Haddad v. Lapow

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
07-MAR-2025
08:02 AM
Dkt. 44 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STEPHANIE HADDAD, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
LORENCE DOUGLAS LAPOW, Respondent-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 2DA211000527)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)

Lorence Douglas Lapow appeals from the November 15,
2021 Order For Protection entered by the Family Court of the
Second Circuit.1 Lapow also challenges the January 7, 2022 order
denying his motion for reconsideration. We affirm.
Stephanie Haddad filed an ex parte petition for a
temporary restraining order (TRO) against Lapow on November 2,
2021. The petition stated they had been in a romantic but non-
intimate, non-sexual relationship.2 It alleged:

6. The most recent acts of domestic abuse or threats of
domestic abuse against me are:
I have not seen Lauren [sic] in over 14 months —
but I am sure he is vandalizing my home.

1
The Honorable Adrianne N. Heely presided.
2
Haddad later testified she and Lapow actually had an intimate
relationship. She described it as a casual, sexual relationship. She would
see Lapow a "couple times a week" at her house. Haddad couldn't go to Lapow's
place because his girlfriend lived with him.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Oct. 22, 2021 — On this day I was at home and it
was about 5 a.m. and I could hear something
hitting your [sic] home. I got up and went and
I was looking at the camera —I could see a
figure of someone throwing things at my home and
I believe it to be Lauren. When I went outside
I saw someone had thrown inked eggs at my home
and hit my exterior walls.
Aug. 07, 2021 — It was about 6:30 a.m. and I got
up and went outside — I noticed that someone had
thrown eggs at my home and it hit the exterior
walls. I counted 5 eggs - I think it was Lauren
again.
CONTINUED:

. . . .

Jan 26, 2021 — On this day I returned home and I
notice there was roofing nails all over my
driveway and the grass area — I picked them up
and counted over 250 of them — I think I [sic]
was Lauren that put them on my property.

Nov. 23, 2020 — It was dawn again and I heard
something being thrown at my windows. I went
outside and found 2 rocks, one came through my
screen door. At this time I had a relationship
with Lauren and we broke up and went our
separate ways in September 2020. He has not
contacted me — but I feel he is vandalizing my
home.

A TRO was issued on November 2, 2021.3 The order to
show cause (OSC) hearing was held on November 15, 2021. Haddad
testified she began an intimate relationship with Lapow in
April 2020. They broke up in November 2020. Haddad did not see
who threw the rocks on November 23, 2020, who spread the roofing
nails on January 26, 2021, or who threw the eggs on August 7,
2021. But she called the police and accused Lapow each time.
She offered what she said was a security video of the October 22,
2021 incident. It showed a person throwing things over a fence.
The person's face is not visible, but Haddad testified she could
tell it was Lapow from his body language and how he moved. The
family court admitted the video into evidence over Lapow's
objection. The Order for Protection was entered on November 15,

3
The Honorable James R. Rouse signed the TRO.

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

2021, after the hearing.4 Lapow moved for reconsideration on
November 26, 2021. An order denying reconsideration was entered
on January 7, 2022. This appeal followed.
Lapow states two points of error: (1) there was no
foundation for admitting Haddad's security video into evidence;
and (2) the family court erred by denying his motion for
reconsideration.
(1) Lapow contends the family court erred because
Haddad did not lay adequate foundation to admit her security
video — Exhibit 7 — into evidence. Determining whether proper
foundation has been established lies within the discretion of the
trial court. State v. Luke, 147 Hawai#i 126, 137, 464 P.3d 914,
925 (App. 2020). We review for abuse of discretion. Id.
For video evidence where no witness actually saw the
events captured on the video, "adequate foundational facts must
be presented to the trial court, so that the trial court can
determine that the trier of fact can reasonably infer that the
subject matter is what its proponent claims. This standard is,
ultimately, the standard articulated under [Hawaii Rules of
Evidence (HRE)] Rule 901(a)."5 Id. at 139, 464 P.3d at 927
(cleaned up).
Haddad testified she had an infrared security system on
her house. She took video of the October 22, 2021 incident off
her security camera. She agreed Exhibit 7 was an accurate copy
of what she took off her security footage from that day and that
nothing had been changed. The time stamp on the video was
October 22, 2021, from 5:01:16 to 5:01:34 a.m. Based on this

4
The Order for Protection expired on May 15, 2022, but the
collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine applies. Hamilton
ex rel. Lethem v. Lethem, 119 Hawai#i 1, 11, 193 P.3d 839, 849 (2008).
5
HRS § 626-1, HRE Rule 901 (2016) provides:
(a) General provision. The requirement of authentication or
identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is
satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that
the matter in question is what its proponent claims.

