S.R. v. J.R.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
08-FEB-2024
08:35 AM
Dkt. 163 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

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

S.R., Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
J.R., Defendant-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(FC-D NO. 18-1-0032)

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

Self-represented Plaintiff-Appellant S.R. (SR) appeals

from the April 9, 2021 Written Findings of Facts [(FOFs)],

Conclusions of Law [(COLs)], Decisions and Orders Following

Divorce Complaint and Motion for Relocation Trial (Final Order)

entered by the Family Court of the Second Circuit (Family

Court).1

SR raises three points of error (POE) on appeal,

contending that: (1) the Family Court erred in denying SR shared

custody of the parties' child (Child) and limiting his visitation

to four-hour visits because SR had overcome the Family Court's

1
The Honorable Adrianne N. Heely presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

prior finding that SR committed family violence, and there is no

risk to Child or Defendant-Appellee J.R. (JR); (2) the Family

Court abused its discretion and violated statutory provisions in

the Final Order because it denied SR meaningful and reasonable

contact with Child and encouraged JR to allow that time to occur

via virtual contact or in person while in Florida and/or Maui;

and (3) SR was denied due process because JR made

misrepresentations throughout the litigation to gain an

advantage, and those alleged misrepresentations resulted in the
Family Court approving false FOFs, which negatively impacted SR's

parenting rights and property division.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

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

resolve SR's points of error as follows:

(1) SR presents numerous arguments, and challenges

multiple FOFs and COLs, in conjunction with his first point of

error. We conclude, however, that the record does not support

SR's contentions that the Family Court prejudged the issues of

custody and relocation. Nor does the record support SR's

contentions that the Family Court erred, clearly erred, or abused

its discretion in evidentiary rulings and denial of SR's request

to testify again in rebuttal. The Family Court recognized,

considered, and evaluated testimony and other evidence concerning

SR's efforts to address the history of family violence and abuse.

We reject SR's contentions that the Family Court clearly erred in

weighing the evidence presented over a multi-day trial or abused

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

its discretion in its ultimate decisions as to custody and

visitation.

(2) In the second POE, SR argues, variously, that the

Family Court did not in fact grant him reasonable and meaningful

contact/visitation with Child in light of the limitations placed

on contact/visitation, particularly with respect to the Family

Court's decision (a) to allow JR to relocate to Florida, and (b)

to allow contact/visitation by FaceTime, Zoom, WebEx or similar

means when SR and Child are in different locations. It is clear
from the record that the Family Court considered all of the

evidence from both parties, the findings of family violence, and

the extensive litigation in the Family Court, as well as the 2018

custody evaluation, and applied the best-interest-of-the-child

standard to the issues of custody, visitation and relocation.

Contrary to SR's arguments, the Family Court's decisions

concerning relocation and contact/visitation are grounded in

Child's needs, interests, and schedule. We cannot conclude that

the Family Court abused its discretion in determining the best

interests of Child, and we conclude that SR was not deprived of

reasonable and meaningful contact/visitation with Child.

(3) SR's third POE, in substance, challenges the Family

Court's findings that JR was credible and SR was not credible.

"[I]t is well-settled that an appellate court will not pass upon

issues dependent upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight

of the evidence; this is the province of the trier of fact." LC

v. MG & Child Support Enf't Agency, 143 Hawai#i 302, 310–11, 430

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

P.3d 400, 408–09 (2018). We decline to disturb the Family

Court's determinations of credibility.

In conjunction with this POE, SR states multiple

challenges to the Family Court's calculations for income and

property division.

SR argues that the Family Court clearly erred in

establishing the value of his one Bitcoin as of April 9, 2020,

because it has since fluctuated in value, in a lower range. The

Family Court recognized the wide fluctuation in the value of
Bitcoin and took into account that SR's Bitcoin was the one major

asset of the marital estate in conjunction with the court's

review of the parties' income and expenses, assets and debts.

Father fails to establish that the Family Court clearly erred in

assigning this asset a value at the conclusion of the evidentiary

portion of trial.

As argued by SR, the Family Court clearly erred in

stating that there was no evidence that JR had student loan debt

when the parties married. However, the Family Court determined,

inter alia, that all debt in JR's sole name, i.e., the student

loan debt, is JR's responsibility. (Likewise, for SR's sole

debts.) There were no joint debts, no equalization payments, and

no alimony. SR was fully allocated the value of his date-of-

marriage assets, retained the Bitcoin, seven vehicles of various

vintages (JR retained one Toyota), and the overall partnership

calculation left JR with a substantial negative "Total Value

Received" in the Partnership Model Calculation. We conclude that

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

the Family Court's error in not specifically identifying JR's

pre-marital student loan debt as such was harmless error.

SR's contention that the Family Court clearly erred in

calculating child support based upon the standardized methods set

forth in the 2020 Hawai#i Child Support Guidelines (starting with

gross monthly income), rather than using the net taxable income

calculated by SR's CPA for the purposes of calculating income

taxes, is without merit. See Hawaii Revised Statutes § 571-52.5

(2018) (mandating the use of the Guidelines). SR accurately
points to evidence in the record of JR's gross wages in the 2016

tax year. However, SR's argument that the Family Court clearly

erred in establishing JR's income for child support calculations

– based on website data not in the record on appeal concerning

the "current" (2021) payscale at JR's former employer – is

without merit. SR has failed to demonstrate entitlement to

relief from the Family Court's child support calculation.

Finally, SR argues that the Family Court abused its

discretion in awarding JR's "legal fees that exceeded 2/3 of

[SR's] remaining life savings and the award was based on [JR's]

... false information to the court[.]" Regarding the former

argument, SR provides no authority supporting reversal of the

significantly-reduced amount of fees awarded in this case based

solely on the amount of SR's remaining savings. SR provides no

other support for an appellate determination that the amount of

attorney's fees was unfair or unreasonable under the applicable

legal standard and in light of the overall financial abilities of

the parties and the amounts necessarily incurred under the

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

circumstances of this highly-contested divorce litigation. See

Hamilton v. Hamilton, 138 Hawai#i 185, 209-10, 378 P.3d 901,

925-26 (2016).

Regarding the latter argument, we will not pass upon

the issue of JR's credibility.

We conclude that the Family Court did not abuse its

discretion in the award of attorneys fees.

For these reasons, the Family Court's April 9, 2021

Final Order is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 8, 2024.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Acting Chief Judge
S.R.,
Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro Se. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Associate Judge
Benard M. Herren,
(Cain & Herren, ALC), /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
for Defendant-Appellee. Associate Judge

6