CourtListener 10856439

Testo completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
08-MAY-2026
08:06 AM
Dkt. 51 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

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

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

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 3FDV-XX-XXXXXXX)

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

This appeal challenges the family court's entry of a
default divorce decree that contained terms beyond what was
prayed for in the complaint. We vacate and remand.
Defendant-Appellant K.R. (Husband) appeals from the
May 20, 2025 "Divorce Decree," entered by the Family Court of
the Third Circuit (Family Court).1
Husband contends the Family Court erred by entering
the Divorce Decree as a default judgment, granting items of
relief beyond what the complaint requested without a proof

1 The Honorable Jeffrey W. Ng presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

hearing, by altering visitation, ordering a sale of the marital
residence, and increasing Husband's child support obligation.2
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, we resolve the
contention as follows.
On January 3, 2025, self-represented Plaintiff-
Appellee J.R. (Wife) filed a "Complaint for Divorce"
(Complaint). Wife requested that Husband be awarded
"[s]upervised visitation" of the children (Children) "as stated
in [an] active Protective Order." The Complaint further
requested that "[a]ll assets" and "debts" be "divided in a just
and equitable way." Attached to the Complaint was an "Exhibit
Pertaining to Conciliation, Child Care, and Child Custody
Proceedings" (Exhibit) and "Matrimonial Divorce Action
Information" (MAI).
On January 30, 2025, a "Proof of Service" was filed,
stating that Husband was personally served with the Complaint,
MAI, Exhibit, and the Kids First Information Sheet on January
22, 2025.
On March 28, 2025, Wife filed a "Motion for Default"
and attached a "Certificate of Service," certifying service of
the motion on Husband.
On March 31, 2025, the Family Court entered default
against Husband.

2
We have consolidated and restated Husband's points of error for
clarity. In light of our disposition, we need not address the remaining
contention that the Family Court erred by issuing the Divorce Decree "without
entering findings of fact and conclusions of law despite a timely request."
(Emphasis added.) The record reflects that the request was not timely filed,
and Husband's August 18, 2025 request for findings of fact and conclusions of
law acknowledges it, i.e. asserting "that there was good cause for the
untimeliness of this request[.]" (Emphasis added.)
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On May 15, 2025, Wife filed an "Asset and Debt
Statement" listing the marital residence for the first time.
Wife stated that the property was purchased for $150,000.00,
that $113,076.00 was still owed on the property, and that the
current gross value of the property was $350,000.00.
On May 20, 2025, Wife filed the Child Support
Guidelines Worksheet (CSGW). Wife claimed Husband made
$6,933.00 per month and requested Husband pay $1,200.00 per
month in child support because Husband "charges cash" for
carpentry work and "does not file accurately his income" [sic].
On May 20, 2025, Wife filed an "Affidavit of Plaintiff
(For Uncontested Divorce)" (Affidavit), stating that default was
entered against Husband, and requesting a deviation from the
child support guidelines because Husband "charges clients cash"
and "does not file what he makes."
On May 20, 2025, Wife also filed a Proposed Divorce
Decree. Wife proposed that Husband be awarded "visitation at
the discretion of the [C]hildren and [Wife]" as "stated in the
active Protective Order"; however, when the protective order
expires, "visitation will be at the discretion of [Wife] with
consideration of the [C]hildren's desires." Wife also proposed
that Husband pay child support in the amount of $1,200.00 per
month. Lastly, Wife proposed that the marital property "be sold
at fair market value with [e]quity to be split equally," and
that Husband have "45 days to vacate the property and leave all
structures and infrastructures in tact [sic]."
The record reflects that all of Wife's filings after
the March 28, 2025 Motion for Default had a "Notice of
Electronic Filing"; and these notices stated that Husband needed
to be "conventionally served[.]" The record does not reflect

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

that Husband was conventionally served with Wife's post-default
filings.
On May 20, 2025, the Family Court approved the
Proposed Divorce Decree, from which Husband timely appealed.
Husband argues that the Family Court "deprived
[Husband] of notice and the opportunity to respond" when it
granted the Divorce Decree that included "relief not pleaded" in
the Complaint. Husband contends that "[Hawaiʻi Family Court
Rules (HFCR)] Rule 54(c) forbids default judgments that differ
in kind or exceed what the pleadings demand" and that Wife "did
not request that visitation be placed at [Wife']s discretion or
extended indefinitely beyond the term of the protective order"
in the Complaint; and Wife did not serve Husband prior to
default "with any documents that mentioned the marital
residence" nor "requested a change to [Husband]'s child support
obligations."
Wife argues that Husband was "served with the
Complaint for Divorce, which placed . . . custody
determinations[] and equitable division of property at issue,"
and Husband "had the opportunity to be heard by filing a
response," and his "failure to do so resulted in default."3
HFCR Rule 55, entitled "Default," provides for
judgment by default in subsection (b) with a proof hearing, as
follows:
(b) Judgment. In a contested or uncontested action, where
it appears from the record and by testimony (or by
affidavit or declaration in an uncontested matrimonial
action) that the adverse party has been duly served with

