Skip to Main Nav Skip to Main Content Skip to Footer Content

Oral Arguments before the Intermediate Court of Appeals

NO. 27984 – Wednesday, July 8, 2009 – 10:15 a.m.

JAN MICHAEL WEINBERG, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BRENDA IRENE DICKSON-WEINBERG, Defendant-Appellant..

Attorney(s) for Defendant-Appellant
Peter Van Name Esser and Cheryl R. Brawley

Attorney(s) for Plaintiff-Appellee
Charles T. Kleintop and Dyan M. Medeiros (Kleintop Luria & Medeiros)

Attorney(s) for Plaintiff-Appellee and Plaintiff/Intervenor-Appellee
William F. Crockett (Crockett and Nakamura)

SPECIAL NOTE: The above argument will take place in the Supreme Court courtroom on the Second Floor of Ali`iolani Hale, 417 South King Street, Honolulu, Hawai`i.

COURT: Watanabe, Foley & Nakamura, JJ.

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief description:

Defendant-Appellant Brenda Irene Dickson-Weinberg (Wife) appeals: (A) the divorce decree entered by the Family Court of the First Circuit (family court) on May 18, 2006 (divorce decree), which ended her marriage to Plaintiff-Appellee Jan Michael Weinberg (Husband); and (B) various family court orders that led up to or followed the entry of the divorce decree.

Wife argues that: (1) the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed on August 16, 2006, which three family court judges jointly signed “without any indication of which judge adopted which statement,” did not comply with Hawai`i Family Court Rules Rule 52; (2) the family court clearly erred in refusing to enforce an agreement in contemplation of divorce, a contract to share Husband’s retirement accounts, and a quitclaim deed conveying the marital residence to Wife; (3) the family court abused its discretion when it refused to relax pre-trial deadlines, denied a trial continuance, and barred Wife from introducing experts, exhibits, or evidence at trial; (4) the family court did not comply with Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 580-47 (2006) or partnership principles when it valued Husband’s law practice and denied Wife credit for her Category 1 pre-marital assets; and (5) the family court abused its discretion by failing to consider all of the factors enumerated in HRS § 580-47(a) in denying Wife any post-decree alimony.