Shimauchi v. Rei

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
03-FEB-2026
08:00 AM
Dkt. 30 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

IRIS SHIZU SHIMAUCHI, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. JOHN NUNO REI, Defendant-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CIVIL NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

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

This appeal challenges the Circuit Court of the First
Circuit's (Circuit Court)1 sua sponte dismissal of Plaintiff-
Appellant Iris Shizu Shimauchi's (Shimauchi)2 Complaint for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.

1 The Honorable Lisa W. Cataldo presided.
2 While Shimauchi is represented by counsel on appeal, she was
self-represented in the Circuit Court proceedings below.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Shimauchi appeals from the Circuit Court's February 7,
2024 "Order Denying Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for
Reconsideration, Filed December 5, 2023 (Dkt. 19)" (Order
Denying Reconsideration), and the December 26, 2025 "Final
Judgment."3 Shimauchi's November 16, 2023 Complaint alleged that
she had "suffered significant financial harm" from her former
spouse, Defendant-Appellee John Nuno Rei's (Rei)4 "deliberate and
intentional refusal to comply with the [employment disclosure]
provision of the Divorce Decree," and requested damages.
Shimauchi filed a December 5, 2023 motion requesting
reconsideration of the Circuit Court's November 27, 2023 "Order
Denying [Shimauchi]'s Ex Parte Motion for Personal Service
Without State, Filed November 16, 2023 (Dkt. 12)," in which the
Circuit Court denied her request for out-of-state service and
sua sponte dismissed the Complaint. The February 7, 2024 Order
Denying Reconsideration reaffirmed the dismissal as follows:

The Complaint arises from the parties' Divorce
Decree, and seeks modification of that Decree as related to
child support. As such, the Complaint raises issues that
fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court.
See HRS section 580-1 ("Exclusive original jurisdiction in
matters of . . . divorce is conferred upon the family court
. . . ."). Consistent with [Shimauchi]'s purpose and her
apparent understanding of the Family Court's jurisdiction,
[Shimauchi] previously sought and received modification to
her child support obligations, albeit not in the amount she
seeks. See Rei v. Rei, 1 DV141007523; Rei v. Rei, 1FAL-22-
0000001.[5]

3 The Final Judgment was entered pursuant to a December 1, 2025
remand order from this court.
4 While Rei is designated an appellee, he was never served with the
Complaint below and was not a party below or in this appeal. No Answering
Brief was filed.
5 This court affirmed the family court's order regarding
Shimauchi's motion for post-decree relief, which sanctioned Rei for failure
to notify Shimauchi of changes in his employment status but ultimately
concluded that Shimauchi failed to prove that she suffered actual damages in

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

. . . .

Here, the Family Court's exclusive jurisdiction to
address [Shimauchi]'s claims renders this Court without
subject matter to take any further action in this case.
Accordingly, this Court dismisses [Shimauchi]'s Complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and will take no
further action on the [motion for reconsideration].

(Footnote added.)
On appeal, Shimauchi contends that the Circuit Court
"erred in (1) holding that [Shimauchi]'s sole remedy is in
Family Court, (2) in denying [Shimauchi]'s motion to serve [Rei]
out of state, and (3) dismissing her tort claim when she moved
for reconsideration." We address whether the Circuit Court
erred in its determination that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction, as that point is dispositive.
Upon careful review of the record and the Opening
Brief and having given due consideration to the arguments
advanced and the issues raised, we resolve Shimauchi's challenge
as follows.
"The existence of jurisdiction is a question of law
that this court reviews de novo under the right/wrong standard."
Uyeda v. Schermer, 144 Hawaiʻi 163, 170, 439 P.3d 115, 122 (2019)
(citation omitted).
Shimauchi argues that because her Complaint alleges
"[c]ommon law fraud," which "is a tort[,]" she is entitled to a
jury trial under state constitutional and statutory provisions,
and her "constitutional guaranty" of a jury trial cannot be
"overrid[den]" by the family court's "[e]xclusive original
jurisdiction" over divorce decrees under Hawaii Revised Statutes
(HRS) § 580-1(a) (jury trial argument). Shimauchi did not

the form of "overpaid" child support. J.R. v. I.R., No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX,
2025 WL 3301081, at *1-3 (Haw. App. Nov. 26, 2025) (SDO).

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

present this jury trial argument to the Circuit Court, and it is
waived. See State v. Moses, 102 Hawaiʻi 449, 456, 77 P.3d 940,
947 (2003) (applying the general rule that a party's failure to
raise an argument at the trial level waives that argument on
appeal). Shimauchi also argues that under Brooks v. Minn, the
Circuit Court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction in this
matter, because: "Where the family court authorizes payment of a
decree arrearage on a deferred payment basis and payment is not
made, the deferred payment arrearage then becomes a decree-
judgment debt enforceable in both family and civil court."
73 Haw. 566, 573, 836 P.2d 1081, 1085 (1992) (citation and
emphasis omitted). This Brooks argument was also not made below
and is waived. See Moses, 102 Hawaiʻi at 456, 77 P.3d at 947.
In any event, Brooks is inapposite where the Family Court has
not authorized any deferred payment of a decree arrearage.
We conclude the Circuit Court did not err in
determining that it lacked jurisdiction over the Complaint in
this case, under HRS § 580-1(a).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Circuit Court
of the First Circuit's February 7, 2024 Order Denying
Reconsideration and December 26, 2025 "Final Judgment."
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, February 3, 2026.
On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Earle A. Partington,
Chief Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellant.
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Associate Judge

/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Associate Judge

4