Kemeny v. Kemeny (Summary Disposition Order)

1. The March 11, 2004 denial of Kristina's February 20, 2004 Motion Demand for Default Judgment Pursuant to FC-Rule 54(c) with respect to the undecided issues raised in the second of the two motions she filed on July 30, 2003.

2. The March 17, 2004 denial of her February 25, 2004 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for Order After Decree with respect to the undecided issues raised in the second of the two motions she filed on July 30, 2003.

3. The March 17, 2004 order deciding the motion filed by Plaintiff-Appellee Matthias David Kemeny (Matthias or Plaintiff) on March 12, 2004 by declaring Kristina a vexatious litigant but denying the request for attorney fees.

In a Memorandum Opinion filed on November 22, 2004 in appeal no. 25830, this court stated, in relevant part, as follows:

On March 4, 1998, in Honolulu, Kristina gave birth to a son (Son). [Matthias] is Son's father.

On August 29, 2001, in Washington State, Matthias filed a complaint for divorce. On September 5, 2001, Kristina was served in Hawai`i where she lived with Son.

On September 20, 2001, in Hawai`i, Kristina filed a complaint for divorce (FC-D No. 01-1-3198). On October 21, 2001, Matthias was served in Washington State.

On November 7, 2001, in Kristina's Hawai`i divorce case, Matthias filed "Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Divorce Filed September 20, 2001". At the time, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 583 (1993), Hawai`i's Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, was the law in Hawai`i. It stated, in relevant part, as follows:

Simultaneous proceedings in other states. (a) A court of this State shall not exercise its jurisdiction under this chapter if at the time of filing the petition a proceeding concerning the custody of the child was pending in a court of another state exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this chapter, unless the proceeding is stayed by the court of the other state because this State is a more appropriate forum or for other reasons.

(c) If the court is informed during the course of the proceeding that a proceeding concerning the custody of the child was pending in another state before the court assumed jurisdiction it shall stay the proceeding and communicate with the court in which the other proceeding is pending to the end that the issue may be litigated in the more appropriate forum and that information be exchanged in accordance with sections 583-19 through 583-22.

On January 8, 2002, Judge William J. Nagle, III entered an "Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Divorce Filed September 20, 2001" stating, in relevant part, as follows:

On November 7, 2001, [Matthias] entered a special appearance and filed Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Divorce Filed September 20, 2001. A hearing was held on November 14, 2001. . . . The Court having reviewed the memoranda and affidavits submitted, heard the argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is

HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Divorce Filed September 20, 2001, which was filed herein on November 7, 2001, is and the same shall be GRANTED, as follows:

(b) The Hawai`i Family Court lacks in personam jurisdiction over [Matthias] or in rem jurisdiction for purposes of marital property division.

(d) [Matthias] commenced a divorce action in Vancouver, Washington, on August 29, 2001, and [Kristina] was personally served in the State of Hawai`i with said divorce Petition and Summons on September 5, 2001. Thereafter, on September 20, 2001, [Kristina] filed her Hawai`i Complaint for Divorce. [Matthias] was not served with the Hawai`i divorce complaint until October 21, 2001.

(e) [Kristina] has not effectively challenged the in personam jurisdiction of the State of Washington over [Kristina] to determine marital property issues or the jurisdiction of the State of Washington to determine issues of child custody, child support or spousal support.

(f) This Court declines to exercise jurisdiction regarding issues of child custody and defers to the proceeding for divorce previously initiated in the State of Washington.

Pursuant to Act 124 (2002), effective January 1, 2003, HRS Chapter 583 (1993), Hawai`i's Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, was repealed and replaced by HRS Chapter 583A, Hawai`i's Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. Prior to this change, on December 17, 2002, the Superior Court of Washington, County of Clark, filed a Decree of Dissolution in Case no. 013014371 (Washington Decree). This Washington Decree states, in relevant part, as follows:

[Matthias] is awarded as his separate property the property set forth in Exhibit A. This exhibit is attached or filed and incorporated by reference as part of this decree.

[Kristina] is awarded as her separate property the property set forth in Exhibit A. . . .

Child support shall be paid in accordance with the order of child support signed by the court on this date. This order is incorporated as part of this decree.

