A.M. v. J.M. — Hawaii appeals court affirms divorce property division and dismisses untimely cross-appeal

Case
A.M. v. J.M.
Court
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
Judge
Katherine G. Leonard; Keith K. Hiraoka; Daniel M. Gluck
Date Decided
September 23, 2026
Docket No.
CAAP-25-0000699
Topics
Divorce; Property division; Appellate record; Cross-appeal
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

J.M., representing herself, appealed a Family Court of the Third Circuit decree dissolving her marriage to A.M. and dividing the parties’ property. Both spouses owned homes before the marriage and sold them during the marriage. J.M. argued that the family court used materially different valuation inputs when calculating each spouse’s premarital, or Category 1, property credit.

J.M.’s property chart placed her premarital home equity at $50,000. A.M. sought $168,000 based on sale proceeds from his home, but the family court instead credited him $110,000—the home’s purchase price before the marriage. The appellate record did not include transcripts of the family-court proceedings, despite an extension allowing J.M. time to obtain them.

The Court’s Holding

The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the divorce decree. An appellant must provide the evidence on which the lower court could have based its findings; while the available record can still reveal a clear dispositive error, this record did not do so.

The court concluded that the family court could reasonably treat A.M.’s $110,000 purchase price as an approximation of his net equity at marriage because the record did not establish an encumbrance on the property then. Category 1 capital contributions are measured by net market value as of the marriage date, not by net sale proceeds received during the marriage, which may include appreciation subject to division. The court also dismissed A.M.’s cross-appeal as untimely.

Key Takeaways

  • An appellant’s failure to include trial transcripts can require affirmance unless the available record clearly discloses error.
  • Premarital-property credits are based on value at the date of marriage, not later sale proceeds.
  • A cross-appeal filed after the applicable 14-day deadline is untimely and was dismissed here.

Why It Matters

The order underscores the importance of distinguishing premarital equity from post-marriage appreciation in Hawaii divorce property divisions. It also illustrates that an incomplete appellate record substantially limits review of claimed factual or valuation errors.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top