CourtListener 10878258

Texto completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
10-JUN-2026
07:49 AM
Dkt. 41 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

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

N.H., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
B.M., Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1FDV-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Gluck, JJ.)

Self-represented Defendant-Appellant B.M. filed a
Notice of Appeal on November 21, 2025, in which she states she
is "appealing the rulings and orders entered in the divorce
proceedings" with Plaintiff-Appellee N.H.
As an initial matter, it is not entirely clear what
B.M. intends to appeal. She references the October 24, 2025
Divorce Decree (Decree) entered by the Family Court of the First
Circuit (Family Court), 1 but she also seems to seek enforcement
and modification of the Decree (rather than vacatur) and her
Reply Brief references a Family Court order that was not entered
until April 2026. Nevertheless, we can simplify things: this

1 The Honorable Maria F. Penn presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

court has jurisdiction over the Decree, because the Decree is a
final order that is appealable pursuant to Hawaiʻi Revised
Statutes § 641-1(a) (2016). See Cleveland v. Cleveland, 57 Haw.
519, 523, 559 P.2d 744, 747 (1977) (holding that divorce decree
"was final and appealable with respect to the termination of the
marriage and the division of the real property, although the
questions of custody and support of minor children were left for
future determination"). We do not, however, have jurisdiction
over any orders entered thereafter. 2 Therefore, the only matter
properly before this court is the Decree itself.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted, and having given due consideration to the arguments
advanced and the issues raised, we resolve B.M.'s contentions as
follows, and affirm.
The background facts regarding the Decree are these:
Plaintiff-Appellee N.H. filed a complaint for divorce in March
2024. After various motions and mediation, the parties appeared
in person for a settlement conference on October 23, 2025. In
its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (issued on March 10,
2026) (FOFs/COLs), the Family Court recounted the procedural
history of this case:
19. The parties reached a full agreement on all
issues, and placed the terms of the settlement [sic].

20. The Court assisted with the preparation of the
Decree Granting Absolute Divorce (With Children), and both
parties were provided an opportunity to review the draft
Decree and make any changes and/or corrections.

2 Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) 4(a)(2) (eff. 2020)
provides that "[i]f a notice of appeal is filed after announcement of a
decision but before entry of the judgment or order, such notice shall be
considered as filed immediately after the time the judgment or order becomes
final for the purpose of appeal." Here, however, the Family Court made no
oral orders on any post-Decree motions prior to November 21, 2025.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

21. After reviewing the draft Decree, both parties
signed the Decree, and the Court conducted a colloquy of
each of the parties regarding the signed Decree.

22. The Court found that the parties intelligently,
knowingly, and voluntarily entered into the agreement and
the Court accepted and approved the agreement.

23. The Court placed the jurisdictional elements on
the record and granted the divorce.

The Family Court's FOFs included the following:
27. The parties entered into settlement agreement
concerning custody of the parties' one (1) minor child, as
well as all other issues in this divorce on October 23,
2025.

28. The parties' agreement included agreements
concerning custody, timesharing, and child support for the
parties' one (1) minor child, alimony, and property
division issues.

29. The Divorce Decree With Children detailing
these agreements, was executed by both parties and counsel,
and was filed and entered on October 24, 2025 (Dkt. 181).

The Family Court's COLs included the following:
36. The executed Divorce Decree filed on October
24, 2025 memorialized the full settlement agreement reached
between the parties on October 23, 2025.

37. The parties both signed the Divorce Decree
after having a full opportunity to review it.

On appeal, B.M. asks that this court "[v]acate the
property-division section of the Decree" and make additional
changes to the Decree. Specifically, B.M. contends that the
Decree should be changed because:
(1) The child-support worksheet used in preparing the
settlement agreement excluded certain allowable
expenses;
(2) N.H. did not provide current proof of finances before
spousal support was settled;
(3) N.H. was granted "unilateral medical-insurance
authority without required best-interest findings";

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

(4) Property division is incomplete;
(5) There are outstanding issues regarding custody of the
parties' pets;
(6) The Family Court should have made safety findings
based on allegations of abuse; and
(7) All future communications between N.H. and B.M. should
be through counsel.
Additionally, B.M. contends that certain conditions of the
Decree have not been met. For example, she argues that N.H. has
not yet removed B.M. and the minor child from a database for
certain government benefits. And in her reply brief, B.M. asks
that this court award "transitional spousal support" and return
of personal items.
Again, the only matter properly before this court is
the Decree itself. However, B.M. has not presented a cognizable
argument as to why this court should vacate the Decree when she
consented to the terms of the Decree when she was before the
Family Court. Perhaps B.M. intends her appeal to serve as a
motion for relief from the Decree, but she did not make any such
arguments to the Family Court prior to filing the instant
appeal. If B.M. did, in fact, make any such arguments, she does
not state where in the record she raised any of these arguments,
nor does she identify where the supporting evidence appears in
the record. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(7) (eff. 2016) (requiring an
opening brief to contain, among other things, "[t]he argument,
containing the contentions of the appellant on the points
presented and the reasons therefor, with citations to the
authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on.").
Additionally, B.M. does not challenge any of the Family Court's
FOFs or COLs at all; accordingly, they are binding on appeal.
See Alvarez Fam. Tr. v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Kaanapali

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Alii, 121 Hawaiʻi 474, 489, 221 P.3d 452, 467 (2009) ("It is also
well-settled that all unchallenged conclusions by the circuit
court are considered binding upon this court."); Okada Trucking
Co., Ltd. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 97 Hawaiʻi 450, 459, 40 P.3d
73, 82 (2002) ("[U]nchallenged factual findings are deemed to be
binding on appeal[.]").
In short, B.M. has not pointed to any error of the
Family Court upon which to vacate the Decree itself, and the
Decree is the only Family Court order that is currently within
this court's jurisdiction. Therefore, we affirm the October 24,
2025 Divorce Decree entered by the Family Court without
prejudice to B.M. seeking appropriate relief from the Family
Court.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, June 10, 2026.
On the briefs:
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Barbara Mares,
Presiding Judge
Self-represented Defendant-
Appellant.
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge
Mitchell S. Wong,
for Plaintiff-Appellee.
/s/ Daniel M. Gluck
Associate Judge