5. All right, title and interest of the parties in and to the residence and real property located at 968 Kanakou Place, Honolulu, Hawaii, which property was owned by [Matthias] prior to the marriage. [Kristina] is hereby ordered to vacate said property not later than February 11, 2003.

2. All personal property presently in her possession, including the wedding gifts and household goods and furnishings located at 968 Kanakou Place, Honolulu, Hawaii, with the exception of the following items which shall remain at the residence and are awarded to [Matthias][:] the bed and other furnishings in the basement apartment, any major appliances (refrigerators, stoves, washer, dryer), any fixtures with the exception of the chandelier, [Matthias'] clothing, and the vase from China.

Hawai`i's Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, HRS Chapter 636C (1993), states, in relevant part, as follows:

§ 636C-2 Definition. In this chapter "foreign judgment" means any judgment, decree, or order of a court of the United States or of any other court which is entitled to full faith and credit in this State.

§ 636C-3 Filing and status of foreign judgments. A copy of any exemplified foreign judgment may be filed in the office of the clerk of the appropriate court of this State. The clerk shall treat the foreign judgment in the same manner as a judgment of a court of this State. A judgment so filed has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses, and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying as a judgment of a court of this State, including establishing a lien, and may be enforced or satisfied in like manner.

§ 636C-4 Notice of filing. (a) At the time of the filing of the foreign judgment, the judgment creditor or the judgment creditor's lawyer shall make and file with the clerk of court an affidavit setting forth the name and last known post office address of the judgment debtor and the judgment creditor.

(b) Promptly upon the filing of the foreign judgment and the affidavit, the clerk shall mail notice of the filing of the foreign judgment to the judgment debtor at the address given and shall make a note of the mailing in the docket. The notice shall include the name and post office address of the judgment creditor and the judgment creditor's lawyer, if any, in this State. In addition, the judgment creditor may mail a notice of the filing of the judgment to the judgment debtor and may file proof of mailing with the clerk. The failure by the clerk to mail notice of filing shall not affect the enforcement proceedings if proof of mailing by the judgment creditor has been filed.

§ 636C-5 Stay. (a) If the judgment debtor shows the court that an appeal from the foreign judgment is pending or will be taken, or that a stay of execution has been granted, the court shall stay enforcement of the foreign judgment until the appeal is concluded, the time for appeal expires, or the stay of execution expires or is vacated, upon proof that the judgment debtor has furnished the security for the satisfaction of the judgment required by the state in which it was rendered.⁽²⁾

(b) If the judgment debtor shows the court any ground upon which enforcement of a judgment of any court of this State would be stayed, the court shall stay enforcement of the foreign judgment for an appropriate period, upon requiring the same security for satisfaction of the judgment which is required in this State.

The parties lived in Washington during their marriage and [Matthias] continues to reside in this state.

Other: [Kristina] constructively consented to personal and jurisdiction [sic] by her pleadings in this matter.

A written settlement agreement and a pre-marital agreement were executed by the parties, copies of which have been filed herein and submitted to the court as trial exhibits.

The court finds that neither of these purported agreements is legally binding on the parties or the court, and that neither is sufficient under the law to be enforceable. The court cannot find from the testimony that either purported agreement was fair when executed, and believes the documents to have been executed in stressful circumstances which raise questions about the intent of the parties and the voluntariness of execution. In addition, the court is unable to determine whether the numerous interlineations and annotations on the copies of said documents provided to the court were made to the documents before or after execution, ultimately rendering interpretation of the content of said documents impossible. The court further notes the absence of notarization to the settlement agreement.

Maintenance should not be ordered. At the time of separation, this was a short-term marriage of only one year, following which [Matthias] has continued for over a year to provide housing and related expenses for [Kristina], her daughter and their son at a cost of approximately $3,000 per month. In addition, [Matthias] has proposed that the court award to [Kristina] almost all of the community property, as well as a various items [sic] of his separate personal property. . . .2.13 CONTINUING RESTRAINING ORDER.

A continuing restraining order in this proceeding is not necessary because [Kristina] already has an Order of Protection entered against [Matthias] in Hawaii.

The judgment previously entered by this court against [Kristina] for [Matthias'] attorney fees in the amount of $1,0000 [sic] is hereby preserved. There is no further award of fees or costs because [Kristina's] attorney fees have been comparatively negligible and [Matthias] has agreed to pay his own fees and costs herein.

