JW v. LW
150 Haw. 155
| Haw. App. | 2021Background
- JW (mother) appealed the Family Court's divorce decree after trial; key orders: spousal support $2,500/month for 5 years, joint physical custody, denial of mother's request to relocate children to California, child support $2,499/month, equal allocation of HELOC debt, and a Category 1 premarital credit awarded to LW (father).
- The Family Court imputed $1,751 of income to JW for support calculations; JW contested the imputation and related spousal/child support figures.
- JW argued the court abused its discretion by awarding reduced/shorter spousal support, denying relocation and awarding joint physical custody, misallocating HELOC debt (marital waste), and improperly granting LW premarital credit.
- The ICA reviewed whether the Family Court applied statutory factors (HRS § 580-47 and HRS § 571-46) and the Child Support Guidelines when imputing income and setting support and custody.
- The ICA affirmed most factual findings (including denial of relocation, custody allocation, and HELOC split), but found insufficient findings to support the Family Court’s use of the Guidelines’ third imputation method and vacated/remanded support determinations to the extent they relied on the $1,751 imputation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (JW) | Defendant's Argument (LW) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spousal support amount/duration | Court abused discretion; requested $2,900/mo for 6 years, court awarded $2,500/mo for 5 years | Family Court properly weighed HRS § 580-47 factors and credibility; award appropriate | Affirmed as to discretion and weighting, except to the extent award relied on imputed income (vacated/remanded on that basis) |
| Imputation of mother's income ($1,751) | Imputation lacked evidentiary basis; argued she stayed home caring for children | Father argued imputation appropriate based on mother's income capacity and record | ICA: Family Court did not make necessary findings explaining why it applied the Guidelines’ third imputation method rather than the stay-at-home 30-hour minimum-wage alternative; imputation-based support orders vacated and remanded for findings |
| Relocation and custody (denial of relocation; joint physical custody) | Relocation denial ignored HRS § 571-46(b) factors and misweighed evaluator reports; expert testimony improperly discounted | Family Court considered best interests factors, found father’s testimony on risks persuasive, and properly assessed expert evidence and credibility | Affirmed: denial of relocation and award of joint physical custody supported by substantial evidence and within court’s discretion |
| HELOC allocation and premarital credit | Father dissipated HELOC funds (marital waste); premarital house-payment credit should not have been allowed | Father showed HELOC funds were used for business/household purposes; premarital equity claimed and not challenged at trial | HELOC split affirmed (no abuse of discretion); JW waived appellate challenge to premarital credit; Category 1 credit stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Wong v. Wong, 87 Haw. 475, 960 P.2d 145 (Haw. App. 1998) (framework for spousal support factors and analysis)
- Vorfeld v. Vorfeld, 8 Haw. App. 391, 804 P.2d 891 (Haw. App. 1991) (cited on spousal-support considerations)
- Cleveland v. Cleveland, 1 Haw. App. 187, 616 P.2d 1014 (Haw. App. 1980) (family court may impute income based on earning capacity)
- Fisher v. Fisher, 111 Haw. 41, 137 P.3d 355 (Haw. 2006) (best-interests standard and family court discretion in custody decisions)
- In re Doe, 95 Haw. 183, 20 P.3d 616 (Haw. 2001) (custody evaluator recommendations are not binding; court has leeway in weighing reports)
- Chen v. Hoeflinger, 127 Haw. 346, 279 P.3d 11 (App. 2012) (definition and standards for marital waste)