Strini v. Strini

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
25-MAR-2025
07:53 AM
Dkt. 109 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

RICHARD DENNIS STRINI, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DEBRA ANN SANCHEZ STRINI, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 2DV171000015)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Debra Ann Sanchez Strini (Wife)

appeals from the Decree Granting Divorce (Divorce Decree), filed

on April 18, 2022, by the Family Court of the Second Circuit

(family court).1 This matter arises out of a Complaint for

Divorce filed by Richard Dennis Strini (Husband).

On appeal, Wife raises five points of error,

contending that the family court erred by: (1) "failing to

require the parties to submit property division charts in

1 The Honorable James R. Rouse presided over the case.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

advance of trial and/or in failing to attach its own property

division chart to its [Divorce] Decree and/or Findings of Fact

[(FOFs)] and Conclusions of Law [(COLs)]"; (2) failing to

include a "discussion of why [Wife] was not entitled to alimony

based upon the Court's analysis of the factors set out in

[Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)] §[]580-47(a)" in its FOFs and

COLs; (3) "failing to file [FOFs] and [COLs] that support the

provisions of the Divorce Decree"; (4) "ordering a property

division that was not just and equitable"; and (5) "finding that

[Wife] had committed marital waste without reference to when the

alleged waste was committed and without [FOFs] to support the

finding."

Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and

relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration

to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties,

we resolve Wife's points of error as follows:

(1) Wife contends, as her first, third, and fourth

points of error, that the family court's division of property

was not "just and equitable," and that this court cannot

evaluate whether the division is just and equitable, because the

family court failed to "require the parties to submit property

division charts in advance of trial," "attach its own property

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

division chart to its [Divorce] Decree and/or [FOFs] and

[COLs]," and file sufficient FOFs and COLs.2

Division of marital property resulting from a divorce

is governed by HRS § 580-47 (2018), which states in relevant

part:

Upon granting a divorce, . . . the court may make any
further orders as shall appear just and equitable . . .
finally dividing and distributing the estate of the
parties, real, personal, or mixed, whether community,
joint, or separate[.] . . . In making these further orders,
the court shall take into consideration: 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, the concealment of
or failure to disclose income or an asset, or violation of
a restraining order[,] . . . and all other circumstances of
the case.

(Emphasis added.)

The family court has wide discretion when dividing

marital partnership property based on what is "just and

equitable" in the case before it. Gordon v. Gordon, 135 Hawaiʻi

340, 348–49, 350 P.3d 1008, 1016–17 (2015) (citation omitted).

The family court will assess and weigh all "valid and relevant

considerations to exercise its equitable discretion in

distributing marital property." Booth v. Booth, 90 Hawaiʻi 413,

417, 978 P.2d 851, 855 (1999) (citation omitted). However,

2 We address in section (1) Wife's contention that the family court
failed to make sufficient FOFs and/or COLs that support its division of
property. We address, in sections (2) and (3) infra, the issue of whether
the family court failed to make sufficient FOFs and/or COLs with respect to
spousal support and marital waste.

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

"[i]t is axiomatic that a family court cannot satisfactorily

fulfill its responsibility under general partnership principles

to determine each party's contributions and equitably divide

marital property without first assessing the net market values

of the parties' respective properties at various time frames."

Gordon, 135 Hawai‛i at 351, 350 P.3d at 1019 (citation omitted).

We review the family court's division of property for

abuse of discretion. Brutsch v. Brutsch, 139 Hawaiʻi 373, 381,

390 P.3d 1260, 1268 (2017).

Here, Wife did not file an Income and Expense

Statement, nor did she file an Asset and Debt Statement. At

trial, Wife did not provide an inventory list or a valuation of

the art business inventory. The family court found Wife's

testimony not credible and lacking in sincerity.

Husband submitted an Income and Expense Statement, and

an Asset and Debt Statement. Husband also provided itemized

records of Strini Art Glass's inventory, including the value of

individual art pieces. Based on Husband's testimony, which the

family court found to be credible, the family court made a

finding that the total value of the Strini Art Glass inventory

amounted to $1,190,016, and the total value of the art glass

inventory located at the Maui Craft Guild's shop amounted to

$103,535.

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

Neither Wife nor Husband submitted a property division

chart.

On this record, we conclude that the family court

appropriately exercised its discretion in relying upon the

statements and credible testimonial evidence presented by

Husband in making a finding as to the total value of Wife and

Husband's art glass inventory. However, because the family

court failed to attach a property division chart or make

sufficient FOFs regarding the itemized valuation of the

property,3 we are unable to determine whether the family court's

division of property was just and equitable. See Gordon, 135

Hawaiʻi at 351, 350 P.3d at 1019 ("Given the numerous omissions

of property categorizations and net market values in this case,

the record is deficient to enable meaningful appellate review of

the family court's distribution of the marital estate.").

