's mother-in-law.

6. Plaintiff, Defendant and Intervenor are the owners of that certain residence situated at 3030 Diamond Head Road, Honolulu[,] Hawaii.

7. The residence was purchased in 1975 pursuant to a Deposit Receipt, Offer and Acceptance (DROA), dated May 21, 1975[.] * * *

8. The purchase price of the residence was $141,500.00[.] * * *

* * *

* * *

10. * * * The final agreement provided that there was to be a down payment of $40,000.00, payment by way of a $60,000.00 first mortgage and the balance of $41,500 payable $20,000.00 on August 15, 1975 and $21,500.00 on September 15, 1975.

11. Intervenor paid a total of EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($80,000.00) of the purchase price, the $40,000.00 down payment and $40,000.00 of the payments scheduled for August and September. * * *

12. The balance of the purchase price, SIXTY ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($61,000.00) was secured by a first mortgage on the property.

13. The payments under the first mortgage were paid by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Intervenor was never required to contribute to these payments.

14. Plaintiff and Defendant, except for contributions made by the Intervenor during the first year, paid all of the utilities and real property taxes.

15. The first mortgage was refinanced with the knowledge and consent of the Intervenor and the proceeds were used to make improvements to the structures on the property. ²

16. Intervenor made various contributions of money and goods toward the maintenance and improvement of the property during the period. ³

17. The Intervenor occupied the separate one bedroom apartment on the property.

18. The Defendant and his family occupied the main portion of the property.

19. After the Defendant's children grew up and left the home, a separate apartment was constructed from their rooms and was rented to third parties. ⁴

20. Plaintiff and Defendant collected the rent from the apartment and did not share it with the Intervenor.

21. Plaintiff and Defendant paid the real property taxes, utility charges and insurance premiums on the subject property.

22. Title to the property is held as follows: Plaintiff and Defendant jointly own an undivided 1/2 interest in the property in joint tenancy with Intervenor who owns the remaining undivided 1/2 interest as tenant in severalty. ⁵

* * *

* * *

27. The fair market value of the property is THREE HUNDRED NINETY THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS ($393,750.00).

* * *

* * *

32. Upon the receipt of an offer for the property equal to or exceeding the then listing price or equal to a price acceptable to the parties, or one approved by the court, the property shall be sold and the proceeds disbursed as follows:

A. The Intervenor shall be reimbursed the sum of $9,575.00 which represents the amount over and above her share of the total purchase price of the property which she paid towards the purchase in 1975. ⁶

B. The balance of the purchase price shall be divided equally and Plaintiff and Defendant shall be credited with 1/2 of said sum and Intervenor the balance.

C. From Plaintiff['s] and Defendant[']s share any and all mortgages on the property shall be satisfied.

33. Plaintiff and Defendant owe the Intervenor the sum of $8,500.00 and $18,000.00 which are secured by the promissory notes held by the Intervenor and received in evidence as Intervenor's exhibits I and II respectively plus the sum of $4642.69 on the Honolulu Federal Loan number 52681-4 for a total of $31,142.69. ⁷

34. Plaintiff is employed as a bartender/cocktail waitress and earns $572.50 net per month[.] * * *

35. * * * Documentation prepared by the Defendant indicates a net earning of approximately $3000.00 per month.

36. Defendant should pay to Plaintiff as and for spousal support the sum of $500.00 per month until the residence is sold and the proceeds distributed. [Thereafter] the support should be increased to the sum of $600.00 per month until further order of the court, Plaintiff remarries, or the death of either the Plaintiff or Defendant.

* * *

* * *

38. Defendant who continues to occupy the residence should continue to pay the mortgage, real property tax and utility payments until the property is sold.

* * *

* * *

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

* * *

* * *

4. None of the parties is financially able to purchase the interests of the others and the property should be sold and the proceeds divided as follows:

A. The net proceeds after deducting the cost of sale should be divided into two equal parts and Plaintiff and Defendant be awarded one part and the Intervenor the other part.

B. From the Defendant's and Plaintiff's share Intervenor should be reimbursed the sum of $9,500.00 which represents the sum in excess of her share of the purchase price which she paid in 1975.

C. The mortgage on the property should be paid from Defendant's and Plaintiff's share of the proceeds as this represents their share of the purchase price.

* * *

* * *

6. The personal property of the Plaintiff and Defendant which have not yet been distributed should be divided in such a manner agreeable to the parties so that each receives approximately equal...