C.L. v. E.F.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
25-JUN-2025
08:08 AM
Dkt. 158 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

C.L., now known as C.S., Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
E.F., Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1DV151006351)

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

This appeal arises out of post-judgment proceedings in
a divorce case between Plaintiff-Appellee C.L., now known as C.S.
(Mother), and Defendant-Appellant E.F. (Father), both self-
represented. Father appeals from the June 14, 2023 "Order
Denying [Father's] April 10, 2023 Motion to Reconsider Order;
Modify or Vacate Order and Disqualify Judge Jessi Hall" (Order
Denying Reconsideration) and, presumably, the April 6, 2023
"Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part [Father's] Motion to
Modify or Vacate Order and Disqualify Judge" (April 6, 2023
Order), both entered by the Family Court of the First Circuit
(Family Court).1/ Father also appears to challenge the Family
Court's: (1) November 30, 2015 Divorce Decree (Decree);2/ and (2)
February 13, 2019 Order [re] Motion and Declaration for Post-
Decree Relief (February 13, 2019 Order).3/

1/
The Honorable Dyan M. Medeiros presided.
2/
The Honorable Matthew J. Viola presided.
3/
The Honorable Jessi L.K. Hall presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

On August 20, 2015, Jessi L.K. Hall, then a private
attorney, was appointed to serve as the Volunteer Settlement
Master (VSM) in this case. Ms. Hall met with the parties on
September 14, 2015, and settled many (though not all) of the
issues between them. As a result, both parties signed an
Agreement Re: Custody and Visitation (VSM Agreement), which was
filed with the Court on October 7, 2015. In relevant part, the
VSM Agreement stated, "[Mother] shall have the right to relocate
where military PCS orders state."
Following a trial, the Decree was entered on
November 30, 2015. In relevant part, the Decree awarded sole
physical custody of the parties' two children to Mother and
allowed Mother to relocate with the children "to a location
designated in military orders/transfers." There was no appeal
from the Decree. Mother and the parties' children moved to the
State of Virginia in 2016.
On January 9, 2019, Father filed a Motion and
Declaration for Post-Decree Relief (Motion for Post-Decree
Relief). He sought changes in the physical custody of the
children, visitation, and child support. Judge Hall, who had
been appointed as a judge and assigned to family court in the
interim, presided over the February 13, 2019 hearing on Father's
motion. The parties did not file a motion or affidavit
requesting Judge Hall's disqualification or otherwise object to
her presiding over the hearing and deciding the Motion for Post-
Decree Relief. Thereafter, Judge Hall entered the February 13,
2019 Order. Among other things, the February 13, 2019 Order
found that Hawai#i was an inconvenient forum for a child-custody
determination, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)
§ 583A-207, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and
Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), and relinquished custody jurisdiction
to Virginia. There was no appeal from the February 13, 2019
Order. The parties have litigated various child-related issues
in Virginia since Hawai#i released jurisdiction.
Several years later, on February 7, 2023, Father filed
a Motion to Modify or Vacate Order and Disqualify Judge (Motion
to Modify and Disqualify). He argued that the Decree was

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

inconsistent with the VSM Agreement and asked the Family Court to
correct the "errors" in the Decree under Hawai#i Family Court
Rules (HFCR) Rule 60(a). He also asked the Family Court, among
other things, to vacate or modify the February 13, 2019 Order,
and to disqualify Judge Hall from further proceedings in the case
based on her prior involvement as the VSM.
Following a March 29, 2023 hearing, the Family Court
denied the Motion to Modify and Disqualify. In its April 6, 2023
Order, the court ruled that: (1) as to Father's request to
correct alleged errors in the Decree pursuant to HFCR Rule 60(a),
"[t]he alleged error does not appear to be clerical in nature,
and it is not clear that the difference [Father] claims is
actually an error"; and (2) as to Father's request to disqualify
Judge Hall, "[the] request does not satisfy the requirements for
disqualification or recusal." However, to avoid any appearance
of impropriety, the court "order[ed] that Judge Hall shall not
preside over the case in the future."
On April 10, 2023, Father filed a Motion to Reconsider
Order; Motion to Modify or Vacate Order and Disqualify Judge
Jessi Hall (Motion to Reconsider). On June 14, 2023, the Family
Court entered the Order Denying Reconsideration. On September 9,
2023, the court entered its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law (FOFs/COLs).
On appeal, Father contends that the Family Court: (1)
erroneously entered the Decree, which he claims "materially
alter[ed]" the relocation provision in the VSM Agreement; (2)
abused its discretion by denying Father's Motion to Modify and
Disqualify; (3) erred in finding that Hawai#i was an inconvenient
forum for custody under HRS § 583A-207 and in relinquishing
jurisdiction to Virginia; (4) erred in allowing Judge Hall, who
had previously served as the VSM to preside over post-decree
matters, including the February 13, 2019 Order; and (5) abused
its discretion by denying Father's Motion to Reconsider.
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, and affirm.