The child and the parents or the child and at least one parent or person acting as a parent, have significant connection with the state other than mere physical presence; and substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the children's care, protection, training and personal relationships; and the child's alleged home state (Hawaii) has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum under RCW 26.27.261 or .271.

All courts in the child's alleged home state (Hawaii) have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under RCW 26.261 or .271.

More specifically, the Family Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, has twice during the pendency of this proceeding, in cause numbers FC-D No. 01-1-3198, and FC-D No. 02-1-2798, declined to exercise jurisdiction as to the child and deferred to the jurisdiction of this court. This court accepts jurisdiction over the child.

The parenting plan signed by the court on this date is approved and incorporated as part of these findings. This parenting plan is the result of an agreement of the parties reached at trial. The courts [sic] finds no credible basis for inclusion in the plan of statements of bases for restriction, and notes that no findings were made in the Hawaii proceedings regarding abuse such as would warrant restrictions in the plan.

Support is set from the maximum advisory level of the support economic table, and the court finds no basis for awarding support beyond this amount. . . . The court also finds that [Kristina], at age 40, in apparent good health, and with alleged marketable skills, could be working and is therefore voluntarily unemployed. Although [Matthias] has proposed that no income be imputed to [Kristina] for calculation of the basic child support, the court recognizes her obligation to also contribute to the support of the child.

The previous judgment against [Kristina] for [Matthias'] [attorney] fees should be preserved. No further award should be made, although the court does find that [Kristina] has been intransigent & engaged in frivolous proceedings in this jurisdiction [and] Hawaii.

The Washington court's December 17, 2002 Order of Child Support ordered Matthias to pay $986 per month child support. It further ordered, in relevant part, as follows:

Starting Date: January 2003. Provided, however, that until [Kristina] vacates the residence at 968 Kanakou Place, Honolulu, Hawaii, [Matthias'] payment of the monthly mortgage on that residence shall be deemed payment in satisfaction of this support obligation.

[Matthias] shall continue to maintain and provide health insurance coverage for the child. [Kristina] is not obligated to provide health insurance coverage. . . .

[Matthias] shall pay 100% of all reasonable and necessary health care expenses for the child. . . .

In the instant case, on March 5, 2003, pursuant to HRS § 636C-3, Matthias filed the Washington Decree in the Family Court of the First Circuit. On March 7, 2003, Matthias filed a Motion to Enforce Compliance with Decree of Dissolution seeking "an Order directing the removal and/or ejectment of Defendant KRISTINA INGRID MULLEN KEMENY from the property located at 968 Kanakou Place, Honolulu, Hawaii[.]"

36. In the best interest of the child, [Kristina] Moves the Court with a Motion to modify the child support order, or in the alternative issue an interim Order for child support in accordance with our State guidelines. Award Attorney's fees and costs to [Kristina] for [Matthias'] jurisdiction fraud, [Matthias']Foreign order should not be enforced for the issuing Court did not have jurisdiction over the child, [Kristina], the promise to render support, or the property in Hawaii Kai. For the above reasons and pursuant to [Kristina's] Appeal and in the interest of justice [Kristina] preys [sic] that this Honorable Family Court Deny Enforcement of this Foreign Order. [Kristina's] Motion is in the best interest of [Son], who has been neglected by his father and dismissed by the Courts. [Son] is becoming weak from the stress, is sick more often, and is daily becoming more depressed by the constant battle [Matthias] is putting us through.

This order is improper for it violates juri[s]diction principles, full faith and credit for existing orders, due process, and the principle of a just and equitable award, and as such shall not be entitled to Full faith and credit in this state.

2. [Kristina] has filed a Washington Motion To Stay pending the Appeal, response is to be filed by April 15, 2003, and then a decision on [Kristina's] Motion to Stay. Exhibit "B"

The judgment was based on [Matthias'] fraud, fraud in the procurement of Jurisdiction, and intrinsic as well as extrinsic fraud in the bar case record.

Washington does not have subject matter jurisdiction over child custody and support does not have personal jurisdiction over [Kristina], [Kristina] and child are both Hawaii residents and have not conceded to Washington's exercise of Jurisdiction.

On April 3, 2003, after a hearing on April 2, 2003, Judge William K. Wallace III (Judge Wallace) entered an "Order Granting Motion to Enforce Compliance with Decree of Dissolution."

