NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
21-SEP-2026
08:47 AM
Dkt. 87 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
Z.N., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
M.N., Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1DV161001290)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)
Self-represented Defendant-Appellant M.N. (Husband)
appeals from the Family Court of the First Circuit's October 21,
2024 "Decree Granting Absolute Divorce and Awarding Child
Custody" (Divorce Decree). 1 (Formatting altered.)
On appeal, Husband raises eleven points of error (POE)
and nine arguments (Arguments A-I). However, as selfrepresented Plaintiff-Appellee Z.N. (Wife) points out, Husband's
POE, presented in their entirety below, fail to comply with
Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4):
1 The Honorable Robert J. Brown presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
1. Misclassification of Trust Assets.
2. Erroneous Income Determination.
3. Disregard for Judge Browning's Probate Order.
4. Irreconcilable Conflicts in the Record.
5. Judicial Bias and Failure to Disclose Relationships
Timely.
6. Misconduct, Perjury, and Discovery Interference by
[Wife]'s Counsel.
7. Unconstitutional and Excessive Punitive Enforcement
Measures, including Judge Murakami's Order and Judge
Natasha Shaw's Revocation Order.
8. Improper Revocation of Essential Personal Documents.
9. Adverse Impact on the Best Interests of the Children.
10. [Husband]'s Pattern of Compliance and Good Faith
Efforts.
11. Erroneous Treatment of the Trust Assets and Family
Court Jurisdiction.
(Formatting altered.)
Husband's POE do not cite to where in the record the
alleged errors occurred, or where in the record he objected to
or brought the alleged errors to the family court's attention.
See HRAP Rule 28(b)(4). The underlying record in this case
contains 1,135 dockets, and we are "not obligated to sift
through the voluminous record to verify an appellant's
inadequately documented contentions." Hawaii Ventures, LLC v.
Otaka, Inc., 114 Hawaiʻi 438, 480, 164 P.3d 696, 738 (2007)
(quoting Lanai Co. v. Land Use Comm'n, 105 Hawaiʻi 296, 309 n.31,
97 P.3d 372, 385 n.31 (2004)).
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
We note Husband untimely requested four transcripts
for proceedings on April 8, 2024; April 9, 2024; April 15, 2024;
and April 16, 2024. The court reporter informed Husband that no
transcripts would be produced, because the request was untimely
and Husband did not respond to the court reporter's request for
a deposit. See State v. Hoang, 93 Hawaiʻi 333, 336, 3 P.3d 499,
502 (2000) ("Without the relevant transcript, there is
insufficient evidence to review the alleged error, and [the
appellant] carries the burden of demonstrating the alleged error
in the record." (emphasis omitted)).
We also note that Husband does not expressly challenge
any of the family court's findings of fact or conclusions of
law. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(4)(C) (requiring an appellant to
include "either a quotation of the finding or conclusion urged
as error or reference to appended findings and conclusions" when
the appellant's "point [of error] involves a finding or
conclusion of the court or agency"); Okada Trucking Co. v. Bd.
of Water Supply, 97 Hawaiʻi 450, 458, 40 P.3d 73, 81 (2002)
(explaining findings of fact "not challenged on appeal are
binding on the appellate court").
We nonetheless endeavor to address Husband's nine
arguments, Arguments A-I, to the extent we can discern. See MM
v. BD, 144 Hawaiʻi 387, 442 P.3d 450, Nos. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2019 WL 2295492, at *1 n.3 (App. May 30, 2019)
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
(SDO). We consider Husband's arguments with the abovereferenced principles in mind.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve this
appeal as discussed below and affirm.
Based on the uncontested findings, Wife and Husband
were married in 2007 and have two children. In 2016, Wife filed
a complaint for divorce. Wife and Husband "engaged in nearly
eight (8) years of pre-trial litigation in their divorce case."
