M.S. v. L.S.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
08-SEP-2025
08:08 AM
Dkt. 44 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

M.S., Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
L.S., Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 5FDV-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)

L.S. (Wife), representing herself,1 appeals from the
Decree Granting Absolute Divorce and Awarding Child Custody
entered by the Family Court of the Fifth Circuit on September 6,
2023.2 We affirm.
M.S. (Husband) filed for divorce from Wife on
October 6, 2022. Trial was held on May 1, 2023. The Family
Court entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on June 14,
2023. The Decree was entered on September 6, 2023. This appeal
followed.
Wife's opening brief does not comply with Rule 28(b) of
the Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP). Hawai#i courts
have a policy of giving all parties the chance to have their
cases heard on the merits, where possible. Schefke v. Reliable

1
Wife has a law degree.
2
The Honorable Robert Goldberg presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Collection Agency, Ltd., 96 Hawai#i 408, 420, 32 P.3d 52, 64
(2001). To promote access to justice, we do not automatically
foreclose self-represented litigants from appellate review if
they don't comply with court rules. Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai#i
368, 380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020).
The family court has wide discretion in making its
decisions, and we review them for abuse of discretion. Fisher v.
Fisher, 111 Hawai#i 41, 46, 137 P.3d 355, 360 (2006). With that
standard in mind, we address what we discern to be Wife's
arguments.
(1) Wife argues the Decree should be vacated because
she wasn't served with Husband's amended income and expense
statement, amended asset and debt statement, amended witness
list, exhibit list, or exhibits 1-20 before the trial. That, she
contends, violated her constitutional right to due process.
Husband's process server filed a proof of service on
April 16, 2023. It shows he served the documents on Wife at the
Federal Detention Center Honolulu, where she was being held, on
April 13, 2023. Husband's counsel filed a certificate of service
on August 16, 2023. An amended proof of service, signed by the
process server, was filed on August 18, 2023.
Wife states the trial judge "made findings that there
was no proof that wife was ever served those documents, and wife
put on the record that she never received said documents." The
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contain no such finding.
Wife didn't request a transcript of the trial, see HRAP
Rule 10(b)(1)(A), and doesn't cite to where in the record she
claimed to have never received those documents, see HRAP
Rule 28(b)(7). We are not obligated to search the record for
information that should have been provided by Wife. Haw.
Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, Inc., 114 Hawai#i 438, 480, 164 P.3d 696,
738 (2007).
Even if Wife wasn't served with the documents before
trial, the record does not show that Wife objected to the Family
Court considering them. Wife could have asked for a continuance

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

so she could study the documents, but she does not cite to the
record where a request to continue was made or, if one was made,
where it was denied by the Family Court. Nor does Wife make an
offer of proof about what witnesses she would have called, or
what evidence she would have tried to introduce, to controvert
information in Husband's amended income and expense or asset and
debt statements.
Under these circumstances, we decline to consider
Wife's argument.
(2) Wife also argues she should have been awarded
portions of Husband's 401(k) qualified profit-sharing plan and
pension plan under the "Linson Formula" and Hawaii Revised
Statutes (HRS) § 580-47.
Linson v. Linson, 1 Haw. App. 272, 618 P.2d 748 (1980),
"present[ed] the issue of whether the nonvested retirement
benefits of one spouse constitute part of the 'estate of the
parties' under [HRS] § 580-47 and are therefore subject to
division and distribution by order of the family court upon
granting a divorce." Id. at 273–74, 618 P.2d at 749. We held
that "estate of the parties" meant "anything of present or
prospective value, and therefore . . . a spouse's nonvested
military retirement benefit constitutes part of the estate of the
parties under HRS § 580-47." Id. at 278, 618 P.2d at 751. We
based our decision on equity. Id. at 277, 618 P.2d at 750-51.
We did not prescribe a "formula" for dividing or distributing
retirement benefits.
HRS § 580-47 (2018) authorizes the family court to
divide and distribute the estate of the parties — which under
Linson includes retirement benefits. The family court must
consider "the respective merits of the parties, the relative
abilities of the parties, the condition in which each party will
be left by the divorce, . . . and all other circumstances of the
case." HRS § 580-47(a).
Husband argued to the Family Court that although he and
Wife had been married for 26 years,

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the last 7 years "have been years of utter turmoil with FBI
raiding the marital home twice (once in 2016 and again in
2019) and with [Wife] ultimately going to Federal Detention
Center in Honolulu in 2019 where she has not been released
since. No outsider really knows when [Wife] started to
engage in criminal activities which resulted in her arrest
and conviction but it is undisputed that their "marital
relationship" as Husband and Wife ended in 2016/2019 wherein
this is not the case where Husband had filed for divorce for
no reason after 26 years of marriage. It is safe to say the
"marriage" as we know it in a conventional manner ended in
2016, thus, the duration of "true" marriage is only 19
years.

