Herrmann v. Herrmann.
138 Haw. 144
| Haw. | 2016Background
- Husband and Wife divorced in 1998; decree required Husband to pay $1,600/month per child until each child "attains the age of 18 years or graduates from or discontinues high school, whichever occurs last," and reserved post-majority support for future agreement or court determination.
- Son began living with Husband in December 2003. Parties reached a settlement; a September 2004 amendment substituted Paragraph 5 to require Wife to pay Husband $50/month for Son commencing January 5, 2004, and to require Husband to pay $2,630/month for Daughter commencing September 5, 2004.
- CSEA notified Husband (Nov. 2004) he had overpaid Son’s support (approx. $14,040). Husband sought reimbursement orally but filed no court action until April 2011. Wife later sought court orders for Daughter’s college support; Husband agreed to pay college costs separately.
- Husband moved in April 2011 to (1) terminate Daughter’s child support retroactive to September 2009 (when she left for college) and obtain reimbursement for amounts paid thereafter, and (2) recover Son overpayments. Family court denied relief, finding Husband "estopped" by delay and that continuing Daughter’s support was equitable.
- The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) reversed in part, holding the 2004 amendment terminated Husband’s Son support as of Jan 2004 and that Daughter’s child support obligation also expired in June 2009; remanded to family court to calculate offsets for college payments but did not address statutory authority for post‑majority support or the family court’s equity findings.
- The Hawai‘i Supreme Court (this opinion) vacated in part the ICA judgment, holding the amendment’s plain language terminated Son support effective January 2004, but remanded to the family court to (a) make findings whether laches or other estoppel doctrines bar Husband’s recovery for Son, and (b) clarify whether, under HRS §580‑47, continued support for Daughter after age 18 was appropriate and whether inequity/offsets affect reimbursement.
Issues
| Issue | Husband's Argument | Wife's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Husband overpaid Son’s support and may recover | September 2004 amendment required Wife to pay $50/month for Son starting Jan 2004, so Husband overpaid and is entitled to reimbursement | August 2004 order made modification effective Sept 5, 2004; no retroactive change; Husband waited too long (laches/HFCR 60(b)) | Amendment unambiguously terminated Husband’s Son support as of Jan 2004; recovery is possible, but family court must determine on remand whether laches/estoppel or other equitable defenses bar recovery and whether Wife was prejudiced by delay |
| Whether Husband’s obligation to pay Daughter’s child support automatically ended when she turned 18 (June 2009) | Plain language of the 2004 amendment terminates support at age 18 or graduation; obligation expired June 2009 and payments after that may be recoverable | Family court may order post‑majority support under HRS §580‑47(a); continuing payments were appropriate and equitable; reimbursement would be inequitable | Plain language terminates child support at the stated milestone; but family court on remand must consider whether to order post‑majority support under HRS §580‑47 and must clarify and support any equity-based denial of reimbursement (and consider offsets for college payments) |
| Proper legal standard for estoppel/laches defense to reimbursement | N/A (Husband contends recovery) | Delay and passage of time bar relief; HFCR Rule 60(b) and equitable defenses apply | Laches requires unreasonably delayed filing and prejudice to defendant; family court made findings on delay but did not make express findings on prejudice—remand required for factual findings on prejudice or other equitable doctrines |
| Whether ICA erred by resolving equity issues without adequate findings | N/A | ICA improperly resolved laches/prejudice and did not address HRS §580‑47 or family court’s inequity finding | ICA erred by deciding some equitable issues; remand required for family court to address statutory authority and make adequate factual findings on prejudice and inequity |
Key Cases Cited
- Adair v. Hustace, 64 Haw. 314, 640 P.2d 294 (Haw. 1982) (elements of laches: unreasonable delay and prejudice)
- Cain v. Cain, 59 Haw. 32, 575 P.2d 468 (Haw. 1978) (judgments and decrees must be reasonably construed)
- Gussin v. Gussin, 73 Haw. 470, 836 P.2d 484 (Haw. 1992) (remand for further factfinding when lower court did not make necessary findings)