Trial was held on April 8, 9, 15, 16, and May 28,
2024. The family court found Wife to be "a credible witness."
The family court found Husband was "generally not a
credible witness," and Husband's "testimony regarding his
finances, financial history, and capacity to financially provide
for the Children and satisfy his Court-ordered obligations was
not credible." The family court "specifically reject[ed]
[Husband]'s testimony pertaining to his finances, financial
history, [a cryptocurrency company Husband directed], and [his]
capacity to financially provide for the Children and satisfy his
Court-ordered obligations." "Much of [Husband]'s conduct in
this litigation has been abhorrent, particularly with regard to
his discovery abuses and other bad-faith litigation tactics."
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
The family court found, "Due to [Husband]'s failure to
satisfy his Court-ordered financial obligations, [Wife] was
forced to sell 1909 Ala Wai," a property she purchased after
graduating from the University of Hawaiʻi.
Following the trial, the family court entered the
Divorce Decree. Husband appealed.
(1) First, in Arguments A and F, Husband appears to
argue that assets in two trusts, referred to as the MN Trust and
the JN Trust, were separate property and "not subject to
division in this divorce proceeding."
HRAP Rule 28(b)(7) requires the opening brief to
contain an argument with "the contentions of the appellant on
the points presented and the reasons therefor, with citations to
the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on."
Husband provides the following quotation to support
his argument that the MN Trust assets were separate property:
"'All assets held within the [MN] Trust,
including the 2015 Mercedes-Benz and both Charles
Schwab [MN] Irrevocable Trust accounts, are
hereby determined to be the separate property of
[Husband] and shall remain solely his.' (RA-FC
DKT 851 DO, p. 74, line 6)."
(Formatting altered.) But Docket 851, page 74 contains no such
language.
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
As to both trusts, Husband provides another quotation
to support his argument:
"'Any claims or disputes regarding the [MN] Trust
or the [JN] Trust are beyond the purview of the
Family Court and must be resolved in the
appropriate probate jurisdiction.' (RA-FC DKT
No, 780, [Husband]'s Exhibit T)."
{Formatting altered.) Docket 780 contains the minutes from a
hearing held on April 16, 2024. Although the minutes reflect
that Husband's Exhibit T was entered into evidence, the minutes
do not reflect the language Husband quotes.
Husband provides other quotations but no citations.
Thus, Husband does not present a discernible argument for this
court to consider.
Husband's argument also refers to "Judge Browning's
Probate Order dated October 16, 2019" for the proposition that
the assets in the trusts are not subject to division, but he
does not provide a citation. At the end of his opening brief,
Husband provides a citation for "Judge Browning's Probate Order"
as "(RA-FC, DKT 779, Exhibit 75, p.1-3)," but Docket 779
contains the court minutes from a hearing on April 15, 2024.
(Some formatting altered.) According to those minutes, Wife's
Exhibit 75 was admitted into evidence. Exhibit 75 is an "Order
Granting-in-Part the Petition for Confirmation of Trustees'
6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Legal Ownership of [Hawaiʻi] Real Property." (Formatting
altered.)
According to Exhibit 75, the probate court ordered
that the trustees of the JN Trust were the sole legal owners of
the trust property, but that Husband's share of any sale
proceeds was to be held until the family court matter was
resolved:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Petition for Confirmation of Trustees' Legal
Ownership of [Hawaiʻi] Real Property is hereby grantedin-part[.]
2. The Trustees of the [JN] Trust are the sole legal owners
of the [Hawaiʻi] Property.
3. The Trustees shall hold [Husband]'s share of the
proceeds from any sale of the [Hawaiʻi] Property until
the [Hawaiʻi] Family Court Matter is resolved.
4. Any other claims relating to the enforcement of the
Trust, the administration of the Trust, and any Trust
assets shall be brought in the Santa Clara County
Superior Court, Probate Division.
(Emphasis added.)
Thus, this order does not stand for the proposition
that the trusts' assets were not divisible.
(2) In Argument B, Husband argues that Wife's
"American Savings Bank ledger irrefutably demonstrates deposits
totaling $258,356.96 over a 14-month period . . . directly
contradicting her false sworn Asset and Debt Statement declaring
a $0.00 balance." Husband then cites to "(RA-FC, DKT 1050, pp.
