NOT
FOR PUBLICATION
NO. 25749
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
BETTY
CABASAG MACASPAC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
GABRIEL ASUELO MACASPAC, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(FC-D No. 02-1-1469)
After a thorough review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, and giving careful consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we conclude the family court abused its discretion, Teller v. Teller, 99 Hawai`i 101, 107, 53 P.3d 240, 246 (2002), in decreeing the following:
12.
Other: Defendant shall pay
Plaintiff $1,500.00 as his share of wedding expenses, $400.00 for
his U.S. Immigration Application
Processing fee and Employment Card, $700.00 for his air fare and
travel expenses, and $2,500.00 for his room and board
paid by Plaintiff for his care while he lived
with Plaintiff's brother in the Philippines, for a total of $5,100.00.
Defendant has
the option to
pay Plaintiff the entire amount of $5,100.00 in full in the next thirty
(30) days or pay to
Plaintiff $510.00 per
month over the next ten (10) months.
Plaintiff
resides in the rental property and has control and benefit over the
rental property and
furniture therein.
Defendant may become liable for future expenses if the parties default
on the
Rental Agreement.
(Bolding in the original.) In doing so, the family court "clearly exceeded the bounds of reason [and] disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of [Plaintiff]." Raupp v. Raupp, 3 Haw. App. 602, 609, 658 P.2d 329, 335 (1983) (citations omitted). Our review of the record and the transcript of the divorce trial clearly reveals that the family court could have made these awards -- and in fact made these awards -- solely in response to Plaintiff's claim that Defendant defrauded her of the foregoing expenses by his refusal of her conjugal rights. However, "it is well-settled that one spouse's personal conduct or misconduct towards the other spouse is irrelevant [to the family court's division and distribution of the marital estate]." Markham v. Markham, 80 Hawai`i 274, 280, 909 P.2d 602, 608 (App. 1996) (citations omitted). See also Hatayama v. Hatayama, 9 Haw. App. 1, 11-12, 818 P.2d 277, 282 (1991); Wakayama v. Wakayama, 4 Haw. App. 652, 655, 673 P.2d 1044, 1046 (1983); Horst v. Horst, 1 Haw. App. 617, 624, 623 P.2d 1265, 1270-71 (1981); Richards v. Richards, 44 Haw. 491, 509, 355 P.2d 188, 198-99 (1960).
Therefore,IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the family court's March 31, 2003 divorce decree is modified by striking the above-quoted provisions and, as modified, is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, October 14, 2004.
On the briefs:
Steven J. Kim
(Lynch Ichida Thompson
Kim & Hirota),
for defendant-appellant.