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

testimony, the family court acted within its discretion by
admitting the video into evidence.
Lapow does not challenge the family court's findings of
fact. The court found:

15. [Haddad] is positive it was [Lapow] on the
surveillance video as she knows his walk, his gait, his body
type.[6]
. . . .

22. [Lapow] denied throwing rocks at [Haddad]'s residence;
denied putting nails in her driveway and denied throwing
eggs at her house.
. . . .

30. The court finds [Haddad]'s testimony more credible
than [Lapow]'s testimony.

. . . .
32. The court finds that [Haddad] met her burden of
proving that there was an intentional and knowing damage to
[Haddad]'s property, by [Lapow]. The court found [Haddad]'s
testimony credible, that she was positive, that the person
on the video was [Lapow].

. . . .

34. The court also viewed the video and although it was
unable to see the person's face, saw the person was wearing
a hoodie and is of the same build as [Lapow], and found that
said person, had knowledge of where to walk, and when to
duck from the surveillance, after walking the remote, long,
single, dirt road from the highway, and where to damage
[Haddad]'s second floor entry way, wall and window area.

35. The court also finds that the property damage started
immediately following [Lapow] and [Haddad]'s falling out and
continued for the next year, and that the granting of the
protective order is necessary so that acts of domestic abuse
"malicious property damage" do not re-occur.

6
HRE Rule 901 also provides:
(b) Illustrations. By way of illustration only, and
not by way of limitation, the following are examples of
authentication or identification conforming with the
requirements of this rule:
. . . .
(4) Distinctive characteristics and the like.
Appearance . . . or other distinctive
characteristics, taken in conjunction with
circumstances.

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

(Footnotes omitted.)
The family court applied the correct law to its
unchallenged findings of fact. A ruling supported by the trial
court's findings and correctly applying the law will not be
overturned. Est. of Klink ex rel. Klink v. State, 113 Hawai#i
332, 351, 152 P.3d 504, 523 (2007).
(2) Lapow contends the family court erred by denying
his motion for reconsideration of the Order for Protection. We
review for abuse of discretion. Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki
Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Haw. 85, 114, 839 P.2d 10, 26 (1992).
The family court incorrectly concluded Lapow's motion
was untimely. The Order for Protection was entered on
November 15, 2021. Lapow's motion was filed on November 26,
2021. Hawai#i Family Court Rules (HFCR) Rule 59(e) requires that
motions for reconsideration be filed within 10 days after entry
of the order for which reconsideration is sought. But
November 25, 2021 was a state holiday, Thanksgiving Day. HRS
§ 8-1 (2009). Thus, Lapow's motion was timely filed on
November 26, 2021. HFCR Rule 6(a).
The family court also ruled that Lapow "has not met the
burden of establishing . . . newly discovered evidence had
occurred, pursuant to H.F.C.R. Rule 59(e)[.]" Lapow's motion for
reconsideration argued that "the Court made mistaken factual
assertions when making its ruling." The memorandum in support
didn't offer new evidence or make any arguments that could not
have been offered or made during the evidentiary hearing. "The
purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to allow the parties
to present new evidence and/or arguments that could not have been
presented during the earlier adjudicated motion. A motion for
reconsideration is not time to relitigate old matters." Amfac,
74 Haw. at 114, 839 P.2d at 27 (cleaned up). The family court
did not abuse its discretion by denying Lapow's motion for
reconsideration.

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

The Order For Protection entered by the family court on
November 15, 2021, is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 7, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Alen M. Kaneshiro, Acting Chief Judge
for Respondent-Appellant.
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Associate Judge

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Associate Judge

6