Riethbrock v. Lange

• Decision Date: 16 March 2012
• Docket Number: No. SCWC–28289.,SCWC–28289.
• Citation: 282 P.3d 543,128 Hawai'i 1
• Parties: Heinrich Alexander RIETHBROCK, Petitioner/Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Marion Barbara LANGE, Respondent/Defendant–Appellee.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

128 Hawai'i 1

282 P.3d 543

Heinrich Alexander RIETHBROCK, Petitioner/Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.Marion Barbara LANGE, Respondent/Defendant–Appellee.

No. SCWC–28289.

Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.

March 16, 2012.

R. Steven Geshell, on the briefs, for petitioner/plaintiff-appellant.

James P. Brumbaugh and Brian R. Jenkins (Brumbaugh & Jenkins), on the briefs, for respondent/defendant-appellee.

RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, DUFFY, and McKENNA, JJ.

Opinion of the Court by RECKTENWALD, C.J.

Heinrich Alexander Riethbrock and Marion Barbara Lange were married in 1997. Riethbrock filed a Complaint for Divorce in 2004. The Family Court of the Second Circuit (family court)¹ granted the parties' stipulated divorce decree on August 8, 2005, reserving jurisdiction over division of the parties' assets and debts.

Riethbrock subsequently failed to appear at various hearings, failed to respond to Lange's discovery requests, and requested numerous continuances. On Lange's motion, the family court issued a series of orders that indicated its intent to award Lange a one-half share of the parties' real property located in Pukalani, Maui. On June 8, 2006, the family court granted Lange's request to list the Pukalani property for sale, and subsequently filed various orders to effectuate the sale of the property. On October 5, 2006, Riethbrock filed a motion to stay the sale of the Pukalani property and to dismiss, in which he argued that the family court did not have jurisdiction to order the sale because it had failed to enter judgment or issue a ruling dividing the Pukalani property within one year of entering its stipulated divorce decree, as required under this court's holding in Boulton v. Boulton, 69 Haw. 1, 730 P.2d 338 (1986), which interpreted Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 580–56(d).² On October 26, 2006, the family court filed its Order Denying Pending Motions, in which it denied Riethbrock's motion for stay and for dismissal. On January 23, 2007, the family court filed an order authorizing escrow to release a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the Pukalani property to Lange.

On appeal to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, Riethbrock argued that: (1) the family court erred in denying his motion to stay and to dismiss because it did not have jurisdiction to divide the Pukalani property after the passage of one year, and (2) the family court's order releasing the funds from escrow violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. The ICA held that the family court implicitly divided the Pukalani property in its orders prior to the one year limitation set forth in Boulton and HRS § 580–56(d), and accordingly had jurisdiction to order the sale of the property to enforce its prior property division. Riethbrock v. Lange, Nos. 28289 and 28694, 125 Hawai‘i 247, 2011 WL 3455829, at *1–2 (Haw.Ct.App. Aug. 8, 2011) (SDO). The ICA further determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Riethbrock's contention regarding the order releasing funds from escrow because Riethbrock failed to appeal that order. Id. at *2.

In his application, Riethbrock presents the following two questions:

[1.] Did the [ICA] gravely err holding that the [family court] had jurisdiction to divide the Pukalani property more than a year after filing the divorce decree, all in violation of Boulton v. Boulton, 69 Haw. 1, 730 P.2d 338 (1986), and HRS § 580–56(d) ?

[2.] Did the ICA gravely err in depriving [Riethbrock] of due process by holding that the [c]ourt lacked jurisdiction to decide that the ex parte motion releasing the sale proceeds from escrow?

(Formatting altered).

We conclude that HRS § 580–56(d) was intended to apply only in the narrow context of limiting a spouse's right to dower or curtesy in his or her deceased former spouse's estate. Accordingly, we overrule Boulton and hold that HRS § 580–56(d) did not divest the family court of jurisdiction over the property division in the instant case. We further hold that the ICA did not have jurisdiction to address the family court's order releasing funds from escrow because Riethbrock failed to appeal that order. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the ICA.

I. Background

A. Family Court Proceedings

On July 15, 1997, Riethbrock and Lange, both natives of Germany, were married in Maui, where they had been living since 1996. The couple had a daughter who was born in 1999.

