Martin v. Martin ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
24-AUG-2022
08:05 AM
Dkt. 47 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
LIGAYA C. MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
RENATO S. MARTIN, Defendant-Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(FC-D NO. 09-1-3502)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.)
Plaintiff-Appellant Ligaya C. Martin (Ligaya) appeals
from the Family Court of the First Circuit's 1 (1) January 31,
2018 "Order Granting Motion and Declaration for Post-Decree
Relief" (Order) filed by Defendant-Appellee Renato S. Martin
(Renato), and (2) March 16, 2018 "Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law." 2
1 The Honorable Jessi L.K. Hall presided.
2 Ligaya challenges findings of fact (FOF) 12-13 and conclusions of law
(COL) 2-3, 6, and 8. She does not individually address why these findings
(continued . . . )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
On appeal, Ligaya's sole point of error is that "the
Family Court erred in ordering [her] to refinance the home
and/or remove [Renato's] name from the mortgage." Ligaya
asserts that, "[s]ince the parties' Divorce Decree [(Decree)]
(continued . . . )
are clearly erroneous and why these conclusions are wrong, but appears to
challenge them in the context of her argument. We address the challenged
findings and conclusions in a likewise manner. FOF 12-13 and COL 2-3, 6, and
8 are as follows:
FOF 12. The Court finds that Defendant has been harmed by
not having his name removed from the mortgage debt on the
real property at 1121 Kamehameha IV Road, Honolulu, Hawaii
96819 for the past seven (7) years.
FOF 13. Defendant's Motion and Declaration for Post Decree
Relief filed December 18, 2017 is hereby granted.
Plaintiff has 90 days from January 31, 2018 to refinance
the mortgage and/or remove Defendant's name from the
mortgage.
. . . .
COL 2. The Family Court may further divide assets after a
decree has been entered if it is necessary to effectuate
the enforcement of the terms of the decree. Carroll v.
Nagatori-Carroll, 90 [Hawai‘i] 376 (1999).
COL 3. The time limit to divide property only "pertains to
the Family Court's jurisdiction to resolve the property
division issue" pursuant to [Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)
§] 580-56(d), not to enforcing an already ordered division
of assets. Richter v. Richter, 108 [Hawai‘i] 504 (2005).
. . . .
COL 6. Defendant was solely seeking to enforce the terms as
they are set out in the Divorce Decree. As such [Hawai‘i
Family Court Rules Rule] 60(b) does not apply in this
matter.
. . . .
COL 8. To the extent that any Finding of Fact herein is a
Conclusion of Law, it shall be so construed. To the extent
any Conclusion of Law herein is a Finding of Fact, it shall
be so construed.
(Formatting altered.)
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
did not require [her] to remove [Renato's] name from the joint
debt, enforcement of the parties' Divorce Decree cannot include
removal of [his] name from the joint debt."
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve this
appeal as discussed below and affirm.
"When interpreting a decree/judgment, the
determinative factor is the intention of the court as gathered
from all parts of the decree/judgment itself." Rosales v.
Rosales, 108 Hawai‘i 370, 374, 120 P.3d 269, 273 (App. 2005)
(citation omitted). "Generally, the family court possesses wide
discretion in making its decisions and those decision[s] will
not be set aside unless there is a manifest abuse of
discretion." Fisher v. Fisher, 111 Hawai‘i 41, 46, 137 P.3d 355,
360 (2006) (citation omitted).
Here, Ligaya and Renato were divorced in March 2011.
Both Ligaya and Renato agreed that the "Total Debt Owed" on the
marital residence was $584,000. The Decree divided the marital
residence as follows:
Wife is awarded as her sole and separate property the
parties' one-half interest in the marital residence located
at 1121 Kam IV Road, Honolulu, Hawaii 96819, subject to the
encumbrances thereon and shall indemnify and hold husband
harmless therefrom.
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
(Formatting altered.) The Decree then ordered that:
Wife shall pay: The parties' joint debt on the marital
residence and hold husband harmless therefrom.
(Formatting altered.) The Decree did not require Ligaya to pay
Renato for his interest in the marital residence. About a year
later, on Ligaya's motion, a quitclaim deed was filed removing
Renato's name from the deed to the marital residence.
