Quiros v. Quiros

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
13-MAR-2025
10:45 AM
Dkt. 91 SO

NOS. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

JAIME EDUARDO QUIROS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STEPHANIE ANN QUIROS, Defendant-Appellee

and

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

JAIME EDUARDO QUIROS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STEPHANIE ANN QUIROS, Defendant-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1DV201006681)

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

In these consolidated appeals, self-represented

Plaintiff-Appellant Jaime Eduardo Quiros (Husband) appeals from
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the Family Court of the First Circuit's (family court)1 (1) Order

Denying Husband's Motion for Reconsideration and/or for

Amendment of the December 13, 2021 Order, filed on February 16,

2022 (February 2022 Order); (2) Order Regarding Defendant-

Appellee Stephanie Ann Quiros's (Wife) Motion and Declaration

for Post-Decree Relief, filed on June 1, 2022 (June 2022 Order);

and (3) Order Denying Husband's Motion for Reconsideration

and/or for Amendment of the June 1, 2022 Order, filed on

July 26, 2022 (July 2022 Order).

Husband appears to make four arguments on appeal,2

contending that the family court erred as to: (1) "the Division

of property of marital debt of $6,201.00"; (2) "[Husband's]

request to change alimony due to loss of job"; (3) the "TRO";

and (4) its failure to hold Wife in contempt for her failure to

"file [an] income and expense [statement] as required." Upon

careful review of the record, briefs, and relevant legal

authorities, we address Husband's arguments as follows:

1 The Honorable Bryant Zane and the Honorable Courtney N. Naso
presided.

2 These arguments appear in the Statement of the Case and "Issue[s]
Raised" sections in Husband's "Informal Opening Brief," filed in CAAP-22-
0000147. Husband's "Pro Se Appellant's Opening Brief," filed in CAAP-22-
0000505, generally asks this court to "open and relook at this case" but does
not set forth any discernible issues for review.
We note that self-represented Husband's briefs are in many ways
substantially non-compliant with the requirements of Hawaiʻi Rules of
Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28. Among other things, Husband's opening
briefs do not set forth "points of error" in compliance with HRAP Rule
28(b)(4).

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

(1) "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."

Brutsch v. Brutsch, 139 Hawaiʻi 373, 381, 390 P.3d 1260, 1268

(2017) (citation omitted). Husband makes no discernible

argument as to how the family court abused its discretion in its

"property division of marital debt." We thus exercise our

authority to "disregard a particular contention if the appellant

makes no discernible argument in support of that position." In

re Guardianship of Carlsmith, 113 Hawaiʻi 236, 246, 151 P.3d 717,

727 (2007) (cleaned up).

(2) Husband next appears to challenge the family

court's entry of its February 2022, June 2022, and July 2022

Orders.

We first address Husband's contention that the family

court abused its discretion in entering its February 2022 Order

denying reconsideration of the spousal support award.3 "[Hawaii

Revised Statutes] § 580-47(d) [(2018)] provides for future

modification of spousal support orders upon a showing of

material changes in circumstances or other good cause."

3 The family court awarded spousal support to Wife in its Divorce
Decree, filed on July 16, 2021, and denied Husband's July 30, 2021 post-
decree motion to modify the spousal support award in its Order Denying
Husband's Motion for Post-Decree Relief, filed on December 13, 2021. Husband
did not appeal either ruling.

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

Jacoby v. Jacoby, 134 Hawaiʻi 431, 446, 341 P.3d 1231, 1246 (App.

2014).

It appears that Husband's motion for reconsideration

of the spousal support award alleged a loss of employment that

occurred prior to the family court's issuance of the July 16,

2021 Divorce Decree, and the December 13, 2021 Order Denying

Husband's Motion for Post-Decree Relief.4 "The purpose of a

motion for reconsideration is to allow the parties to present

new evidence and/or arguments that could not have been presented

during the earlier adjudicated motion." Tagupa v. Tagupa, 108

Hawai‛i 459, 465, 121 P.3d 924, 930 (App. 2005) (cleaned up).

