D.L. v. C.L.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
23-DEC-2024
07:51 AM
Dkt. 101 SO

NO. CAAP-21-00000454
(CONSOLIDATED WITH NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX)

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

D.L., Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
C.L., Defendant-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(FC-D NO. 16-1-1014)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Acting C.J., and Wadsworth and Nakasone, JJ.)

These consolidated appeals arise out of post-divorce
proceedings between Plaintiff-Appellant D.L. (Father) and
Defendant-Appellee C.L. (Mother). In CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, Father
appeals from the July 7, 2021 "Order Re: January 22, 2021 Further
Evidentiary Hearing Pursuant to ICA's Memorandum Opinion, Filed
February 24, 2020," entered by the Family Court of the First
Circuit (Family Court). In CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, Father appeals from
the August 15, 2022 "Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law
and Order" (Amended Jurisdiction Order), entered by the Family
Court.
In CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, Father contends that the Family
Court erred in denying his request for attorneys' fees. In CAAP-
XX-XXXXXXX, Father contends that the Family Court lacked
jurisdiction to enter the Amended Jurisdiction Order, and "erred
in declining to exercise its exclusive, continuing jurisdiction
'over this matter' and by relinquishing jurisdiction over the
'matter' . . . to the State of Arizona."
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant
legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues
raised and the arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve
Father's contentions as follows.

I. Background

We have been here before. See CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, CAAP-
XX-XXXXXXX, CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX,
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX.
For purposes of the current appeals, we note the
following relevant background:

A. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
On October 23, 2018, Father filed a post-decree motion,
asking the Family Court to modify his monthly child support
obligation in light of Mother's additional income from her new
job, and considering the cost of living in Arizona, where Mother
had relocated with the parties' children (Children); award Father
child support for January through June, 2018, when he had cared
for the Children; and award Father attorneys' fees incurred to
bring the motion (Child Support Motion).
On December 6, 2018, the Family Court entered an order
(Child Support Order), providing:

1. [Father]'s request for an order modifying child
support is GRANTED and . . . [Father]'s monthly child
support obligation is $753.00 per child totaling
$1,506.00 per month commencing August 1, 2018;
2. [Father]'s request for an order awarding child support
in the amount of $3,912.00 per month for the period of
January 1, 2018 through June 30, 2018 is DENIED; and

3. [Father]'s request for an order awarding attorney fees
is DENIED.

Father appealed from the Child Support Order, creating
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX.
On February 24, 2020, this court entered a Memorandum
Opinion in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, ruling that the Family Court erred by
summarily denying Father's request for child support from Mother
for relevant periods of 2018, and by improperly calculating
Father's modified monthly child-support obligation. See DL v.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

CL, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2020 WL 888335, at *8-9 (Haw. App.
Feb. 24, 2020). We further ruled: "[B]ecause we have concluded
that the Family Court's assessment of the merits of the parties
with respect to [Father's Child Support Motion] was significantly
flawed, we cannot conclude that the Family Court's denial of
attorney's fees to [Father] did not constitute an abuse of
discretion." Id. at *10. We vacated the Child Support Order and
remanded the case for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
On July 7, 2021, on remand, the Family Court entered an
order granting in part and denying in part the Child Support
Motion (Second Child Support Order). The order provided in
relevant part:

Based on the state of the evidence, the Court orders
that [Father's Child Support Motion] is Granted as to a
modification of the child support for the period of January
2018 to June 2018, and further orders that [Father] is
entitled to reimbursement of proven child support payments
to [Mother] for the period of January 2018 to June 2018.
[Father] shall prepare an order consistent with this order.
. . . .

. . . In considering the economic condition of each
party, the burdens imposed upon the parties for the benefit
of the Minor Children and other considerations, the Court
orders that [Father's] requested attorney fees is [sic]
denied. See section 580-47(f) of the Hawaii Revised
Statutes.