On April 11, 2003, Kristina filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On April 21, 2003, Matthias filed a Memorandum in Opposition to [Kristina's] Motion for Reconsideration. On May 6, 2003, Judge Wallace entered an order denying Kristina's motion. On May 13, 2003, Kristina filed a notice of appeal of the April 3, 2003 order and thereby commenced this appeal [no. 25830].

On July 17, 2003, the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington, Division II, dismissed Kristina's appeal of the Washington Decree. On August 10, 2003, Kristina advised this court that the correct case number of her Washington State appeal is No. 29886-4-II and that she had filed for reconsideration of its dismissal. She has not advised this court of the status of her request for reconsideration. We assume it was denied.

In the amended opening brief, Kristina contends that (1) jurisdiction existed in Hawaii and not in Washington, (2) the Washington court's exercise of jurisdiction over Kristina and the child did not satisfy due process requirements, (3) the Washington court was an inconvenient forum, (4) the Decree of Dissolution was not in Son's best interest, and (5) an appeal of the Decree of Dissolution had been taken, thus requiring a stay of its enforcement until the conclusion of the appeal.

[t]he issue before the Family Court in regard to [Matthias'] Motion to Enforce was whether the provision in the Washington Decree which awarded [Matthias] the Kanakou Residence, and which ordered [Kristina] to vacate that property, should be enforced. The validity of that property division order was not dependent on any determination as to whether the Washington Court properly exercised jurisdiction with respect to [Son's] custody and visitation.

. . . [T]he validity of the Washington Court's property division order which required [Kristina] to vacate the Kanakou Residence is not dependent on a determination as to whether the Washington Court properly exercised jurisdiction with respect to its order for child support.

In July of 2004, in appeal no. 25476, this court affirmed the family court's October 16, 2002 order dismissing Kristina's First Circuit Court divorce case, FC-D No. 02-1-2798, and stating that the divorce case filed by Matthias in Washington State "shall go forward." In the Memorandum Opinion filed on July 16, 2004, this court stated, in relevant part, at pages 6 and 7:

Judge Nagle's January 8, 2002 Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Divorce Filed September 20, 2001 (January 8, 2002 Order), informed Kristina that her divorce and all related issues (spousal support, child support, custody and visitation, and division and distribution of property and debts) would be decided in the Washington State divorce case and not in Hawaii. In other words, it decided that the relief Kristina sought and might subsequently seek, such as, the relief she sought in her August 26, 2002 Complaint for Divorce and in her September 13, 2002 motion for pre-decree relief, could not be sought in Hawaii and would have to be sought in the Washington State divorce case.

It is clear that Judge Nagle's January 8, 2002 Order was right that "[Matthias] is a domiciliary of the State of Washington," "[t]he Hawaii Family Court lacks in personam jurisdiction over [Matthias] or in rem jurisdiction for purposes of marital property division," and "[t]he Hawaii Family Court lacks in personam jurisdiction over [Matthias] or in rem jurisdiction to adjudicate issues of spousal support[.]" It is not clear that Judge Nagle's January 8, 2002 Order was right regarding the issues of child custody and child support. However, Kristina did not appeal this order. Therefore, she and the courts of Hawaii, including this court, are bound by it. Judge Nagle's order applies as much to Kristina's August 26, 2002 complaint for divorce in the instant case as it did to Kristina's September 20, 2001 complaint for divorce in FC-D No. 01-1-3198. The fact that Judge Nagle's order does not state that it is "with prejudice" does not permit Kristina to file another complaint for divorce, child custody and child support. This is because Judge Nagle's order expressly "declines to exercise jurisdiction regarding issues of child custody and defers to the proceeding for divorce previously initiated in the State of Washington." Moreover, after Judge Nagle's ruling, Kristina participated in the Washington State court's trial, and, at the conclusion of that trial, the Washington State court decided all four parts of the divorce case and noted that the parenting plan resulted from the agreement of Kristina and Matthias. As long as the Washington State decree deciding all four parts of the divorce case remains in effect, Kristina is limited to post-Washington State divorce decree relief and the applicable limitations, restrictions, and burdens of proof.

