Gussin v. Gussin

• Decision Date: 17 October 1991
• Docket Number: No. 14966,14966
• Citation: 836 P.2d 498,9 Haw.App. 279
• Parties: Lisa GUSSIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel A. GUSSIN, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Hawaii Court of Appeals

Page 498

836 P.2d 498

9 Haw.App. 279

Lisa GUSSIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel A. GUSSIN, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14966.

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai'i.

Oct. 17, 1991.

Certiorari Granted Nov. 4, 1991.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The Uniform Starting Points (USPs) specify how the Categories of net market values (NMVs) to be divided and distributed in a divorce case shall be divided and distributed (1) if the evidence in the record establishes only the date of the marriage, the entitlement to a divorce, and the ownership of Categories of NMVs; and (2) if there is no evidence relevant to "the respective merits of the parties, the relative abilities of the parties, the condition in which each party will be left by the divorce, the burdens imposed upon either party for the benefit of the children of the parties, and all other circumstances of the case." Hawaii Revised Statutes § 580-47(a) (Supp.1990). The party who wants the family court to deviate from the USP has the burden of proof.

2. Since uniformity of decisional process is not possible if some family courts adjust the Category 1 NMVs for inflation and others do not, we urge all family courts not to adjust Category 1 NMVs for inflation.

3. The doctrine of transmutation cannot be used as a reason to change the categorization of a Category 1 NMV to some other Category.

4. The fact that after the date of the marriage the husband deposited some of his Category 1 NMV into a marital fund which was used to purchase a joint asset is insufficient to prove the occurrence of a legal gift of that NMV to the wife.

5. In the absence of a valid and enforceable premarital agreement, one spouse's (1) earnings from his or her activities during the marriage are marital partnership earnings; (2) during-the-marriage management and maintenance of his or her premarital investment properties are marital partnership activities; and (3) during-the-marriage non-involvement in the management and maintenance of the other spouse's premarital investment property does not authorize a reduction of his or her 25% USP share under Category 2.

Peter Van Name Esser and Willard J. Peterson (Peterson & Esser, of counsel), and Paul A. Tomar, on the brief, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellant.

Charles T. Kleintop, Sara R. Harvey and Carolyn O. Tavy (Stirling & Kleintop, of counsel), on the brief, Honolulu, for defendant-appellee.

Before BURNS, C.J., HEEN, J., and YIM, Circuit Judge, Assigned by Reason of Vacancy.

BURNS, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff Lisa Gussin (Wife) appeals the family court's January 17, 1991 Divorce Decree and February 21, 1991 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Wife has satisfied her burden on appeal of showing where in the record the family court erred. However, she has not satisfied her burden on appeal of showing that she has been harmed by the family court's errors. Therefore, we affirm.

                                                     FACTS
                 The relevant events occurred chronologically as follows
                May 6, 1983        Date of marriage (DOM)
                November 14, 1986  Birth date of daughter
                February 23, 1989  Date Wife filed a complaint for divorce.  Date of final
                                     separation in contemplation of divorce (DOFSICOD)
                March 22, 1990     Date of the conclusion of the evidentiary part of the trial
                                     (DOCOEPOT)
                August 1, 1990     Date of oral decision.
                January 17, 1991   Divorce Decree is entered.
                February 21, 1991  Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are entered.
                ----------
                

At the DOM, Husband owned the following items and net market values (NMVs). Since there is no evidence that he subsequently gifted any of them, these are Husband's Category 1 NMVs. The first column lists the actual NMVs at the 1983 DOM. The second column lists the DOM NMVs stated in terms of DOCOEPOT dollars using a multiplier of 1.329614. The family court decided to use the latter NMVs in its calculations.

                Item                               NMV      Adjusted NMV
                Cash                           $ 42,982.00  $ 57,149.46
                Mauna Luan apartment             33,000.00    43,877.26
                Kaneohe house                    32,900.00    43,744.30
                Kailua house                     35,000.00    46,536.49
                Kona Pacific apartment ( 1/2)    15,020.00    19,970.80
                Kauai apartment ( 1/8)            3,750.00     4,986.05
                Honda Accord                      4,000.00     5,318.45
                                               -----------  ------------
                      TOTAL                    $166,652.00  $221,582.81
                

At the DOCOEPOT, Husband owned the following:

                Item                                                 NMV
                Kaneohe house                                $159,730.00
                Kona Pacific apartment ( 1/2)                   8,000.00
                Kauai apartment ( 1/8)                          (250.00)
                                                            ------------
                      TOTAL                                  $167,480.00
                ----------
                

In the absence of any evidence that Husband gifted any of these three items after the DOM, the $115,810 difference between the DOM NMV of these items and the DOCOEPOT NMV of these items is a Category 2 NMV.