(Emphasis added.)
On August 5, 2021, Father filed a notice of appeal from
the Second Child Support Order, creating CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX.
On September 13, 2021, the Family Court ordered the
parties, pursuant to Hawai#i Family Court Rules (HFCR) Rule 52,
to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Pursuant to the Second Child Support Order, Father
submitted "an order consistent with th[at] order[,]" titled
"Order on Remand," which the Family Court entered on November 17,
2021. The Order on Remand provided in part:

1. For the year 2018, [Mother] owed to [Father] child
support in the $13,681, [sic] receipt of which is
acknowledged by [Father].
2. Beginning January 2019, [Father]'s monthly child
support obligation is $800 per month and shall continue at
that rate unless modified as permitted by law and so long as
child support is payable by [Father].

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

3. In light of [Mother]'s obligation for 2018 and
[Father]'s obligation to be given effect as of January 1,
2019, the parties agree that [Father] overpaid $22,849 to
[Mother].
4. Beginning February 1, 2021, [Father] has a credit
of $22,849 toward his future child support obligation. At
his election, [Father] may apply the credit toward
satisfying any other financial obligation that he may owe
[Mother] from time to time.

By operation of Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure
(HRAP) Rule 4(a)(2), Father's notice of appeal is deemed to have
been filed immediately after entry of the Order on Remand.
On November 24, 2021, pursuant to HFCR Rule 52, the
Family Court entered its "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Re: Appeal No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX" (FOFs/COLs).

B. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
On September 3, 2020, the Family Court entered the
"Order Re: Joint Evidentiary Hearing of August 28, 2020" (Order
Declining Jurisdiction), which concluded in part that the "State
Of Hawaii declines and relinquishes jurisdiction over this matter
to the State Of Arizona with the exception of the State Of Hawaii
having to address certain issues for final disposition as had
been directed by the Hawaii Appellate Courts." (Footnote
omitted.)
On October 2, 2020, Father filed a notice of appeal
from the Order Declining Jurisdiction, creating CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX.
On February 28, 2022, this court entered a Memorandum
Opinion in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX vacating the Order Declining
Jurisdiction on the basis that we "cannot properly determine
whether the Family Court abused its discretion in declining to
exercise jurisdiction 'over this matter[,]'" and remanding the
case for further findings supporting the court's decision to
relinquish jurisdiction to the Arizona court. DL v. CL, No.
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2022 WL 591822, at *7 (Haw. App. Feb. 28, 2022).
On August 1, 2022, this court entered its Judgment on Appeal.
On August 15, 2022, on remand, the Family Court entered
the Amended Jurisdiction Order in which it, again, declined to
exercise jurisdiction "over this matter" and relinquished
jurisdiction to the State of Arizona "with the exception of the

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

State Of Hawaii Courts having to address any pending appealed
matters."
On September 14, 2022, Father filed a notice of appeal
from the Amended Jurisdiction Order, creating this appeal.1/

II. Discussion

A. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
Father contends that the Family Court erred in denying
his request for attorneys' fees in bringing the Child Support
Motion. He argues in part that the Second Child Support Order,
which denied Father's request for attorneys' fees, is
irreconcilable with the Family Court's later FOFs/COLs, which
"entirely support [Father's] claim to fees . . . ."
HRS § 580-47(f) (2018) states, in relevant part:

The court hearing any motion for orders either revising an
order for the custody, support, maintenance, and education
of the children of the parties . . . , may make such orders
requiring either party to pay or contribute to the payment
of attorney's fees, costs, and expenses of the other party
relating to such motion and hearing as shall appear just and
equitable after consideration of the respective merits of
the parties, the relative abilities of the parties, the
economic condition of each party at the time of the hearing,
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, . . . and all other
circumstances of the case.

Here, the Second Child Support Order denied Father's
request for attorneys' fees based on "the economic condition of
each party, the burdens imposed upon the parties for the benefit
of the Minor Children and other considerations," i.e., at least
two of the factors stated in HRS § 580-47(f). Nevertheless, in
COLs 2 through 13, the Family Court concluded that several
section 580-47(f) factors supported an award of attorneys' fees
to Father. These included: (1) "[t]he significant results
obtained by [Father] demonstrat[ing] the merits of his position";
(2) "[Mother's] conduct in failing to disclose all of her income,
or, at a minimum, presenting a misleading picture as to her

