Nakajima v. Nakajima ( 2014 )

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCWC-29553
07-AUG-2014
02:00 PM
SCWC-29553
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
HIROKAZU NAKAJIMA,
Petitioner/Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant/Appellant,
vs.
AKI NAKAJIMA,
Respondent/Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff/Appellee.
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(ICA NO. 29553; FC-DIVORCE NO. 05-1-0587)
ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
On June 26, 2014, Petitioner/Plaintiff/Cross-
Defendant/Appellant Hirokazu Nakajima (Hirokazu) filed an
application for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the
Intermediate Court of Appeals’s (ICA) May 9, 2014 Memorandum
Opinion filed pursuant to its June 13, 2014 Judgment on Appeal.
In his application Hirokazu argued, among other things, that the
ICA erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to
address various points on appeal.
Hirokazu’s argument is based on the wording of this
court’s February 13, 2014 order remanding this case to the ICA
for disposition of all issues related to the part of the divorce
concerning the division and distribution of property and debts.
See Nakajima v. Nakajima, No. SCWC-29553, 2014 WL 626208, at *1
(Haw. Feb. 13, 2014); see also Schiller v. Schiller, 120 Hawai#i
283, 289, 205 P.3d 548, 554 (App. 2009) (divorce cases involve
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). On remand, the
ICA misconstrued this court’s order, stating that “[t]he Hawai#i
Supreme Court ruled this court has jurisdiction only over
Hirokazu’s appeal from the November Order Re Motion for
Clarification pursuant to Hawai#i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 571-54
(2006 Repl.).” Nakajima v. Nakajima, No. SCWC-29553, 2014 WL
1909244, at *13 (Haw. App. May 9, 2014); see also Nakajima, No.
SCWC-29553, 2014 WL 626208, at *2 (Recktenwald, C.J., concurring
and dissenting). As a result, the ICA erroneously concluded that
it lacked jurisdiction to address Hirokazu’s points on appeal
numbers 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12. Id. Those points all related
to the division and distribution of property and debts. The ICA
correctly held that it did not have jurisdiction to address point
on appeal number 8 because that point on appeal related to
alimony.
With respect to discovery sanctions, “‘[t]he courts
. . . have inherent power to curb abuses and promote a fair
process which extends to the preclusion of evidence and may
2
include dismissal in severe circumstances.’” Kawamata Farms,
Inc. v. United Agri Products, 86 Hawai#i 214, 242, 948 P.2d 1055,
1083 (1997) (quoting Richardson v. Sport Shinko (Waikiki Corp.),
76 Hawai#i 494, 507, 880 P.2d 169, 182 (1994); see also Weinberg
v. Dickson-Weinberg, 123 Hawai#i 68, 71, 229 P.3d 1133, 1136
(2010). “If the trial court has the inherent power to level the
ultimate sanction of dismissal, it necessarily has the power to
take all reasonable steps short of dismissal, depending on the
equities of the case.” Id. The family court’s sanctions in this
case fell within the scope of its authority. Subject to the
issues that the ICA must address on remand, the valuation and
division of Avalon Cove did not constitute an abuse of
discretion. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application for a writ of
certiorari is accepted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the June 13, 2014 judgment
on appeal is vacated, and this case is remanded to the ICA for
disposition of the remaining issues.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 7, 2014.
Blake T. Okimoto for /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
for petitioner
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
3