Although the family court concluded that "[t]he

property in this case was and is Marital Partnership Property,"

and that "there is no just and equitable reason to deviate from

the partnership model,"4 it is unclear whether Wife and/or

3 "[A] chart or equivalent itemization of the information
required by the five-category partnership model is a valuable and
important tool for the family court to properly divide property and
afford transparency to the parties and reviewing court." Gordon, 135
Hawaiʻi at 351, 350 P.3d at 1019 (citation omitted).

4 "It is well established that a family court is guided in
divorce proceedings by partnership principles in governing division and
distribution of marital partnership property." Id. (citation omitted).
(continued . . .)

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

Husband was credited in any way for premarital contributions.5

Moreover, the family court did not make any FOFs regarding the

itemized value of much of the marital property that was being

divided between Wife and Husband. It is unclear, for example:

what portion of the art glass inventory constitutes the "eighty

pieces" awarded to Wife, and the itemized value of those pieces;

the value of the "tools, supplies, and equipment" awarded solely

to Husband; and the value of the Strini Art Glass business and

website awarded solely to Husband.

We therefore vacate the property division part of the

family court's Divorce Decree, and instruct the family court on

4(. . .continued)

Pursuant to partnership principles, the family court must categorize
property as follows:

Category 1 includes the net market value of property
separately owned by a spouse on the date of marriage;

Category 2 includes the increase in the net market value of
Category 1 property during the marriage;

Category 3 includes the net market value of property
separately acquired by gift or inheritance during the
marriage;

Category 4 includes the increase in the net market value of
Category 3 property during the marriage; and

Category 5 includes the net market value of the remaining
marital estate at the conclusion of the evidentiary part of
the trial.

Id. at 349, 350 P.3d at 1017 (cleaned up).

5 Although it appears that Wife and Husband agreed that the
property at issue in this case would be categorized as "marital partnership
property," Wife and Husband both testified that they brought separate
property into the marriage.

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

remand to make an itemized valuation of the Strinis' property,

either through a property division chart or by making additional

FOFs, such that this court may discern the basis for the family

court's determination that the ordered property division was

"just and equitable."

(2) Wife contends, as her second point of error, that

the family court erred by concluding that Wife was not entitled

to alimony without making FOFs and COLs that applied the factors

set forth in HRS § 580-47(a). In its FOFs and COLs, the family

court, referencing the property division, concluded that "[Wife]

does not meet the criteria for an award of spousal support since

she was awarded half of the net proceeds from the sale of the

[marital r]esidence in addition to half of the inventory from

[Strini Art Glass] which she can sell to earn a living."

In light of our decision to vacate the family court's

property division award, we also vacate the spousal support part

of the Divorce Decree for the family court's consideration on

remand. See id. at 355, 350 P.3d at 1023 ("[B]ecause the

court's division of property likely had an impact in determining

[the wife's] entitlement to alimony, the ICA should have also

vacated the family court's alimony award.") (citation omitted).

(3) Wife contends, as her fifth point of error, that

the family court erred because it did not provide sufficient

FOFs to support its determination that Wife had committed

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

marital waste prior to trial, and by finding that Wife's conduct

after trial also constituted marital waste.

"A reduction of the dollar value of the marital estate

chargeable to a divorcing party occurs when, during the time of

the divorce, a party's action or inaction . . . reduc[es] . . .

the dollar value of the marital estate" under circumstances that

suggest that the party "should be charged with having received

the dollar value of the reduction." Higashi v. Higashi, 106

Hawaiʻi 228, 241, 103 P.3d 388, 401 (App. 2004) (emphasis added).

The family court's finding that Wife "accumulat[ed]

approximately $561,243.61 in debt prior to the start of trial,

and an additional $30,824.00 after the conclusion of the trial,"

does not establish whether that "marital waste" occurred during

the time of the divorce. (Emphasis added.)

That being said, it appears that the family court's

finding of Wife's marital waste was not used to reduce the

marital estate in Husband's favor, and that any error regarding

Wife's marital waste therefore amounted to harmless error.

Nevertheless, in light of our rulings in sections (1) and (2),

supra, the family court may, on remand, consider any marital

waste committed by Wife during the time of the divorce in

conjunction with its consideration of property division and

spousal support.

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the property

division, spousal support, and marital waste sections of the

Divorce Decree, and remand for further proceedings consistent

with this summary disposition order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, March 25, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Acting Chief Judge
Francis T. O'Brien,
for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge
Peter Van Name Esser,
for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Associate Judge

9