1/
Because these appeals arise from the same civil proceedings,
involve the same parties, and are sufficiently related, on July 5, 2023, we
entered an order consolidating CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX under CAAP-
XX-XXXXXXX.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

actual financial situation and expected income"; (3) "[Mother's]
significantly superior financial position, both at the time of
the December 2018 hearing and currently"; (4) "[Mother's] failure
to follow through with [certain] assurances, [causing Father to]
expend[] considerable resources . . . in order to maintain a
relationship with the Children, for the benefit of the Children"
and (5) "[Mother's] increasingly aggressive litigation initiated
in Arizona, . . . where [Father] is required to retain counsel .
. . at significant expense . . . [which] increases the burdens
imposed on [Father] for the benefit of the Children . . . ."2/
The Second Child Support Order and COLs 2 through 11
are flatly contradictory as to Father's request for attorneys'
fees. Indeed, we cannot reconcile them; we cannot even be sure
how the Family Court ultimately intended to resolve Father's
request. We can only say that to the extent the Second Child
Support Order denied Father's fee request, that decision is not
supported by the court's later COLs. As a result, we again
cannot conclude that the Family Court's denial of attorneys' fees
to Father did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The Family
Court is instructed on remand to make clear whether it is
granting or denying in whole or in part Father's request for
attorneys' fees, in light of the factors set forth in HRS §
580-47(f), and to enter appropriate findings of fact and
conclusions of law supporting its decision.

B. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
Father contends in part that the Family Court lacked
jurisdiction to enter the Amended Jurisdiction Order, following
this court's remand in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX. This contention is
dispositive as to the current appeal in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX.
This court entered its Judgment on Appeal in CAAP-20-
0000593 on August 1, 2022. Although no application for writ of
certiorari was ultimately filed, on August 26, 2022, Father

2/
Father contends that "[i]nsofar as the family court's findings are
in [his] favor, they are not challenged on appeal." However, Mother disputes
the substance of the Family Court's analysis of the section 580-47(f) factors
at pages 7 through 10 of her answering brief – albeit without any citations to
the record. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(7) and (c).

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

sought and received an extension of time to seek certiorari
review up to and including September 30, 2022, pursuant to HRAP
Rule 40.1(a). Pursuant to HRAP Rule 36(c)(1),3/ this court's
judgment became effective "upon the expiration of the extension,"
i.e., October 1, 2022.
"[T]he intermediate court of appeals' judgment cannot
be effective and jurisdiction cannot revert to the court . . .
from which appeal was taken until the time for filing the
application [for a writ of certiorari] has expired . . . ."
Commentary to HRAP Rule 41 (emphasis added); see State v.
Carlton, 146 Hawai#i 16, 23-24, 455 P.3d 356, 363-64 (2019)
(quoting and applying the Commentary to HRAP Rule 41). Thus,
until this court's judgment became effective, the Family Court
did not have jurisdiction to act on our remand instructions in
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX. See Carlton, 146 Hawai#i at 24, 455 P.3d at 364
(holding that, pursuant to the Commentary to HRAP Rule 41, "until
the judgment on appeal becomes effective, the lower court does
not have the power to exercise authority over a case in order to
schedule further proceedings"). Accordingly, the Family Court
did not have jurisdiction to enter the Amended Jurisdiction
Order.
In light of this conclusion, we do not reach Father's
remaining arguments about the Amended Jurisdiction Order.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above:
(1) in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, we vacate the Family Court's
July 7, 2021 "Order Re: January 22, 2021 Further Evidentiary

3/
HRAP Rule 36(c)(1) provides, in relevant part:

(c) Effective date of intermediate court of appeals'
judgment. The intermediate court of appeals' judgment is
effective as follows:
(1) if no application for writ of certiorri is filed,
(A) upon the thirty-first day after entry or

(B) where the time for filing an application for a
writ of certiorari is extended in accordance with Rule
40.1(a) of these rules, upon the expiration of the
extension[.]

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Hearing Pursuant to ICA's Memorandum Opinion, Filed February 24,
2020" with respect to Father's request for attorney's fees;
(2) in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, we vacate the Family Court's
August 15, 2022 "Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Order"; and
(3) we remand this case to the Family Court for further
proceedings consistent with this Summary Disposition Order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 23, 2024.

On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Philip J. Leas Acting Chief Judge
(Cades Schutte LLP)
for Plaintiff-Appellant.
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
C.L., aka C.W., Associate Judge
Self-represented Defendant-
Appellee.
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Associate Judge

8