BRENDA M. HOERNIG, nka Brenda E. Morris, Plaintiff-Appellee,
BRYAN T. HOERNIG, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (FC-DIVORCE NO. 05-1-0677)
Blake T. Okimoto for Defendant-Appellant
Brenda E. Morris Plaintiff-Appellee Pro Se
Foley, Presiding Judge, Fujise and Ginoza, JJ.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Defendant-Appellant Bryan T. Hoernig (Father) appeals from the "Order Re Short Trial" (Order) entered on February 9, 2010, in the Family Court of the First Circuit (family court). The order denied Father's July 24, 2009 motion for post-decree relief (Post-Decree Motion) from the "Decree Granting Absolute Divorce and Awarding Child Custody" (Divorce Decree) that dissolved his marriage from Plaintiff-Appellee Brenda M. Hoernig, nka Brenda E. Morris (Mother). Father's Post-Decree Motion sought a reduction in his child support obligation and a decrease in his share of the educational expenses for the parties' children.
On appeal, Father contends the family court erred when it:
(1) found that Father failed to meet his burden to show a material change in circumstances to justify a reduction in his monthly child support obligation;
(2) concluded in Conclusion of Law (COL) 12 that Father failed to meet his burden to prove a material change in circumstances to warrant a reduction in his educational support obligation to his children;
(3) concluded in COL 10 that Father's lifestyle is the same or better than when his child support obligation was established;
(4) entered Findings of Fact (FOFs) 18, 49, 50, and 51, in which inter alia the family court found it difficult to determine Father's income; and
(5) entered FOF 20, in which the family court found that Father's lumber business, Honolulu Hardwoods, Inc. (HH), pays Father's condominium mortgage.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, as well as the relevant statutory and case law, we resolve Father's points of error as follows:
I. The family court did not err in concluding that Father failed to meet his burden of proof of a material change in circumstances to justify a reduction in his child support obligation.
Upon granting a divorce, the family court is authorized to order the divorcing parties "to provide for the support, maintenance, and education of the children of the parties." Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 580-47(a) (2006 Repl.). The family court has continuing authority to modify its orders "upon a showing of a change in the circumstances of either party . . . since the entry of any prior order relating to the support, maintenance, and education." HRS § 580-47 (c); Davis v. Davis, 3 Haw.App. 501, 505, 653 P.2d 1167, 1170 (1982). The party requesting the modification must prove the ...