The loss of employment evidence that Husband relies upon as a

basis for modification of the spousal support award was known to

Husband at the time the family court considered Husband's motion

for post-decree relief. See id. ("Reconsideration is not a

device to relitigate old matters or to raise arguments or

evidence that could and should have been brought during the

earlier proceeding.") (citation omitted). We therefore conclude

that the family court did not abuse its discretion in issuing

its February 2022 Order denying Husband's motion for

reconsideration.

4 Husband produced exhibits showing that he was terminated from his
employment at Joint Base Pearl Harbor – Hickam effective April 24, 2021, and
from his employment with JN Group effective April 8, 2021.

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

We next address Husband's contention that default was

erroneously granted with regard to Wife's request for

enforcement of the spousal support award. The family court's

June 2022 Order awarded spousal support arrearages to Wife on

the basis of Husband "inexcusably fail[ing] to appear" at the

hearing, and the July 2022 Order denied Husband's motion for

reconsideration of the June 2022 Order. We construe self-

represented Husband's July 2022 motion for reconsideration as a

Hawaiʻi Family Court Rules (HFCR) Rule 55(c) motion to set aside

Husband's default.

Pursuant to HFCR Rule 55(c), "[f]or good cause shown

the court may set aside an entry of default[.]" See also

Chen v. Mah, 146 Hawaiʻi 157, 177 & n.21, 457 P.3d 796, 816 &

n.21 (2020) (holding that HFCR Rule 55(c) motions "are governed

only by the plain language 'good cause' standard explicitly

stated in the rule"). It is not clear from the record and the

July 2022 Order that the family court applied the good cause

standard in evaluating Husband's contentions.5 We therefore

vacate the family court's July 2022 Order and remand with

instructions that the family court apply the good cause standard

in its consideration of Husband's contentions. If the family

5 Husband alleged that he appeared at the courthouse for the June
2022 hearing, but that he was denied entry into the courtroom because he was
told he was "too late." The family court's July 2022 Order summarily denied
Husband's request to set aside his default.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

court finds good cause that warrants setting aside the default,

the family court should then reconsider, on the merits of

Husband's argument, its June 2022 Order granting Wife's motion

for spousal support arrearages.

(3) To the extent that Husband is challenging the

"TRO," it appears that Husband is referencing a temporary

restraining order that was issued in a separate case, FC-DA 20-

1-2711. Any order issued in FC-DA 20-1-2711 is not a part of

the record of this case, and it is not appealed here. We

therefore do not review the "TRO."

(4) We find lacking in merit Husband's argument that

the family court erred in "fail[ing] to hold [Wife] in contempt

of court [for] failing to file the income and expense

[statement][as] required," and that Husband was therefore "not

provide[d] with such information and . . . could not dispute

some of the false information submitted."

The record reflects that the family court ordered

Husband and Wife to "drop off their exhibits at the Kapolei

Courthouse by November 17, 2021 for exchange to [the] other

party and for the Court to receive its copies" in advance of its

continued December 1, 2021 hearing on Husband's motion for post-

decree relief. Both Husband and Wife's updated Income and

Expense Statements were filed on November 17, 2021, and Husband

has not shown that he did not receive Wife's filings or that he

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

was unable to dispute "false information" presented by Wife. It

appears that Husband was present for the hearing on his motion

for post-decree relief, and the family court took Husband's

motion and the parties' submissions into consideration in its

ruling.6

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the family

court's February 2022 Order and June 2022 Order, but we vacate

the family court's July 2022 Order and remand for further

proceedings consistent with this summary disposition order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, March 13, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Acting Chief Judge
Jaime E. Quiros,
Self-represented /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Plaintiff-Appellant. Associate Judge

Stephanie Ann Quiros, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Self-represented Associate Judge
Defendant-Appellee.

6 The record does not include any transcripts, but it reflects that
Husband was present at the December 1, 2021 hearing, which was held after
Wife filed her updated Income and Expense Statement on November 17, 2021.
The family court's December 13, 2021 Order Denying Husband's
Motion for Post-Decree Relief, which was not appealed by Husband, provides
that "[a]fter taking judicial notice of the records and files of this case
and after considering [Husband's] motion, the credible and reliable evidence
presented, and the applicable law, this [c]ourt hereby denies [Husband's]
Motion for Post-Decree Relief in its entirety."

7