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

(1) and (2) Father contends that the Family Court (a)
erroneously entered the 2015 Decree, which he claims "materially
alter[ed]" the relocation provision in the VSM Agreement, and (b)
later abused its discretion by denying Father's 2023 Motion to
Modify and Disqualify, which sought to "correct" the error under
HFCR Rule 60(a).
Father did not appeal from the Decree. His argument
that the Family Court erred in entering the Decree is too late
and cannot be sustained.
Father is not too late in arguing that the Family Court
abused its discretion by denying his HFCR Rule 60(a) motion to
correct the alleged error in the Decree. But his argument is
without merit.
We review a circuit court's determination of an HFCR
Rule 60(a) motion for abuse of discretion. See Buscher v.
Boning, 114 Hawai#i 202, 211, 159 P.3d 814, 823 (2007)
(construing analogous Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60).
HFCR Rule 60(a) provides in relevant part that "[c]lerical
mistakes in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record and
errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be
corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on
the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the
court orders." (Emphasis added.) However:

Relief is not appropriate under [HFCR] Rule 60(a) "when the
change is substantive in nature." Wright and Miller,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 2854. . . . Consequently,
"Rule 60(a) is not a vehicle for relitigating matters that
already have been litigated and decided, nor to change what
has been deliberately done." Id. . . . ; see also Donnelly
v. Donnelly, 98 Hawai#i 280, 286, 47 P.3d 747, 753 (App.
2002) ("HFCR Rule 60(a) applies 'to situations in which a
judgment clearly misrepresents what the court meant to
state.'") (quoting 2 James Wm. Moore, Moore's Federal
Practice § 60.11[1][c] (3d ed.)).

Thomas-Yukimura v. Yukimura, 130 Hawai#i 1, 7-8, 304 P.3d 1182,
1188-89 (2013) (footnote and emphasis omitted); id. at 7 n.16,
304 P.3d at 1188 n.16 (noting that authorities interpreting
analogous federal rules are highly persuasive).
Here, Father argues that the Decree – by stating that
"[Mother] shall have the right to relocate with the Children to a

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

location designated in military orders/transfers[,]" –
"materially alter[ed]" the parties' VSM Agreement, which stated
that "[Mother] shall have the right to relocate where military
PCS orders state." Father testified in the Family Court that the
language in the VSM Agreement meant that Mother would have to
join the military in order to obtain "PCS orders" if she wanted
to relocate outside of Hawai#i. As Mother was not in the
military at the time of the VSM Agreement, and the agreement did
not state that Mother was required to join the military to
relocate, the Family Court "d[id] not find [Father's] testimony
credible." See Fisher v. Fisher, 111 Hawai#i 41, 46, 137 P.3d
355, 360 (2006) (it is the family court's province to make
credibility determinations (quoting In re Doe, 95 Hawai#i 183,
190, 20 P.3d 616, 623 (2001))). The Family Court also concluded
that the alleged error "was substantive, not clerical[,] and
therefore could not be modified under HFCR Rule 60(a)."4/
On appeal, Father agrees that "[t]he change went beyond
the permissible scope of clerical error correction under Rule
60(a) and instead represented a substantive modification of the
agreement without proper consent from both parties." But he also
argues that "[t]he requested correction fell squarely within the
scope of Rule 60(a) . . . ."
Given the nature of the alleged error and the
substantive change in the Decree sought by Father, we conclude
that relief under HFCR Rule 60(a) was not available. The Family
court did not abuse its discretion in so ruling.
(3) and (4) Father contends that the Family Court (a)
erred in the February 13, 2019 Order by finding that Hawai#i was
an inconvenient forum for custody under HRS § 583A-207 and
relinquishing jurisdiction to Virginia, and (b) erred in allowing
Judge Hall to preside over the February 13, 2019 Order, and in

4/
The Family Court further concluded in COLs 7 through 9 that
although Father's Motion to Modify and Disqualify did not rely on HFCR Rule
60(b)(1) or (6), relief was not available under those provisions. Father
acknowledges the court's ruling in his opening brief, but presents no point of
error or argument addressing the court's reasoning in COLs 7 through 9. Any
related point is thus deemed waived. See Hawai #i Rules of Appellate Procedure
Rue 28(b)(4), (7).