In December 2017, over six years after the Decree,
Renato moved for post-decree relief seeking to have his name
removed from the mortgage, and indicating that the total debt
owed increased to $599,435.00. 3 The record does not indicate
that Ligaya challenged this amount. During the hearing on the
motion, Renato's attorney explained that Renato wanted his name
removed from the mortgage because he cannot "qualify for any
loan on a car or a house because his name wasn't removed in the
-- in the mortgage . . . [h]is name was removed from the deed."
Renato's attorney further explained that Renato "tried to work
it out with the creditor . . . tried to work it out with Miss --
Miss Ligaya . . . tried to work it out with all the children
present . . . [and] tried to work it out with all the co-owners
present. But they won't budge and all for the reason that they
can't qualify for a -- the loan . . . ."
3 Renato also requested damages, but later clarified that he was only
seeking to have his name removed from the mortgage.
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Ligaya's attorney explained that "unfortunately in
this case, or fortunately or however it is, the decree -- on
page 4 of the decree, it just -- it awarded my client the
property and -- subject to the encumbrances thereon, and her
obligation is only to indemnify and hold harmless [Renato] from
liability on the mortgage." Ligaya's attorney continued, "And I
will -- for offer of proof, my client -- the mortgage is
current. There's no showing there's any liability on the
mortgage or at least [Renato] has had to pay anything on the
mortgage." Ligaya, herself, explained to the family court that
her "sister having a problem on their business and so we seek
for refinance" but "Ocwen took over the mortgage -- the first
mortgage that we had. And so again, instead of refinance, they
gave us a loan modification which is I can't do anything because
. . . my monthly payment was so high, and they gave us 25
hundred . . . which is I can't resist."
Again, the Decree ordered that Ligaya "shall pay: The
parties' joint debt on the marital residence . . . ." At the
time, both parties indicated that the total debt owed on the
marital property was $584,000.00. Although Ligaya represented
that she had been making the monthly mortgage payments, those
payments go towards paying down (lowering) the debt on the
marital residence. See Black's Law Dictionary, 1211 (11th ed.
2019) (defining "mortgage" as a "conveyance of title to property
that is given as security for the payment of a debt"). Ligaya,
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
however, has not paid the debt on the marital residence as
ordered by the Decree. Had she done so, Renato's name would not
be on this debt.
The Decree could have ordered that Ligaya shall pay
the monthly mortgage payments towards the joint debt, but it did
not. And interpreting the Decree in that manner, as Ligaya
urges we do, would bind Renato to the debt for the next 19 years
($584,000 debt ÷ $2,500 monthly payment ÷ 12 months), while
being completely divested of title to the property. As gathered
from all parts of the Decree, that does not appear to be the
family court's intention, or just and equitable. See
Rosales, 108 Hawai‘i at 374, 120 P.3d at 273; Gordon v. Gordon,
135 Hawai‘i 340, 348-49, 350 P.3d 1008, 1016-17 (2015) ("Under
HRS § 580-47 [(Supp. 2017)], the family court has wide
discretion to divide marital partnership property according to
what is 'just and equitable' based on the facts and
circumstances of each case.") (citation omitted).
Ligaya had over six years to comply with the Decree.
During that time, Ligaya removed Renato's name from the deed,
and was entitled to enjoy all the benefits of property ownership
such as residing on the property and earning income from the
property. Renato, on the other hand, says Ligaya's failure to
comply with the Decree harmed him because he cannot qualify for
a house or car loan.
6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Based on the foregoing, we hold that the family
court's conclusion that Renato "was solely seeking to enforce
the terms" of the Decree was correct, and its finding that
Renato had "been harmed by not having his name removed from the
mortgage debt on the real property . . ." was not clearly
erroneous. We further hold that the family court did not
manifestly abuse its discretion in granting Renato's request for
post-decree relief.
Therefore, we affirm the family court's
(1) January 31, 2018 "Order Granting Motion and Declaration for
Post-Decree Relief filed by Defendant on December 15, 2017"; and
(2) March 16, 2018 "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law."
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, August 24, 2022.
On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Presiding Judge
Ronald P. Tongg,
for Plaintiff-Appellant. /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Associate Judge
Rhoda Yabes Alvarez,
for Defendant-Appellee. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Associate Judge
7