CourtListener 10743250

Testo completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
26-NOV-2025
07:51 AM
Dkt. 62 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

J.R., Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
I.R., now known as I.S., Defendant-Appellant
(CASE NO. 1DV141007523)

AND

I.R., now known as I.S., Appellant, v.
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, STATE OF HAWAI#I,
and J.R., Appellees
(CASE NO. 1FAL-XX-XXXXXXX)

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, and Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)

This appeal arises out of post-divorce proceedings
between Defendant-Appellant I.R., now known as I.S. (Mother), and
Plaintiff-Appellee J.R. (Father) regarding Mother's claim that
she "overpaid" child support. Mother appeals from the "Decision
and Order Regarding [Mother's] December 19, 2022 Motion for Post-
Decree Relief" (Decision and Order) entered on May 11, 2023, by
the Family Court of the First Circuit (family court).1/
Father and Mother were divorced pursuant to a Divorce
Decree entered on April 7, 2017. They have one child (the
Child), born in 2006.
In the Divorce Decree, the family court awarded sole
physical custody of the Child to Father and ordered Mother to pay

1/
The Honorable Dyan M. Medeiros presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

child support to Father in the amount of $1,069.00 per month
pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines Worksheet. Paragraph 8
of the Divorce Decree provided, in part:

For so long as [Mother] shall have an obligation
to pay child support, [Mother] shall promptly advise
[Father] in writing of any changes in her employment,
indicating the name and address of her new employer
and [Mother's] then current gross monthly income from
all sources. [Father] shall promptly advise [Mother]
of any change in his employment status in writing,
indicating the name and address of his new employer
and his then current gross monthly income from all
sources.

All of the foregoing shall be subject to further
order of the Court.

On December 17, 2018, the family court granted Father
permission to relocate to Massachusetts with the Child.
On December 19, 2022, Mother filed the motion for post-
decree relief (Motion) that is the subject of this appeal.
Mother claimed that Father violated the Divorce Decree by failing
to disclose his employment status, employer and true income upon
relocating, resulting in Father receiving child support in the
amount of $58,795.00 that he was not entitled to receive. Father
opposed the Motion on various grounds.
On April 12, 2023, the family court held a hearing on
the Motion, received testimony and other evidence, and took the
matter under advisement.
On May 11, 2023, the family court issued the Decision
and Order. The family court ruled that the Divorce Decree did
not require either party to notify the other of a change in their
income unless there was also a change in their employment status.
Father failed to comply with this duty to notify Mother when he
lost employment in February 2019 and when he obtained new
employment in June 2019. The family court concluded, however,
that Mother failed to prove that she suffered actual damages in
the form of "overpaid" child support as a result of Father's new
employment. The family court sanctioned Father $500.00 for the
failure to make the notification, to be offset against
outstanding amounts Mother owed Father.
On July 24, 2023, the family court issued Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law (FOFs/COLs).

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

On appeal, Mother contends that the family court erred:
(1) in failing to enforce paragraph 8 of the Divorce Decree
against Father;2/ (2) in denying Mother attorney's fees and costs
and in sanctioning Father only $500.00 for his "wilful
disobedience" of the duty to disclose under the Divorce Decree;
and (3) in sustaining Father's objection to Mother's question as
to whether he told his attorney to notify Mother of his change in
employment and earnings.
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
Mother's contentions as follows, and affirm.
(1) Mother contends that "[t]he family court erred in
failing to enforce paragraph 8 of the Divorce Decree against
Father as to his new job in Boston and his monthly earnings and
bonuses . . . ." (Capitalization altered.) She argues that the
family court had a duty to enforce its own judgment, and erred by
not ordering Father to disclose his employment and gross monthly
income from all sources, which precluded her from establishing
her fraud claim.
The family court did not err in construing Paragraph 8
of the Divorce Decree. Paragraph 8 did not require Father to
notify Mother of a change in his income unless there was also a
change in his employment status. Accordingly, Father was
required to notify Mother when he lost employment in February
2019 and when he obtained new employment in June 2019, indicating
his then current gross monthly income from all sources. However,
he was not required thereafter to provide Mother with monthly
earnings statements or bonus information.
Mother argues generally that the family court failed to
enforce Paragraph 8 by ordering Father to provide "the ordered
information," but does not specify what that information was.

