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

Oral Arguments before the Hawaii Supreme Court

No. 28928 – Thursday, December 2, 2010 at 10 a.m.

GERALDINE CVITANOVICH-DUBIE, now known as GERALDINE CVITANOVICH,, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs NANCY DUBIE, Personal Representative of the Estate of George Patrick Dubie, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

Attorney(s) for Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant:
Michael Jay Green, Howard Glickstein, Kimberly A. Van Horn

Attorney(s) for Respondent/Defendant-Appellee:
Paul A. Tomar (Ashford & Wriston), Raymond K. Okada, Bruce L. Lamon, Kimberly J. Koide (Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel)

NOTE: The Oral Argument will take place at the Ronald T.Y. Moon Judiciary Complex, 4675 Kapolei Parkway, Kapolei, HI 96709.
NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by former Chief Justice Ronald T.Y. Moon, filed 8/2/10.
NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge Richard K. Perkins,  in place of former Chief Justice Ronald T.Y. Moon, recused, filed 8/9/10.

COURT: MER, CJ; PAN, SRA, JED, JJ; Circuit Court Judge Richard K. Perkins in place of former Chief Justice Moon, recused and now retired.

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

Petitioner Geraldine Cvitanovich-Dubie (Geraldine) applied for a writ of certiorari, seeking review of the ICA’s May 3, 2010 judgment, entered pursuant to its April 12, 2010 opinion in Cvitanovich-Dubie v. Dubie, 123 Hawaiʻi 266, 231 P.3d 983 (2010), affirming the Family Court of the First Circuit’s December 18, 2007 “Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Post-Decree Relief to Vacate Divorce Decree or Set Aside Property Division Pursuant to Hawaii Family Court Rule 60([b]), Filed June 28, 2007” (Order).

In her application, Geraldine challenges the ICA’s holdings that (1) quasi-estoppel barred her challenge to her former husband’s prior divorce; and (2) her claims of undue influence and fraud on the court were time-barred under Hawaii Family Court Rules Rule 60(b)(3).  Geraldine further asserts that the family court’s findings of fact should be reviewed de novo, rather than under the clearly erroneous standard of review.