Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneypartnershipdivorce
defendantattorneystatuteappellee

Related Cases

Mourad v. Automobile Club Ins. Ass’n, 186 Mich.App. 715, 465 N.W.2d 395, 59 USLW 2495, 121 Lab.Cas. P 56,861, 6 IER Cases 193
View Case »
People v. Meredith, 29 Cal.3d 682, 631 P.2d 46, 175 Cal.Rptr. 612
View Case »
Hass v. Oregon State Bar, 883 F.2d 1453, 58 USLW 2166, 1989-2 Trade Cases P 68,732
View Case »
Swanson v. State Farm General Ins. Co., 219 Cal.App.4th 1153, 162 Cal.Rptr.3d 477, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,674, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,875
View Case »
Lane v. Sharp Packaging Systems, Inc., 251 Wis.2d 68, 2002 WI 28, 640 N.W.2d 788
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Markham v. Markham, 80 Hawai’i 274, 909 P.2d 602

Facts

Donald T. Markham (Husband) and Iris M. Markham (Wife) were married in 1990 after a period of cohabitation. During their marriage, they lived in a property owned by Husband and his daughter from a previous marriage. The couple separated in 1991, and Husband filed for divorce shortly thereafter. The divorce proceedings included disputes over the ownership of the Kahena property and Husband's stock interest in Maile, Inc., as well as claims regarding the wife's alleged infidelity and financial motives for marriage.

Husband was born on May 26, 1936 and Defendant–Appellee Iris M. Markham (Wife) was born on April 25, 1951. Husband met Wife in early 1986. Around September of 1986, Wife moved into Husband's residence at 831 Kahena Street (the Kahena property) located in Honolulu, Hawai‘i.

Issue

The main legal issues included whether the family court erred in excluding evidence of the wife's alleged financial motives and infidelity, the validity of an assignment of property interests, and the valuation of Husband's stock in Maile, Inc.

In determining the division of marital property, it is well-settled that one spouse's personal conduct or misconduct towards the other spouse is irrelevant.

Rule

The court applied the partnership model for property division in divorce cases, which allows for equitable distribution of both marital and separate property, and established that personal conduct of spouses is generally irrelevant to property division.

Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 580–47 (1993) allows the court to consider the 'respective merits of the parties' when determining marital property division.

Analysis

The court found that the family court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of the wife's alleged financial motives and infidelity, as such conduct was deemed irrelevant to the division of marital property. The court also ruled that the assignment of property interests was improperly nullified, and that the valuation of Husband's stock needed to be reconsidered based on the evidence presented.

The record is devoid of any evidence demonstrating that the wife's alleged premarital intentions or her extramarital relationship negatively affected the accumulation or preservation of the husband's separate property.

Conclusion

The court affirmed some aspects of the family court's ruling but vacated and remanded others, particularly regarding the assignment of property interests and the valuation of Husband's stock in Maile, Inc.

Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part.

Who won?

The prevailing party was Wife in the sense that the court upheld the award of attorney's fees and costs to her, while also affirming certain rulings in her favor regarding property division.

The court also awarded attorney's fees and costs to Wife.

You must be