3 Wife also argues that Husband should have filed an HFCR Rule
60(b) motion for relief to set aside default before filing this appeal. We
note that Husband is not challenging the entry of default or seeking relief
from the default; rather, Husband contends that the default judgment in this
case, i.e. the Divorce Decree, went beyond what was prayed for in the
Complaint.
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the complaint or dispositive motion, and the adverse party
has failed to appear or otherwise defend as provided by
these rules, the court may grant an entry of default and
proceed with a proof hearing, when a hearing is required,
and enter a default judgment.

(Emphasis added.) HFCR Rule 54 entitled "Judgment; Costs,"
contains a limitation for default judgments, as follows:

(c) Demand for judgment. A judgment by default shall not
be different in kind from or exceed in amount that which
was prayed for in the demand for judgment. Except as to a
party against whom a judgment is entered by default, every
final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in
whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party
has not demanded such relief in the party's pleadings.

(Emphasis added.)
In Uyeno v. Uyeno, this court held that the family
court erred in granting default judgment and allowing husband to
be awarded an offset from wife's share of husband's retirement
benefits even though said offset was never mentioned, requested,
nor prayed for prior to default. 105 Hawaiʻi 335, 340-41,
97 P.3d 411, 416-17 (App. 2004). In MD v. JR, this court held
that the family court erred when it "granted relief by default
that was different in kind from (and greater than) the relief
sought" by father prior to entry of default, and mother was "not
provided with notice of the scope of [f]ather's new claim . . .
and a meaningful opportunity to defend against it." No.
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2022 WL 3011147, at *2-5 (Haw. App. July 29,
2022) (mem. op.).
Here, Wife did not make any claim as to the division
of the marital property, child support payments, and custody
prior to the entry of default against Husband. In the
Complaint, Wife requested Husband be awarded supervised visits
"as stated in [the] active Protective Order." While Wife

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

requested that "[a]ll assets" and "debts" "be divided in a just
and equitable way[,]" Wife made no specific claims regarding the
marital property. See Uyeno, 105 Hawaiʻi at 341, 97 P.3d at 417
(holding that although there were "equitable deviation issues"
noted in a pretrial order prior to default, it did not "specify"
the issues or "mention any claim . . . for reimbursement or
offset"). Lastly, Wife made no claim as to child support
payments and Husband's income.
After default was entered against Husband, Wife filed
an Asset and Debt Statement listing the marital residence; an
Affidavit and CSGW claiming Husband made $6,933.00 per month and
requesting a deviation from the CSGW; and the Proposed Decree
with terms that visitation "be at the discretion of [Wife],"
Husband pay "$1[,]200 per month" in child support, and the
marital residence be sold "with [e]quity to be split equally"
and Husband to "have 45 days to vacate the property." None of
these filings, however, were conventionally served on Husband as
required. See Hawaiʻi Electronic Filing & Service Rules (HEFSR)
Rule 14 and 6.5
We conclude the Family Court abused its discretion in
issuing the Divorce Decree, which contained terms that went
beyond what was prayed for prior to default, and where Husband
was not provided with notice of Wife's new claims. See

4 HEFSR Rule 1 defines "[c]onventional service" as "providing a
paper document or printed copy of a document to a party . . . as required by
law or rule of court and submitting a certificate to the court attesting to
the fact the paper document or printed copy of a document was so provided."
5 HEFSR Rule 6.2, entitled "Conventional Service of Electronically
Filed Documents," requires that the filing party "shall provide conventional
service of electronically filed documents that are required to be served to
parties who are not JEFS Users or who have not consented to electronic
service. The filing party shall file a certificate of conventional service."
6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Kakinami, 127 Hawaiʻi 126, 136, 276 P.3d 695, 705 (2012)
("Generally, the family court possesses wide discretion in
making its decisions and those decisions will not be set aside
unless there is a manifest abuse of discretion." (citation
omitted)).
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the Family
Court's May 20, 2025 Divorce Decree and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this Summary Disposition Order.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, May 8, 2026.
On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Sharla A. Manley,
Chief Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
J.R.,
Associate Judge
Self-Represented Plaintiff-
Appellee.
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge