Jacoby v. Jacoby.
150 Haw. 158
| Haw. | 2021Background
- Nicoleta and Bennett Jacoby divorced after a 2009 trial; the family court awarded Nicoleta permanent spousal support of $4,000/month and found Bennett's gross monthly income was $29,402, which included $9,064/month in investment income.
- The family court divided the assets generating the investment income equally between the parties, but had attributed the entire $9,064 to Bennett when calculating spousal support.
- The ICA in Jacoby I held the family court erred by attributing the full investment income to Bennett and remanded for further proceedings consistent with correcting the income allocation.
- On remand the family court allocated $4,532/month (half of $9,064) to each party, recalculated incomes, reaffirmed Nicoleta’s reasonable monthly expenses at $6,237, but nonetheless maintained the $4,000/month spousal support award.
- The ICA in a summary disposition (Jacoby II) vacated the amended spousal support award, reasoning the remand did not permit a new just-and-equitable HRS §580-47(a) determination and instructed recalculation to reflect the corrected investment income allocation.
- The Hawai‘i Supreme Court held: (1) the ICA erred in concluding the family court was barred from a fresh HRS §580-47(a) determination on remand because family courts retain continuing jurisdiction over spousal support; (2) however, the family court abused its discretion by retaining $4,000/month without adequate findings showing that amount was necessary to meet Nicoleta’s demonstrated needs; and (3) the family court also abused its discretion by denying Nicoleta’s request for an evidentiary hearing on remand, given her showing of good cause (claiming she never received her allocated investment income).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nicoleta) | Defendant's Argument (Bennett) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the family court on remand could reapply HRS §580-47(a) and make a new just-and-equitable spousal support determination | Jacoby: remand did not bar reconsideration; family court has continuing jurisdiction to consider §580-47(a) factors and may maintain $4,000 after reassessing needs | Bennett: remand required only correction of the income math per Jacoby I; no new evidence or full rehearing | Court: Family court could reexamine §580-47(a) on remand (ICA erred to the contrary) |
| Whether maintaining $4,000/month after allocating $4,532/month investment income to Nicoleta was an abuse of discretion | Jacoby: allocation did not automatically require reducing spousal support; ongoing health and needs may justify $4,000 | Bennett: once investment income allocated to Nicoleta, her needs were met and $4,000 exceeded demonstrated need | Court: Family court abused its discretion by awarding more than Nicoleta’s demonstrated needs without adequate findings |
| Whether the family court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on remand about who actually received the investment income | Jacoby: she showed good cause—she alleged she never received her share—so a hearing was necessary to assess past payments and present needs | Bennett: remand did not allow reopening the record; if income misallocation occurred, remedy was separate enforcement/modification actions | Court: Denial of a hearing was an abuse of discretion; Nicoleta made a sufficient showing of good cause to warrant an evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Brutsch v. Brutsch, 390 P.3d 1260 (2017) (family court has wide discretion in divorce matters; abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Hamilton v. Hamilton, 378 P.3d 901 (2016) (trial court must consider all HRS §580-47(a) factors when ordering spousal support)
- In re Hawaii Elec. Light Co., 487 P.3d 708 (2021) (scope of remand is inferred from the opinion as a whole)
- Chun v. Bd. of Trs. of Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 106 P.3d 339 (2005) (mandate rule: trial court must comply strictly with appellate directions)
- Gordon v. Gordon, 350 P.3d 1008 (2015) (spousal support should not exceed demonstrated needs even if payer can afford more)
- Cassiday v. Cassiday, 716 P.2d 1145 (1985) (no obligation to pay spousal support if there is no need)
- Amii v. Amii, 695 P.2d 1194 (1985) (spousal support is subject to revision upon material change or good cause)
- Jacoby v. Jacoby (Jacoby I), 341 P.3d 1231 (Haw. Ct. App. 2014) (ICA ruled family court erred in attributing full investment income to Bennett and remanded)