2/
Relatedly, Mother summarily challenges FOFs 39 through 46, but
presents no specific argument as to why any of them is clearly erroneous.
"This court is not obliged to address matters for which the appellant[ ] ha[s]
failed to present discernible arguments." Hussey v. Say, 139 Hawai #i 181,
191, 384 P.3d 1282, 1292 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
Exotics Hawai#i-Kona, Inc. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 116 Hawai #i 277,
288, 172 P.3d 1021, 1032 (2007)); see HRAP Rule 28(b)(7).

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

The court acknowledged that Father failed to notify Mother of his
employment changes (and related income) in 2019 and sanctioned
him for it. To the extent Mother claims the court should have
ordered Father, pursuant to Paragraph 8, to notify Mother of
changes in his income after June 2019, her argument is without
merit.
Additionally, the Motion itself did not request an
order compelling disclosure of any information by Father, and
instead sought "the [c]ourt's assistance to have Father refund
the amount that was overpaid to him based on his true income, or
to credit Mother for her overpayment towards any debt that she
owes him." It was not until closing argument during the
April 12, 2023 hearing that Mother's attorney asked the family
court to order Father to provide his monthly pay statements from
2019 to November 2021.3/ In these circumstances, the family court
did not abuse its discretion in declining to make such an order.
On this record, COLs 4 and 5 are not wrong.
(2) Mother contends that the family court erred in
denying her attorney's fees and costs and in sanctioning Father
only $500.00 for his "willful disobedience" of the duty to
disclose under the Divorce Decree.
Sanctions imposed by a court must be commensurate with
the offense. Weinberg v. Dickson-Weinberg, 123 Hawai#i 68, 77,
229 P.3d 1133, 1142 (2010). Here, the family court found Father
credible when he testified that he did not consider whether his
loss of employment in March 2019 or his new employment in June
2019, at a higher salary, would affect child support
calculations. We "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) (quoting In re Doe, 95 Hawai#i
183, 190, 20 P.3d 616, 623 (2001)).
Without a showing that Mother suffered actual damages
in the form of "overpaid" child support, or that Father acted in

3/
It appears that Mother already had at least some of Father's
relevant income information when she filed the Motion, as she attached copies
of Father's W-2 statements for 2020 and 2021, and a November 10, 2021
statement from his employer confirming Father's average monthly gross income.

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

willful disobedience of the Divorce Decree in failing to make the
disclosure, the imposition of a $500.00 sanction and denial of
Mother's request for fees and costs was not an abuse of
discretion.
On this record, COLs 6 and 10 are not wrong.
(3) Mother contends that the family court erred at the
April 12, 2023 hearing when it sustained Father's objection
during the following exchange:

Q. (By [Mother's Counsel]) All right. Well, why did
you defy this court order?
A. I did not defy the court order. I simply was
working through attorneys in the processes of the family
court and CSEA for all matters that were relevant to those
issues, because of the constant litigation.

Q. Well, this order says plaintiff. That was you,
isn't that correct, you're the plaintiff?
A. Yes.

Q. Shall promptly advise defendant of any changes in
his employment status in writing indicating the name and
address of his new employer and his then current gross
monthly income for all sources. You didn't do that, did
you?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you ask his -- your attorney to tell your
ex-wife?

[FATHER' COUNSEL]: Objection. That goes into
privileged communications that are not admissible before the
Court.

[MOTHER'S COUNSEL]: It's not a -- it's not a
privileged communication, Your Honor. The -- the divorce
decree ordered him to do this. If he did it through his
attorney, I have a right to know that.
THE COURT: I think it does go to privilege what he
communicated to his attorney. You can ask him if his
attorney communicated that to her attorney, but you can't
ask him what he told his attorney. Objection is sustained.

(Emphases added.) Mother argues that she "certainly had the
right to know if Father told his attorney to communicate the
required information to her. If he did not do so, that is
further evidence of Father's bad faith in that he made no effort
whatsoever to comply with the divorce decree."
The attorney-client privilege allows a client to refuse
to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing,

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

confidential communications made between the client and his
lawyer for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of
professional legal services to the client. Hawai#i Rules of
Evidence Rule 503. Here, the family court correctly sustained
the objection to Mother's question asking Father whether he told
his attorney to notify Mother of his change in employment and
earnings. On its face, Mother's question called for the
disclosure of a protected attorney-client communication, and
Mother presented no valid basis for ignoring the applicable
privilege.
For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the
"Decision and Order Regarding [Mother's] December 19, 2022 Motion
for Post-Decree Relief" entered on May 11, 2023, by the Family
Court of the First Circuit.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 26, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Earl A. Partington Chief Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Christopher D. Thomas Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellee.
/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Associate Judge