Griffin v. Griffin

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
12-JUL-2024
08:09 AM
Dkt. 61 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

DAVID BENNETT GRIFFIN, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
v.
AMPORN NOIHA GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 3DV17100134K)

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

David Bennett Griffin appeals, and Amporn Noiha Griffin
cross-appeals, from the Divorce Decree entered by the Family
Court of the Third Circuit on May 14, 2020.1 We affirm.
David and Amporn were married on February 11, 2014.
David filed for divorce on June 16, 2017. Trial was held on
March 5, 2020. The family court enforced the parties' Premarital
Agreement, which required that David pay $150,000 to Amporn
within 30 days after the Divorce Decree was filed. The court
also ordered that David and Amporn bear their own attorney's fees
and costs.2 The court entered findings of fact (FOF),
conclusions of law, and an order granting the divorce. David and

1
The Honorable Wendy M. DeWeese presided.
2
The family court had ordered that David advance $7,500 to Amporn
for attorney's fees, subject to reallocation at trial. The family court
credited that amount to David, so that David's total payment of $150,000 to
Amporn was reduced to $142,500.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Amporn do not challenge the findings of fact. The Divorce Decree
was entered on May 14, 2020. These appeals followed.

David's Appeal

David and Amporn signed the Premarital Agreement on
February 11, 2014. It provided that should the parties divorce,
David would pay Amporn $150,000 in lieu of any alimony or spousal
support. David testified that Amporn was "ripping things up"
after they had an argument. David left the house. When he
returned, the signed Premarital Agreement and a signed amendment
were missing. Amporn denied destroying the Premarital Agreement;
she also denied seeing, signing, or tearing up an amendment to
it. The family court admitted an unsigned copy of the Premarital
Agreement into evidence by stipulation; David and Amporn
stipulated it "was a valid and enforceable agreement."
On March 26, 2014 (just over a month after they
married), David transferred $132,000 to Amporn's mother in
Thailand to buy an acre of land. David testified he and Amporn
spoke about how that money would be an advance on the $150,000 he
would owe Amporn if they were divorced. David testified he asked
his attorney to draft an amendment to the Premarital Agreement.
He sent the $132,000 to Amporn's mother without having Amporn
sign anything. David testified that Amporn "continued to ask him
for $15,000 to finalize the land purchase." David testified he
received the Premarital Agreement amendment around August 2014,
he and Amporn signed it, and he transferred $15,000 to Amporn's
mother on October 17, 2014. David argues that the family court
erred by failing to credit the $147,000 he paid to Amporn's
mother against his $150,000 liability under the Premarital
Agreement.
In addition to the $147,000 David sent to Amporn's
mother, he had paid $112,1703 to Amporn and her relatives over
the course of their relationship, and Amporn bought a vehicle
using $20,000 of David's money. The family court found:

3
The family court's FOF No. 27 contains a mathematical error.

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

32. The Court does not find it credible that [David] as an
educated and successful business owner and consultant,
who was sophisticated enough to understand pre-
marriage that he needed to protect his assets and
insisted on a [premarital agreement], would now, post-
marriage allow himself to be "intimidated" or
"pressured" by [Amporn]. The Court finds it is not
credible that [David] would make a "business deal" (as
he put it) with [Amporn] to the tune of $147,000 and
not have the "business deal" memorialized in advance
by a writing. Moreover, once the deal was allegedly
done, according to [David], he made no copies of the
Amendment, did not send the original or any type of
copy to his attorney, or even clearly notify his
attorney that the Amendment had been signed. He did
not employ the services of a notary, nor did he have
the Amendment translated into Thai as he had done with
the PMA, less than a year earlier. And, even after
[Amporn] tore up the Amendment, he continued to give
substantial sums of money to her family. The Court
does not find credible evidence that [David]
negotiated an Amendment.[4] Instead the Court finds
as to the money sent to [Amporn]'s mother, that it was
a gift, just like the other amounts [David] gave to
[Amporn] and her family members.

(Bold italics added.)
"It is well-settled that an appellate court will not
pass upon issues dependent upon the credibility of witnesses and
the weight of evidence; this is the province of the trier of
fact." Fisher v. Fisher, 111 Hawai#i 41, 46, 137 P.3d 355, 360
(2006) (citation omitted). We will not disturb the family
court's credibility determination. Id. Its finding that the
money David sent to Amporn's mother was a gift is supported by
substantial evidence, and is not challenged on appeal by David.
That finding is dispositive of David's appeal; we need not
address David's contentions that the family court's conclusions
of law were wrong.

4
"After marriage, a premarital agreement may be amended or revoked
only by a written agreement signed by the parties. The amended agreement or
the revocation is enforceable without consideration." Hawaii Revised Statutes
§ 572D-5 (2018).

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

Amporn's Cross-Appeal

Amporn contends the family court erred by not awarding
her attorney's fees or costs. We review for abuse of discretion.
Markham v. Markham, 80 Hawai#i 274, 287–88, 909 P.2d 602, 615–16
(App. 1996). The family court concluded:

17. It is fair and reasonable, in light of this Court's
conclusion that the [Premarital Agreement] shall be
enforced, which awards [Amporn] $150,000 without
offset of the $147,000 given to [Amporn]'s mother,
that each side bear his or her own attorney fees and
costs.

Amporn's statement of the points of error does not
challenge the family court's conclusion. See Hawai#i Rules of
Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b)(4) ("Points not presented in
accordance with this section will be disregarded[.]").
Nevertheless, Amporn argues "[David's] assets are significant
compared to [Amporn] as shown in their separate Asset and Debt
Statements." Amporn's asset and debt statement provides either
no information about the values of her assets, or values based on
Thai baht with no exchange rate shown. On this record, we cannot
conclude that the family court abused its discretion by ruling
that David and Amporn must bear their own attorneys' fees and
costs.
For these reasons, the Divorce Decree entered by the
family court on May 14, 2020, is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 12, 2024.

On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Scot Stuart Brower, Acting Chief Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellant/
Cross-Appellee. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Associate Judge
Fred I. Waki,
for Defendant-Appellee/ /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Cross-Appellant. Associate Judge

4