Bastien v. Morales

LAW LIBRARY

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. 30325 : ms
a =>
2a} =
“FD j
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS S .
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I. xb on r
=3/5 ~~
BENOIT MARIE BERNARD BASTIEN, Plaintiff-Appellant; v. ©
DESIREE MARIE MORALES, Defendant-Appellee «@ S

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(FC-D NO. )8-1-0590)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
(By: Nakamura, C.J., Fujise and Leonard, JJ.)

Upon review of record, it appears that we do not have

jurisdiction over Plaintiff-Appellant Benoit Marie Bernard
Bastien's (Appellant Bastien) appeal from the Honorable Keith E.

Tanaka's January 5, 2010 "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

with Respect to Property Division Submitted for Decision"

(Interlocutory Order) because, under the present circumstances,
the Interlocutory Order is not an appealable order pursuant to

Hawai'i’ Revised Statutes (HRS) § 571-54 (2006).

In family court cases "[a]n interested party aggrieved

by any order or decree of the court may appeal to the
intermediate appellate court for review of questions of law and

fact upon the same terms and conditions as in other cases in the

circuit court[.]" HRS § 571-54. In circuit court cases,

aggrieved parties may appeal from "final judgments, orders or

HRS § 641-1(a) (1993 & Supp. 2009).

Hawaii divorce cases involve a maximum of four
discrete parts: (1) dissolution of the marriage; (2) child
custody, visitation, and support; (3) spousal support; and
(4) division and distribution of property and debts. Black
(1986). In

v. Black, 6 Haw. App. [493], 728 P.2d 1303
57 Haw. 519, 559 P.2d 744 (1977),

Cleveland v. Cleveland,

the Hawaii Supreme Court held that an order which finally
(4) is final and appealable even if

Although we recommend that,

decrees[.]"

decides parts (1) and
part (2) remains undecided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

except in exceptionally compelling circumstances, ail parts
be decided simultaneously and that part (1) not be finally
decided prior to a decision on all the other parts, we
conclude that an order which finally decides part (1) is

final and appealable when decided even if parts (2), (3),
and (4) remain undecided; that parts (2), (3), and (4) are

each separately final and appealable as and when they are
decided, but only if part (1) has previously or
Simultaneously been decided; and that if parts (2), (3),
and/or (4) have been decided before part (1) has been
finally decided, they become final and appealable when part
(1) is finally decided.

EFaton v. Eaton, 7 Haw. App. 111, 118-19, 748 P.2d 801, 805 (1987)

(footnote omitted; emphases added). The Interlocutory Order
relates to part (4) and the issue of dividing property in this
divorce case. The record on appeal does not contain a judgment,
decree or order that finally determines part (1) of this divorce
case by dissolving the marriage. Therefore, under the holding in
Eaton, the Interlocutory Order is not an appealable order
pursuant to HRS § 571-54. Absent an appealable judgment, decree
or order, Appellant Bastien's appeal is premature.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appeal No. 30325
is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, June 15, 2010.

bias, Hakearre~

Chief Judge

Associate Judge

sociate Judge