It appears that the Hawai`i family court deferred to the Washington court because the Hawai`i court did not have in personamin personam jurisdiction over Matthias and Kristina so as to provide it with in personam jurisdiction to decide the spousal support and division and distribution of property and debts part of the divorce case. The validity of the Washington Decree as to the three parts (spousal support, child custody, support and visitation, and division and distribution of property and debts) of the divorce case other than the divorce itself, depends upon the Washington court's in personam jurisdiction over Kristina and compliance with its law governing its jurisdiction to decide child custody, support and visitation.
jurisdiction over Matthias and the Hawai`i court was convinced that the Washington court had not only jurisdiction to decide the child custody, support and visitation part of the divorce case, but also

Judge Nagle's January 8, 2002 order stated that "[Kristina] has not effectively challenged the in personam jurisdiction of the State of Washington over [Kristina] to determine marital property issues or the jurisdiction of the State of Washington to determine issues of child custody, child support or spousal support." Kristina did not appeal this order.

"[Kristina] constructively consented to personal and jurisdiction [sic] by her pleadings in this matter."

"The parenting plan signed by the court on this date is approved and incorporated as part of these findings. This parenting plan is the result of an agreement of the parties reached at trial."

Although they are less definitive than might be expected in light of the issues raised by Kristina, these findings provide the required foundation for the in personam jurisdiction asserted by the Washington court over Kristina. Moreover, the Washington Decree was not disturbed on appeal. Thus, it is binding in Hawaii. Walker v. Walker, 10 Haw. App. 361, 365-67 873 P.2d 114, 116-17 (App. 1994).

Accordingly, we affirm the family court's (1) April 3, 2003 Order Granting Motion to Enforce Compliance With Decree of Dissolution and (2) May 6, 2003 order denying defendant-appellant Kristina I.M. Kemeny's April 11, 2003 Motion for Reconsideration.

On July 30, 2003, Kristina filed two motions. First, she filed an Emergency Motion for Relief in which she stated, in relevant part:

Due to Extreme hardship caused by fathers breech of support agreement, in violation of HRS 584-22, and willful violation of Hawaii Court Orders entered by the Honorable Darrel Choy on Oct 20, 1999. Mother moves the Court for an order to Show Cause for violation of HRS Chapter 575 of the Uniform Desertion and Support Act, section 575-2.

Second, on July 30, 2003, Kristina filed a Motion for Relief After Order or Decree requesting an amendment of child visitation orders, alleging (1) that Matthias was in breach of his support contract; (2) that Matthias misrepresented to the court in Washington and the court in Hawai`i the "status, location, history, and whereabouts of subject child," seeking a modification of child support orders; and (3) that Matthias "has made material misrepresentations concerning his income and net worth[.]"

On August 27, 2003, after a hearing, the family court entered an Order Denying Emergency Motion for Relief that stated:

1) Defendant's motion for relief is denied. Defendant having admitted that Plain[t]iff is in compliance with the Washington child support order no enforcement relief is required.

3) Plaintiff's request for imposition of vexatious litigant sanctions is denied.

In contrast to its title, the body of this order does not make clear that it decides Kristina's July 30, 2003 Emergency Motion for Relief, and not Kristina's July 30, 2003 Motion for Relief After Order or Decree.

On September 29, 2003, in appeal no. 26123, Kristina filed a notice of appeal of the August 27, 2003 Order Denying Emergency Motion for Relief.

On November 6, 2003, the court entered FsOF and CsOL that, among other things, clearly stated that the August 27, 2003 Order Denying Emergency Motion for Relief decided Kristina's July 30, 2003 Emergency Motion for Relief. It did not mention Kristina's July 30, 2003 Motion for Relief After Order or Decree. Notwithstanding this information, the Hawai`i Supreme Court, on January 21, 2004, dismissed appeal no. 26123 because "[t]he family court's August 27, 2003 order determined the issue of child support, but did not determine the issue of visitation. Absent a determination of the issue of visitation, the appeal of the August 27, 2003 order is premature." It appears that this order was erroneous because the family court's August 27, 2003 Order Denying Emergency Motion for Relief decided Kristina's July 30, 2003 Emergency Motion for Relief and did not mention Kristina's July 30, 2003 Motion for Relief After Order or Decree. This court, however, is not authorized to disturb an order entered by the Hawai`i Supreme Court.