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

failing to disqualify Judge Hall until Father brought his 2023
Motion to Modify and Disqualify.
Father did not appeal from the February 13, 2019 Order.
His argument that the Family Court erred in entering that order
is too late and cannot be sustained.
Father is not too late in arguing that the Family Court
abused its discretion by denying the 2023 Motion to Modify and
Disqualify, to the extent that motion sought modification or
vacation of the February 13, 2019 Order based on Judge Hall's
alleged bias.5/ But, again, his argument is without merit.
HRS § 601-7 governs disqualification of a judge for
several types of alleged bias. See State v. Ross, 89 Hawai#i
371, 377, 974 P.2d 11, 17 (1998)). Under HRS § 601-7(b) (2016),
a disqualifying affidavit "shall be filed before the trial or
hearing of the action or proceeding, or good cause shall be shown
for the failure to file it within such time." Similarly, a
motion to disqualify or recuse a judge based on "an appearance of
impropriety" "must timely present the objection, either before
the commencement of the proceeding or as soon as the
disqualifying facts become known." Office of Disciplinary
Counsel v. Au, 107 Hawai#i 327, 338, 113 P.3d 203, 214 (2005)
(quoting In re Water Use Permit Applications, 94 Hawai#i 97, 122,
9 P.3d 409, 434 (2000)).
Here, the Family Court entered the following
uncontested FOFs, which are binding on appeal, see In re Doe, 99
Hawai#i 522, 538, 57 P.3d 447, 463 (2002):

15. No motion or affidavit requesting Judge Hall's
disqualification was filed prior to the February 13, 2019
hearing.
16. No evidence was presented that either party
objected to Judge Hall presiding over the February 13, 2019
hearing based on her prior contact with the parties as a
VSM.
. . . .

5/
The Motion to Modify and Disqualify did not expressly make this
claim. However, in FOF 38, the Family Court found that "[Father] challenged
the February 13, 2019 Order based on his allegations that Judge Hall was
biased, and based on his belief that the finding that Hawai #i was an
inconvenient forum under UCCJEA was improper."

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

18. The February 13, 2019 Order was not appealed.
. . . .

35. Both parties knew at the time of the February 13,
2019 hearing that Judge Hall had been their VSM in 2015.

36. [Father] did not file an affidavit of
disqualification prior to the February 13, 2019 hearing and
no good cause was shown for the failure to file such an
affidavit.

Indeed, it was several years later when Father first filed a
motion – the Motion to Modify and Disqualify – seeking Judge
Hall's disqualification "from further participation in the case."
Father asserts that he told Judge Fong at an August 21,
2019 hearing that he "felt like there was a bit of impropriety
with . . . prior orders" by Judge Hall based on her earlier role
as a VSM. But Father was represented by counsel at that time,
and Judge Fong told Father to talk to his counsel about the
matter, as it was not properly before the court. No related
motion was filed.
On this record, we conclude that the Motion to Modify
and Disqualify was untimely to the extent it sought modification
or vacation of the February 13, 2019 Order based on Judge Hall's
earlier role as VSM. The Family Court did not err in so ruling.
(5) Father contends that the Family Court abused its
discretion by denying Father's Motion to Reconsider.
"[T]he 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." James B. Nutter & Co. v. Namahoe, 153 Hawai#i 149, 162,
528 P.3d 222, 235 (2023) (quoting Sousaris v. Miller, 92 Hawai#i
505, 513, 993 P.2d 539, 547 (2000)). Here, Father's Motion to
Reconsider did not present new evidence or arguments that could
not have been presented earlier, when the Family Court ruled on
the Motion to Modify and Disqualify. The Family Court did not
abuse its discretion in denying the Motion to Reconsider.
For the reasons discussed above, the June 14, 2023
"Order Denying [Father's] April 10, 2023 Motion to Reconsider
Order; Modify or Vacate Order and Disqualify Judge Jessi Hall"

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

and the April 6, 2023 "Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
[Father's] Motion to Modify or Vacate Order and Disqualify
Judge," both entered by the Family Court of the First Circuit,
are affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 25, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
E.F., Acting Chief Judge
Self-represented Defendant-
Appellant.
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
C.L., now known as C.S., Associate Judge
Self-represented Plaintiff-
Appellee.
/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Associate Judge

8