7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
20-57)." Docket 1050 is a "Notice of Electronic Filing" and
provides no substantive information.
As Exhibit A to his opening brief, Husband provides
copies of processed checks and statements from American Savings
Bank. It appears these documents were provided by American
Savings Bank on March 5, 2025, in response to a subpoena duces
tecum served on February 28, 2025, approximately nine months
after this case was tried. At the end of his opening brief,
Husband cites, "Exhibit A (RA-FC, Subpoenaed records DKT 947):
[Wife]'s American Savings Bank Ledger (pp. 20-57)." (Some
formatting altered.) However, Docket 947 is the two-page
subpoena duces tecum filed on February 27 and served on
February 28, 2025 — not the documents from American Savings
Bank.
This court's review is confined to the record on
appeal. See Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 641-2(b) (2016)
("Every appeal shall be taken on the record, and no new evidence
shall be introduced in the supreme court."). "Anything that is
not part of the record shall not be appended to the [opening]
brief, except as provided in this Rule." HRAP Rule 28(b)(10).
Husband has not shown that the documents in Exhibit A appended
to his opening brief are part of the record.
8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
(3) In Arguments C and E, Husband alleges
"Misconduct, Perjury, and Discovery Interference by [Wife]'s
Counsel" and sets forth the definition and consequences of
perjury. (Formatting altered.)
The only citation to the record Husband provides is
"(RA-FC, DKT 779, Exhibit 7)." (Formatting altered.)
Docket 779 contains the minutes from a hearing held on April 15,
2024. Nothing in the minutes for this hearing supports
Husband's allegations. Instead, the minutes reflect that
discussions regarding case status, whether Husband should be
sanctioned for being late to court, and a subpoena to "ASB" were
held; testimony was taken; and exhibits were received into
evidence. And no transcript of the April 15, 2024 hearing is
available for this court to review.
Husband, therefore, provides no discernible argument
for this court to review.
(4) In Argument D, Husband asserts that Judge Brown
was biased and failed to timely disclose his relationship with
Wife's attorney, John Schmidtke, and Schmidtke's son. Husband
points to Exhibit B of his opening brief, which is a copy of a
partial transcript for proceedings held on April 8, 2024,
related to Husband's request that Judge Brown recuse himself.
As mentioned above, this court is confined to review
the record on appeal. See HRS § 641-2(b); HRAP Rule 28(b)(10).
9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Under HRAP Rule 10(a), the record on appeal "consist[s] of the
trial court . . . record, as set out in Rule 4 of the Hawaiʻi
Court Records Rules [(HCRR)]." HCRR Rule 4 provides, in part,
that the record shall include "court reporters' notes, audio or
video recordings of court proceedings, and any transcripts
prepared from them[.]"
HRAP Rule 10(b) governs the preparation of
transcripts. "Unless the requestor is exempt from the
transcript payment or deposit requirement or the reporter has
waived such requirement, a reporter need not commence
preparation of the transcript until the required deposit or
transcript prepayment has been made to the court reporter."
HRAP Rule 10(b)(1)(C). "Upon completion of each transcript and
receipt of payment, the court reporter shall file the transcript
through [the Judiciary Electronic Filing and Service System
(JEFS)] or [the Judiciary Information Management System (JIMS)],
designate the document as the 'Transcript of proceedings held on
<date>' and enter the date of the transcribed proceeding in the
Notes field for the corresponding JEFS or JIMS docket entry."
HRAP Rule 10(b)(1)(G).
Again, "[a]nything that is not part of the record
shall not be appended to the [opening] brief, except as provided
in this Rule." HRAP Rule 28(b)(10).
10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Husband does not point to where in the record the
court reporter filed the transcripts reflected in his Exhibit B
in JEFS or JIMS. Exhibit B is only a partial transcript of the
April 8, 2024 proceedings. And Wife states in her answering
brief that she "cannot accept the veracity of the alleged
partial transcript [Husband] filed as Exhibit B." See Doe v.