. . . Further, due to the acts of [Wife], [Husband]'s
standard of living went down significantly where [Husband]
lost his family home and has become a hoarder [sic] living
at his daughter's house in exchange for sharing and paying
for living expenses. He basically came down from being a
homeowner owning a $1.4 million-dollar house to a man
without a house at age 50. . . .
. . . .

. . . [Husband] has been a stevedore with Young
Brothers for the last 23 years. As to [Wife]'s occupation,
there is a belief that [Wife] was working "doing some sort
of non-profit thing" "where she was getting scholarships and
grants for Kauai students" but since her activities resulted
in conviction and 17-year sentence with $2.4 million dollars
in forfeiture and $3.3 million dollars in restitution
judgment, it is hard to say what occupation she had during
marriage. It is safer to say, [Wife] did not make any
financial contribution through her employment during their
marriage. Rather, [Wife] caused huge financial loss to
assets of the parties and the asset[s] of [Husband] through
her actions. Good example is that despite her "working",
[Wife] has nothing in assets except for her small bank
account at Central Pacific Bank whose balance, per [Wife]'s
filed asset and debt statement was $25.00 on November 15,
2022.

. . . [Wife] has a law degree and Ph.D. The fact that
[Wife] will not be employable for the next 17 years during
her period of incarceration should not be used in a normal
sense of someone being "not employable" as her incarceration
was brought onto herself by her own actions. If this was a
normal divorce where the parties were divorcing, [Wife]
would have continued her work doing some sort of grant
application work and will be advancing in her work given her
two (2) doctorate degrees. It is in fact, [Husband], who is
a blue-collar worker working as a stevedore ([Husband]
operates cranes that lift and stack Matson containers on and
off the ship) who is less educated. One cannot punish the
hard worker and reward someone who used the skills and
knowledge she had acquired through her two (2) doctoral
degrees who had chosen the path of criminal activity which
is sending her to 17 years of prison life.

. . . [Husband] has the need for money as he has no
house, very little in retirement and very little money in

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

his bank accounts (See, [Husband]'s filed asset and debt and
income and expense statements). [Husband] has been since
2019 and will be solely responsible to provide for their
minor son without any financial assistance from [Wife].
[Husband] NEEDS all of the monies he will be earning as
stevedore. [Wife] has no need as she will have shelter,
food and other guarantees as provided by federal law
protecting prison inmates.
. . . .
. . . [Husband] has been left in financial ruins due
to [Wife]'s actions. First, even after 23 years of
employment at Young Brothers Limited where he believed he
was putting aside the maximum allowable portion (15%) of his
wages each year into his 401(k) account, the vast majority
has been withdrawn by wife and after 23 years, he only has
$70,000.00 in 401(k). [Husband] could not get any records
prior to 2017, but, did testify that he was putting aside
the maximum allowable amount towards 401(k) from each and
every pay check. By deductive reasoning, [Husband] would
have had at least $500,000.00 in 401(k) after 23 years of
employment at Young Brother Limited. But, rather, he only
has $70,000.00. Second, [Husband] lost his home which he
inherited from his parents, the house he grew up in. Though
the family was able to keep the house in the "family", it is
now owned by his daughter and her husband wherein [Husband]
is no [sic] other than a free-loader. [Husband] can get
kicked out by his daughter with no legal recourse to fight
such eviction. Thirdly, [Husband] has had to provide for
his minor son on his own since 2016/2019 and will be so
providing for his minor son for the next several years.

Some of those arguments were made in the context of
Wife's request for alimony, but they are still factors the Family
Court could consider under HRS § 580-47 to equitably divide
Husband's 401(k) and pension plan. See Myers v. Myers, 70 Haw.
143, 148, 764 P.2d 1237, 1241 (1988) (noting that HRS § 580–47
"gives to the family court the discretion to divide marital
property according to what is just and equitable").
Wife does not challenge the Family Court's findings of
fact, which are binding on appeal. Okada Trucking Co. v. Bd. of
Water Supply, 97 Hawai#i 450, 459, 40 P.3d 73, 82 (2002). The
Family Court found:

The parties were an intact family until July 2019 when
[Wife] was arrested and imprisoned at Federal Detention
Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. The Parties have never lived
together since and [Wife] has remained in custody since 2019
and is still in custody at Federal Detention Center in
Honolulu, Hawaii. . . .
. . . .

