CourtListener 10704476

Texte intégral

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
15-OCT-2025
07:55 AM
Dkt. 43 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

KIRI KAMAKANI KA#ILI ALOHA MALAMA STROBEL,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
BENNETT JOSEPH STROBEL, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO.1DV201007112)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)

Bennett Strobel was married to Kiri Strobel. Bennett
appeals from the September 6, 2023 Amended Divorce Decree entered
by the Family Court of the First Circuit.1 We affirm.
Bennett is in the United States Army. His anticipated
disposable retired pay2 is marital partnership property. Howell
v. Howell, 581 U.S. 214, 215-16 (2017) (stating that 10 U.S.C.
§ 1408(c)(1) authorizes a state court to treat disposable
retirement pay "as community property"). The Decree awarded Kiri
"50% of the Marital Portion of [Bennett]'s disposable retired
pay."
Should Bennett elect to receive tax-free Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) disability benefits, he would have to waive

1
The Honorable Dyan M. Medeiros presided.
2
The term is defined in 10 U.S.C. § 1408(a)(4). It is based on
years of service and rank at retirement.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

an equivalent amount of disposable retired pay. See 10 U.S.C.
§ 1408(a)(4)(A)(ii). VA benefits are not divisible in a divorce
case. Jones v. Jones, 7 Haw. App. 496, 499, 780 P.2d 581, 584
(1989). Nor is the waived portion of disposable retirement pay
divisible. Howell, 581 U.S. at 216 (citing Mansell v. Mansell,
490 U.S. 581, 594–95 (1989)). So if Bennett waived some
disposable retired pay to receive VA disability benefits, Kiri's
share of his disposable retired pay would proportionately
decrease.
The Decree denied Kiri spousal support. But the Family
Court reserved jurisdiction to modify support "if [Bennett]
obtains some form of benefit that reduces [Kiri]'s share of his
military pension (longevity pay) and that reduction results in
[Kiri] needing spousal support at that time." The Decree
provided that Kiri's remarriage "shall not be a bar to invoking
the Court's jurisdiction."
Bennett contends that revisiting spousal support after
reduction in his disposable retired pay is barred by federal law.
He challenges these conclusions of law by the Family Court:

30. To the extent that a unilateral election by
[Bennett] could cause [Kiri] to be unable to support
herself, it is just and equitable that [Kiri] have the right
to make a claim for an appropriate award of spousal support.
[Bennett] will have the right to defend against any such
claim should it arise in the future.

31. Accordingly, pursuant to [Hawaii Revised
Statutes (HRS)] § 580-47, there is good cause to reserve
jurisdiction over the issue of whether [Kiri] should be
awarded spousal support in the future. This reservation of
jurisdiction only applies if [Bennett] obtains some form of
benefit that reduces [Kiri]'s marital share of his
disposable retired pay and that reduction results in [Kiri]
needing spousal support at that time. [Kiri] shall be
required to file a motion invoking the Court's jurisdiction
within six (6) months of any decrease in her payment amount.
[Kiri] shall be required to prove that she should be awarded
spousal support under applicable caselaw and HRS § 580-47.
[Kiri] shall only be awarded an amount of spousal support
necessary under applicable law. [Kiri] shall not simply be
awarded an amount equivalent to the reduction in her marital
share of [Bennett]'s retirement benefit.

32. Remarriage shall not be a bar to invoking the
Court's jurisdiction. The Court may, however, consider

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

[Kiri]s remarriage, if any, in its spousal support analysis
to the extent allowed by Hawai#i law.

We review the Family Court's conclusions of law de novo
under the right/wrong standard. Jacoby v. Jacoby, 150 Hawai#i
158, 165, 498 P.3d 689, 696 (2021).
In Howell the Supreme Court held that a state court may
not increase the non-veteran former spouse's share of the veteran
former spouse's disposable retired pay to indemnify the loss
caused by the waiver. 581 U.S. at 216. However, the Court also
noted:

a family court, when it first determines the value of a
family's assets, remains free to take account of the
contingency that some military retirement pay might be
waived, or, as the petitioner himself recognizes, take
account of reductions in value when it calculates or
recalculates the need for spousal support.

Id. at 222. Accord, Hamilton v. Hamilton, 138 Hawai#i 185, 209,
378 P.3d 901, 925 (2016) (acknowledging that "the need for
spousal support will be related to the property division").
That is what the Family Court did here. It acted
within the law and its discretion. And it included protections
for Bennett consistent with Howell. For example, the Decree
cited HRS § 580-47 and stated that Kiri "shall only be awarded an
amount of spousal support necessary under applicable law. [Kiri]
shall not simply be awarded an amount equivalent to the reduction
in her share of [Bennett]'s retirement benefit."
Bennett also contends the Family Court erred by
retaining jurisdiction over spousal support even if Kiri
remarries. Continuance of spousal support after remarriage is
authorized under HRS § 580-51(a) (2018). The Decree provided
that the Family Court "may . . . consider [Kiri]'s remarriage, if
any, in its spousal support analysis to the extent allowed by
Hawai#i law." The Family Court's retention of jurisdiction over
support after remarriage was consistent with Howell and HRS
§§ 580-47 (2018 & Supp. 2023) and 580-51 (2018). See Jacoby, 150
Hawai#i at 166, 498 P.3d at 697 (stating that "HRS § 580-47(a)

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

specifically provides that '[t]he court may order support and
maintenance to a party for an indefinite period or until further
order of the court'" (underscoring omitted)).
Bennett argues that the Family Court abused its
discretion by "subvert[ing] federal law concerning a military
retiree's benefits." His opening brief states: "The family
court judge's desire to impose her will over the will of Congress
cannot ever be 'good cause' for anything." Thomas D. Farrell
signed the brief. Farrell is cautioned to comply with
Rule 3.5(b) of the Hawai#i Rules of Professional Conduct, and to
heed Comment [2] ("The advocate's function is to present evidence
and argument so that the cause may be decided according to law.
Refraining from abusive or obstreperous conduct is a corollary of
the advocate's right to speak on behalf of litigants.").
The September 6, 2023 Amended Divorce Decree is
affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 15, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Thomas D. Farrell, Presiding Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Associate Judge

/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Associate Judge