In its April 23, 2004 FsOF and CsOL, the court explained the reason why its August 27, 2003 order did not decide Kristina's July 30, 2003 Motion for Relief After Order or Decree, as follows:

13. On July 30, 2003, Defendant filed an Emergency Motion for Relief ("Emergency Motion") and Motion and Affidavit for Relief after Order or Decree. Both motions objected to Washington's jurisdiction and sought modification relief from Hawai`i.

On March 11, 2004, the court heard and denied Kristina's February 20, 2004 Motion Demand for Default Judgment Pursuant to FC-Rule 54(c) with respect to the undecided issues raised in her July 30, 2003 Motion for Relief After Order or Decree.

On March 17, 2004, the court heard and denied Kristina's February 25, 2004 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for Order After Decree with respect to the undecided issues raised in her July 30, 2003 Motion for Relief After Order or Decree.

On March 17, 2004, the court heard and decided Matthias's March 12, 2004 motion pursuant to HRS chapter 634J (1993) by declaring Kristina a vexatious litigant but denying Matthias's request for attorney fees. This order states, in relevant part, as follows:

(1) Pursuant to H.R.S. Chapter 634J, [Kristina] is declared a vexatious litigant.

(2) Pursuant to H.R.S. §634J-7(a), the court hereby enters a prefiling order which prohibits [Kristina] from filing any new litigation or filing any pleading in any prior litigation, in the courts of this State on the litigant's own behalf without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge of the court where the litigation or pleading is proposed to be filed.

On March 23, 2004, Kristina filed a notice of appeal "from the Order Denying Defendant[']s Motion for Order After Decree to modify the child support, as well as the March 11^th 2004 Order denying Defendant[']s Motion for Default and the March 17^th 2004 Motion for judgment on the Pleadings, the Denial of defendant's request to review the August 27, 2003 transcript of hearing tape, and the granting of Plaintiff[']s Motion to Declare Defendant a Vexatious Litigant and Controlling Order entered[.]"

On April 8, 2004, Kristina filed her Objection to Form of Order objecting to the content of the order declaring her a vexatious litigant. In this document, Kristina argued, in relevant part, that:

Opposing Council [sic] is misconstruing the facts when stating that the order was for any and all filings in the State of Hawaii. The Family Court does not have jurisdiction over the Civil Court, or Criminal Court. This is an outrage and complete violation of Defendant[']s due process. [Kristina] moves the court to order Opposing Council [sic] to correct the Order to be consistent with the Judge[']s specification, that it only controlled the M case filings.

On April 23, 2004, the court filed its FsOF and CsOL. On December 29, 2004, this appeal was assigned to this court.

2. by not finding that Hawai`i has continuing exclusive jurisdiction over support and custody;

3. by not granting her motion for order after decree by default as no opposition was filed and time to respond expired;

4. by allowing counsel for Matthias to disregard Hawaii Family Court Rule 58(a) by filing an order that did not conform with the decision of the court;

6. by not modifying the Washington child support order pursuant to the Hawai`i guidelines, or by not issuing an interim support order considering that Son was expelled from his home with no alternative shelter and is receiving Hawai`i public assistance;

7. by not finding that Matthias submitted fraudulent affidavits and income and asset statements to the Hawai`i and Washington courts;

8. by not vacating the Washington Parenting Plan on the ground that it violated the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act;

9. by denying her motion to review the tape recording of the August 27, 2003 hearing; and

10. by entering FOF no. 15 because it erroneously implies that, at some point, she and Child were not residents of Hawai`i.

In accordance with Hawai`i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 35, and after carefully reviewing the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, and duly considering and analyzing the law relevant to the arguments and issues raised by the parties, we conclude that this appeal has no merit. Therefore,

2. The March 17, 2004 denial of Kristina's February 25, 2004 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for Order After Decree with respect to the undecided issues raised in the second of her two motions filed on July 30, 2003.

3. The March 17, 2004 grant in part and denial in part of the motion filed by Matthias on March 12, 2004 asking the court to declare Kristina a vexatious litigant and for attorney fees.

2. Defendant-Appellant did not satisfy the following requirements of Hawaii Revised Statutes § 636C-5 (1993):

Stay. (a) If the judgment debtor shows the court that an appeal from the foreign judgment is pending . . ., the court shall stay enforcement of the foreign judgment until the appeal is concluded, . . . upon proof that the judgment debtor has furnished the security for the satisfaction of the judgment required by the state in which it was rendered.