On April 2, 2004, Riethbrock filed a Complaint for Divorce on grounds that the marriage was "irretrievably broken." Lange filed an Answer on April 13, 2004 stating that the marriage was "irretrievably broken" and that "[a]ll assets should be divided in a just and equitable way between the parties." In his "Position Statement," Riethbrock contended that he should be entitled to the Pukalani property as his "sole and separate property" because he had acquired the Pukalani property "after the parties' separation in July 2001 and [Lange] has made no monetary contribution and has never resided this [sic] real property." Conversely, in her "Position Statement," Lange argued that she and Riethbrock began to live separately when Riethbrock moved onto the Pukalani property, which was "purchased while the parties were married and living together[,]" and that the Pukalani property should "be divided in accordance with Hawai‘i Partnership principles with [Lange] having a one-half interest."

The family court initially set the case for trial on November 18 and 19, 2004, but the trial was continued. On April 1, 2005, Riethbrock filed an amended Position Statement in which he asserted that awarding him the Pukalani property would "take[ ] into consideration the assets of [Riethbrock] existing at the time of the marriage and assets acquired since that time." At an April 8, 2005 hearing Lange orally moved to continue trial based on the need for additional information to be provided to the court regarding the awarding of child custody and visitation. The family court continued trial to June 24, 2005, and it appears the trial was subsequently continued again to July 14 and 15, 2005. Riethbrock subsequently moved for another continuance on grounds that he was in Germany and could not return to Hawai‘i because he did not have a valid visa. Lange opposed the motion. The family court denied Riethbrock's motion with respect to the divorce and custody and visitation rights, but granted it with respect to the property division. Accordingly, the family court continued trial on issues relating to the property division to December 15 and 16, 2005.

A partial trial on the divorce and child custody issues was held on July 14, 2005, and on August 8, 2005, the family court filed its Stipulated Decree Granting Divorce and Awarding Child Custody, in which it awarded sole legal and physical custody of their daughter to Lange. The family court "reserved" "[a]ll other divorce issues, including but not limited to child support and the division of assets and debts[.]"

On December 13, 2005, Riethbrock sent the family court a fax requesting a continuance because he was suffering from pneumonia and pleurisy. It appears that at a December 14, 2005 hearing,³ Lange orally moved that Riethbrock submit to an independent medical examination and Riethbrock's counsel orally moved to continue trial. The family court granted both motions and trial was continued to February 3, 2006. On December 15, 2005, Riethbrock's counsel filed a motion to withdraw and for an order to establish an attorney's lien pursuant to HRS § 507–81.

On January 12, 2006, Lange filed an "Ex Parte Motion for an Order Directing [Riethbrock] to do Everything Within His Power to Have the [Pukalani property] Reconveyed Back to [Riethbrock]—by [Alfred Reichardt], in Whose Favor a Quitclaim Deed was Executed by [Riethbrock] and Recorded on December 23, 2005." In his declaration, Lange's counsel stated that he went on-line to verify the status of the Pukalani property and discovered that Riethbrock had quitclaimed it to Reichardt, Riethbrock's friend in Germany. Lange asserted that the motion was being made "within a few hours of ... learning of the highly improper and prejudicial transfer of title[.]" Lange attached a copy of the quitclaim deed to her motion. The family court subsequently granted the motion and ordered Riethbrock to do "everything in his power to accomplish the immediate reconveyance and recording" of the Pukalani property. Additionally, the court ordered Riethbrock to pay Lange's attorney's fees in connection with the reconveyance.

On January 13, 2006, the family court granted Riethbrock's counsel's motion to withdraw, but denied without prejudice the request to establish an attorney's lien.

In a pro se position statement filed on January 27, 2006, Riethbrock contended that he made the down payment on the Pukalani property with money from his own funds and money gifted to him by his mother.

On February 1, 2006, Lange filed a motion in limine requesting that the family court preclude Riethbrock "from introducing any evidence at the February 3, 2006 trial" and that Riethbrock be "found to be in default" because Riethbrock had not cooperated in the discovery process and had "manipulate[d] and insult [ed] this court" by transferring the Pukalani property. Additionally, Lange requested the court find that:

Lange has a 50% beneficial interest in said real property. Said interest is based on [Riethbrock] and [Lange] being married and living together at the time that [Riethbrock] purchased said property; based on [Riethbrock] and [Lange] having shared their expenses since 1994; based upon [Lange] having never quitclaimed or otherwise given away her marital interest in said property; and based upon [Riethbrock's] often expressed intention to have [Lange] live with [Riethbrock] on said property (at the time said property was purchased and for years thereafter).

Riethbrock did not appear at the February 3, 2006 trial. At the start of trial, the family court addressed three faxes it had received from Riethbrock,...