At the DOCOEPOT, Husband and Wife jointly owned the following:

                Item                                             NMV
                Waialae"Iki Ridge residence                  $583,000.00
                

At the DOCOEPOT, Husband and/or Wife owned the following:

                Item                                             NMV
                HonFed savings                               $  7,802.42
                Pualei Circle proceeds                         17,095.00
                Pioneer Federal checking                          960.00
                HonFed checking                                   454.00
                Shearson"Am Express money market                2,950.74
                Dodge                                           4,788.00
                Honda                                             500.00
                Executive Life Insurance                        1,275.00
                First Nationwide IRA                            2,612.62
                Strong Total Return IRA                         2,517.07
                Merrill Lynch                                     591.00
                Territorial Savings                               118.77
                BMW                                             5,000.00
                HonFed savings                                 13,400.00
                American Surgical Center                            4.00
                Mutual shares                                   1,945.88
                USAA Cornerstone                                1,292.77
                Item                                             NMV
                South Africa Controlled Investments            $1,074.00
                Forte claim                                     4,715.65
                     TOTAL                                   $ 69,096.92
                

At the DOCOEPOT, Husband and/or Wife owed the following debt:

                Creditor                                        Debt
                Sears                                       ($ 1,026.71)
                

All DOCOEPOT NMVs are Category 5 NMVs except to the extent that they are proven to be Category 1, 2, 3, or 4 NMVs. Collier v. Collier, 8 Haw.App. 28, 791 P.2d 725 (1990). In the Gussins' case, it is undisputed that a portion of the DOCOEPOT NMVs were Categories 1 and 2 NMVs. Absent a valid finding that Husband subsequently legally gifted any of his DOM Category 1 NMVs or during-the-marriage Category 2 NMVs to Wife, to Husband and Wife, or to a third party, and absent any adjustment for inflation, the Uniform Starting Point (USP) for the division of the $818,550.21 DOCOEPOT NMV was as follows:

                Item        Total        Husband       Wife
                Category 1  $166,652.00  $166,652.00
                Category 2   115,810.00    86,857.50   $ 28,952.50
                Category 5   536,088.21   268,044.105   268,044.105
                            -----------  ------------  ------------
                     TOTAL  $818,550.21  $521,553.605  $296,996.605
                ----------
                

Absent a valid finding that Husband subsequently legally gifted any of his DOM Category 1 NMVs or during-the-marriage Category 2 NMVs to Wife, to Husband and Wife or to a third party, but with the family court's adjustment for inflation, the USP for the division of the $818,550.21 DOCOEPOT NMV was as follows:

                Item        Total        Husband       Wife
                Category 1  $221,582.81  $221,582.81
                Category 2    60,879.19    45,659.39   $ 15,219.80
                Category 5   536,088.21   268,044.105   268,044.105
                            -----------  ------------  ------------
                     TOTAL  $818,550.21  $535,286.305  $283,263.905
                ----------
                

The family court did not include the NMV of the Kailua house and the Honda Accord in its calculation of Husband's Category 1 NMV, increased the NMV of Husband's other Category 1 assets to account for inflation (thereby correspondingly reducing Husband's Category 2 NMV), and awarded the distributable NMVs as follows:

                Item        Total        Husband       Wife
                Category 1  $169,727.87  $169,727.87
                Category 2    98,778.85    83,962.02   $ 14,816.83
                Category 5   550,043.49   275,021.745   275,021.745
                            -----------  ------------  ------------
                     TOTAL  $818,550.21  $528,711.635  $289,838.575
                

DISCUSSION

I.

The family court failed to comply with the mandates of Muraoka v. Muraoka, 7 Haw.App. 432, 776 P.2d 418 (1989), thereby unnecessarily complicating matters for the parties, itself, and the appellate courts. However, since neither party sought compliance or complained about the noncompliance, we will ignore the family court's neglect of its duty in this case.

II.

Wife challenges the family court's adjustment of the Category 1 NMVs for inflation. Since such an adjustment is within the sound discretion of the family court, Cassiday v. Cassiday, 6 Haw.App. 207, 716 P.2d 1145 (1985), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 68 Haw. 383, 716 P.2d 1133 (1986), we are compelled to disagree.

When we issued our opinion in Cassiday, however, Hawaii case law pertaining to the division and distribution of property in divorce cases had progressed only to "general rules." Back then, we concluded that,

[a]s a general rule, it is equitable to award each divorcing party one-half of the after acquisition but during marriage real increase in the net value of property separately owned at the TOM [time of marriage] or...