Doe, 138 Hawaiʻi 142, 377 P.3d 1060, Nos. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, CAAPXX-XXXXXXX, and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2016 WL 3599924, at *3 n.4
(App. June 30, 2016) (SDO) ("When an appellant attaches a
transcript to the opening brief and fails to include it in the
record on appeal, we disregard the transcript, as it is not part
of the record.").
Thus, we do not consider the transcripts appended to
Husband's opening brief. See id. Without a transcript in the
record, "we have no basis upon which to review" the family
court's denial of Husband's request that Judge Brown recuse
himself. See Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawaiʻi 225, 231,
909 P.2d 553, 559 (1995).
(5) Argument G simply asks this court for "Reversal
and Remand," sanctions, and other relief. (Formatting altered.)
There is no argument to review.
(6) Argument H, in its entirety, is as follows:
The punitive measures imposed against [Husband] severely
undermine his ability to provide stability and security for
his children. The revocation of his Driver's License and
U.S. Passport critically affects his employment, mobility,
and custody arrangements. The best interests of the
11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
children require that Appellant remain unencumbered by such
punitive sanctions.
See Doe v. Doe, 120 Haw. 149, 202 P3d 610, 623 (2009);
Nakamoto v. Nakamoto, 100 Haw. 408, 60 P3d 798, 806 (2002).
(Emphasis omitted.) Husband's argument provides no citation to
the record. At the end of Husband's opening brief, Husband
cites to "Judge Natasha Shaw's Revocation Order of [Husband]'s
Hawaiʻi Driver's License and U.S. Passport, including conditional
payment language" at "(RA-FC DKT 990 Order)." (Emphasis
omitted.)
Docket 990 is the family court's "Order Re Motion for
Post-Decree Relief (DKT. 874)." (Formatting altered.) Wife
moved for an order requiring Husband to, among other things,
comply with certain court-ordered obligations and surrender his
driver's license and all passports until he was current with
child support. The family court found that Husband admitted he
did not comply with the court's orders. The family court then
held Husband in civil contempt and granted Wife's request that
Husband surrender his passports, but denied Wife's request that
Husband surrender his driver's license.
Docket 1000 is the family court's "Order Re Compliance
Hearing." (Formatting altered.) Following a compliance
hearing, the family court found, among other things, that
Husband did not comply with its previous orders. The family
court entered new orders, including an order that Husband
surrender his driver's license. The family court then entered a
12
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
judgment in favor of Wife and against Husband for $95,025.75.
Husband filed a motion for reconsideration, which the family
court denied.
Docket 1089, which was entered after Husband submitted
his opening brief, is the family court's "Order Regarding
[Wife]'s 'Motion and Declaration for Post-Decree Relief,' Filed
on July 2, 2025 (DKT. 1065)." (Formatting altered.) In this
order, the family court vacated its previous orders requiring
Husband to surrender his driver's license and passports,
"pending compliance with the Orders herein." Thus, this issue
is moot.
(7) Finally, Argument I, in its entirety, is as
follows: "[Husband] has consistently complied with all court
orders and provided exhaustive financial disclosures. The
record starkly contrasts with the repeated misconduct,
misrepresentations, and deliberate discovery interference
conducted by [Wife]'s counsel." See Kienker v. Bauer, 110
Hawaiʻi 97, 104 n.12, 129 P.3d 1125, 1132 n.12 (2006) ("This
argument consists of one paragraph and neither cites law nor
contains cites to the record. The appellate courts are not
obligated to search the record to crystallize the parties'
arguments. Accordingly, this argument is not considered."
13
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
(citation omitted)). Husband provides no citations to the
record; we therefore do not consider this argument.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the family court's
October 21, 2024 Divorce Decree.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, September 21, 2026.
On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Presiding Judge
M.N.,
Self-represented /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Defendant-Appellant. Associate Judge
Z.N., /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Self-represented Associate Judge Plaintiff-Appellee.
14