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

[Wife] testified that she has a debt stemming from the
Restitution Order/Sentence of her criminal conviction. Wife
did not seek any contribution from Husband to pay-off the
restitution she owes as a part of her federal conviction
sentence in the amount of "over $3.3 Million Dollars" (per
the filed Judgement at Federal Court, the accurate amount is
$3,396,035.15)[.3]

. . . .
[Husband] took a position at trial that he shall be
awarded his two retirement accounts and policies, to wit,
his Salchuk [sic] 401(k) and the pension plan with his
employer, Salchuk [sic], dba, Young Brothers Limited, as his
sole and separate property and Wife shall not be entitled to
receive any portion thereof.
[Wife] took a position that having been married to
Husband for 26 years that she is entitled to receive the
"Linson" share as a matter of law.

. . . .
Court finds, applying the facts of the case, that, it
is just and equitable that each party shall be awarded his
and her own retirement accounts, policies and benefits that
are titled in their own names and the other Party shall have
no claim thereto. Husband shall be awarded the 401(k)
account and his pension plan through his employer, Salchuk
[sic], dba, Young Brothers Limited as his sole and separate
property and Wife shall have no claim thereto.

Court finds that the Wife has already withdrawn
$71,184.281 [sic] from Husband's retirement account between
2017 to 2023 without Husband's consent; there was no
testimony as to what Wife did with the money.

. . . .

. . . Further, Wife has a debt/restitution to IRS in
the approximate amount of $1.9 Million Dollars, to State of
Hawaii Tax Collector in the approximate amount of
$790,000.00 and Wife has agreed that she shall be
responsible for her own debts.
. . . .

. . . [Wife] acknowledged that she entered into a plea
agreement where she pled guilty to three counts of wire
fraud in exchange for dismissal of the rest of the charges
in her indictment. [Wife] testified that she was duly

3
We take judicial notice under Rule 201, Hawaii Rules of Evidence,
Chapter 626, Hawaii Revised Statutes (2016), of the Judgment in a Criminal
Case entered in United States v. Sullivan, Case No. 1:17-cr-00104-JMS-KJM,
Doc. 1530 (D. Haw. Mar. 31, 2023). Wife pleaded guilty to three counts of
wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. She was sentenced to 204 months
(17 years) in prison, three years of supervised release, payment of
$3,396,035.15 in restitution, and forfeiture of $2,012,741.92 to the United
States. Wife appealed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. United States v.
Sullivan, Nos. 23-573, 23-575 (9th Cir. Oct. 9, 2024) (Mem.).

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

sentenced by Judge Seabright on March 28, 2023 for 17-year
imprisonment, 3 years of supervised release and the payment
of $3,396,035.15 in restitution.

. . . .
Further, [Wife] testified and acknowledged in her own
pleadings that were submitted that she has the Juris
Doctorate Degree and Ph. D. [Wife] did not testify that she
had been stripped of those degrees due to her federal
conviction.
To the contrary, [Husband] is the lesser educated
party with only a Bachelor’s degree from University of
Hawaii. [Husband] testified that he has been working for
Young Brother Limited as the [sic] stevedore for the last 20
years.
. . . .

Further, it is undisputed that [Wife] would need tons
of money to pay the $3.3 million XXXXXX she would need to
pay in restitution once she is released from prison. But,
her "need" to pay restitution is based on her own criminal
act and has nothing to do with the marriage or what Husband
had done. In fact, Husband was never indicted by the
federal government for anything relating to what [Wife] had
done.

Under these circumstances, we cannot say the Family
Court abused its discretion by not awarding Wife any portion of
Husband's 401(k) qualified profit-sharing plan or pension plan.
Wife's opening brief makes no other discernible
arguments. The Decree Granting Absolute Divorce and Awarding
Child Custody entered by the Family Court on September 6, 2023,
is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 8, 2025.
On the briefs:
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
L.S., Self-represented Presiding Judge
Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Associate Judge

/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Associate Judge

7