*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX 05-NOV-2020 07:46 AM Dkt. 7 OPA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I ---o0o--- L.R.O., Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. N.D.O., Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX; FC-D NO. 16-1-1111) NOVEMBER 5, 2020 RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, AND WILSON, JJ., AND CIRCUIT JUDGE CHANG, ASSIGNED BY REASON OF VACANCY OPINION OF THE COURT BY RECKTENWALD, C.J. I. INTRODUCTION Our state’s version of the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (UPAA) provides that a premarital agreement (PMA) is enforceable unless one of the parties proves they did not execute it voluntarily. Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 572D- 6(1) (2018). Petitioner N.D.O. (Wife) argued throughout the *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** parties’ divorce proceeding that she involuntarily executed a PMA prior to her marriage to L.R.O. (Husband). We conclude that the family court did not err in rejecting that argument and by enforcing the PMA. However, to provide further guidance to the family courts, we adopt the California Supreme Court’s test for voluntariness in PMAs under the UPAA. We further hold that Wife’s other asserted points of error are meritless, and we affirm the judgment of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) and the Family Court of the First Circuit (family court). II. BACKGROUND This appeal arises from a Divorce Decree between parties Wife and Husband. In Wife’s application for writ of certiorari, she argues that the family court erred by: (1) awarding full physical custody of the parties’ minor child to Husband based on the custody evaluator’s allegedly biased opinion; (2) enforcing a PMA between the parties that Wife alleged was unconscionable and entered into involuntarily; and (3) failing to find that Husband abused the temporary restraining order (TRO) process to gain advantage in the custody dispute. A. Family Court Proceedings The facts of this case are complex, and Wife and Husband presented two drastically different versions of events. The following background facts are undisputed. 2 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** In 2013, Wife’s aunt, J.D., who lived in Hawai‘i, approached Husband, who used to live in J.D.’s building, because she wanted to introduce Husband to her niece (Wife) who lived in Vietnam. After Husband and Wife electronically communicated for several months, J.D. and Husband traveled to Vietnam in December 2013; J.D. paid for Husband’s flight. Husband met Wife in person for the first time on this trip, at which point Husband was 45 years old and Wife was 22 years old. Four months later, Husband returned to Vietnam and proposed to Wife, who accepted. Wife came to the United States in June 2014 on a K-1 fiancée visa, allowing her 90 days to marry Husband. On August 13, 2014, the parties entered into the PMA, 1 which contained terms releasing the parties from “any alimony or support obligations.” The PMA also provided that each spouse’s property upon entry into the marriage ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals