Carroll v. Nagatori-Carroll

5 Citing cases

  1. Kakinami v. Kakinami

    127 Haw. 126 (Haw. 2012)   Cited 100 times

    [127 Hawai'i 156] disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant; (2) the family court failed to exercise its equitable discretion; or (3) the family court's decision clearly exceeds the bounds of reason." Tougas, 76 Hawai‘i at 26, 868 P.2d at 444 (emphasis added); accord Torres v. Torres, 100 Hawai‘i 397, 428, 60 P.3d 798, 829 (2002) ; Carroll v. Nagatori–Carroll, 90 Hawai‘i 376, 381, 978 P.2d 814, 819 (1999) ; Wong v. Wong, 87 Hawai‘i 475, 486, 960 P.2d 145, 156 (App.1998) ; Bennett v. Bennett, 8 Haw.App. 415, 426, 807 P.2d 597, 603 (1991). In this case, it was the court's obligation to exercise its equitable discretion.

  2. Torres v. Torres

    100 Haw. 397 (Haw. 2002)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that surviving spouse benefits did not vest in the then-current spouse upon the participant's retirement

    We review the family court's conclusion to award benefits under a manifest abuse of discretion standard. See Carroll v. Nagatori-Carroll, 90 Haw. 376, 381, 978 P.2d 814, 819 (1999) ("Under the abuse of discretion standard of review, the appellate court is not authorized to disturb the family court's decision unless (1) the family court disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant; (2) the family court failed to exercise its equitable discretion; or (3) the family court's decision clearly exceeds the bounds of reason." (Brackets and quotation marks omitted.)).

  3. Rand v. Rand

    137 Haw. 206 (Haw. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    Therefore, as the Family Court's decision not to offset the promissory notes with any of the corresponding payments under the bonus agreements ran counter to the principles of equity, it abused its discretion by doing so. Carroll v. Nacratori–Carroll, 90 Hawai‘i 376, 381, 978 P.2d 814, 819 (1999) (“Under the abuse of discretion standard of review, the appellate court is not authorized to disturb the family court's decision unless ... the family court failed to exercise its equitable discretion[.]”) (citations and brackets omitted). [137 Hawai'i 9]

  4. Carstensen v. Carstensen

    128 Haw. 310 (Haw. Ct. App. 2012)

    Although the distribution of these benefits has been treated as property division, the prospective and continuing nature of these payments can be construed as maintenance and support rather than mere division of property. See Carroll v. Nagatori–Carroll, 90 Hawai‘i 376, 382, 978 P.2d 814, 820 (1999) (“Looking at the substance of the Divorce Decree in the present case, the amounts that Carroll owed ex-wife do not easily fit within any traditional description of ‘property division.’ ”); see also In re Marriage of Ash, 61 Or.App. 595, 658 P.2d 540, 541 (Or.Ct.App.1983) (“In determining whether an award is a division of property or spousal support, the label given it in the decree is not conclusive.”).

  5. Carstensen v. Carstensen

    NO. 28920 (Haw. Ct. App. Sep. 12, 2012)   Cited 1 times
    Concluding that the family court erred in determining that husband's HFCR Rule 60(b) motion was untimely based in part on Greene v. Greene, 8 Haw. App. 559, 815 P.2d 28

    Although the distribution of these benefits has been treated as property division, the prospective and continuing nature of these payments can be construed as maintenance and support rather than mere division of property. See Carroll v. Nagatori-Carroll, 90 Hawai'i 376, 382, 978 P.2d 814, 820 (1999) ("Looking at the substance of the Divorce Decree in the present case, the amounts that Carroll owed ex-wife do not easily fit within any traditional description of 'property division.'"); see also In re Marriage of Ash, 658 P.2d 540, 541 (Or. Ct. App. 1983) ("In determining whether an award is a division of property or spousal support, the label given it in the decree is not conclusive."). The nature of such a provision dividing the future stream of income from a retirement plan weighs in favor of a liberal construction of timeliness especially when the party seeking relief seeks to modify the future payment, rather than past payments, under the provision.