Gordon v. Gordon.
135 Haw. 340
| Haw. | 2015Background
- Ira and Susan Gordon married in 1997; Susan purchased the marital residence pre‑marriage and contributed other pre‑marital assets (Texas properties, a bond); Ira brought multiple real properties from a prior divorce and operated businesses.
- The couple incurred substantial IRS tax liability; Ira withdrew $280,000 from a 2010 home‑equity line (partly used toward taxes) but also spent significant sums on a girlfriend (legal fees, jewelry, travel), and separated in July 2010; Susan filed for divorce July 28, 2010.
- Family Court (Aug. 22, 2012) divided numerous real properties into: awarded to Susan (3), awarded to Ira (10), and to be sold with proceeds split 75% Susan / 25% Ira; Court deviated from equal division to a 75/25 split in Susan’s favor, awarded Susan $41,830 for marital waste, $3,000/month alimony for 10 years, and some retirement/life‑insurance benefits.
- The Family Court did not provide a full property division chart using Hawai‘i’s five‑category partnership model and mistakenly awarded to Ira a property sold years earlier (valued at $538,200).
- The Intermediate Court of Appeals vacated the property division and remanded (but affirmed deviation and the waste award); the Hawai‘i Supreme Court reviewed whether the record and reasoning satisfied partnership principles and statutory standards for division and spousal support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Susan) | Defendant's Argument (Ira) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Did the Family Court adequately document its property division (chart/values)? | Family court identified and valued assets without a chart; division is supportable. | Lack of a property division chart makes appellate review impossible; several categorizations/values omitted. | Reversed as to property division: findings insufficient under partnership model; Higashi chart recommended; remand required. |
| 2) Was deviation from 50/50 justified by Ira’s financial misconduct (gifts/payments to girlfriend, tax handling)? | Misconduct justified deviation because it reduced Susan’s economic position and ongoing income. | Misconduct should not drive deviation; Court misapplied partnership principles. | Abuse of discretion to the extent court relied on misconduct to deviate; deviation must focus on present/future needs under HRS §580‑47, not punishment, absent extraordinary circumstances. |
| 3) Was Ira’s dissipation of assets properly treated as marital waste and charged to him? | Dissipation/waste supported a $41,830 award to Susan. | Waste findings uncertain because divorce commencement date unclear; may be non‑chargeable if pre‑divorce. | ICA erred in affirming waste award without a family‑court finding of date divorce commenced; waste is chargeable only for reductions occurring after divorce commenced. |
| 4) Was the alimony award proper (consideration of needs, Ira’s ability, and reliance on misconduct)? | Alimony reasonable given Susan’s poor finances and Ira’s conduct. | Award improperly based on punishment for misconduct and exceeds Susan’s demonstrated needs. | Vacated (alongside property division) for reconsideration on remand; alimony must follow statutory factors in HRS §580‑47 and reflect actual needs and Ira’s ability to pay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tougas v. Tougas, 76 Hawai‘i 19, 868 P.2d 437 (partnership model governs marital property division)
- Gussin v. Gussin, 73 Haw. 470, 836 P.2d 484 (partnership principles guide family courts)
- Kakinami v. Kakinami, 127 Hawai‘i 126, 276 P.3d 695 (standards of review for family‑court findings and property division)
- Higashi v. Higashi, 106 Hawai‘i 228, 103 P.3d 388 (family court should file a property division chart using the five‑category scheme)
- Helbush v. Helbush, 108 Hawai‘i 508, 122 P.3d 288 (repayment of premarital contributions absent equitable considerations)
- Jackson v. Jackson, 84 Hawai‘i 319, 933 P.2d 1353 (partnership model steps: facts, equitable considerations, decision to deviate, extent of deviation)
- Chen v. Hoeflinger, 127 Hawai‘i 346, 279 P.3d 11 (charging spouse for marital waste may be equitable)
- Myers v. Myers, 70 Haw. 143, 764 P.2d 1237 (definition and significance of date of final separation)
- Cassiday v. Cassiday, 6 Haw. App. 207, 716 P.2d 1145 (statutory factors for spousal support)
- Hatayama v. Hatayama, 9 Haw. App. 1, 818 P.2d 277 (financial misconduct may justify deviation only in extraordinary circumstances)