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

Hawaii Supreme Court, Intermediate Court of Appeals, and Honolulu District Court buildings are closed today due to an area power outage. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Oral Argument before the Supreme Court

No. SCWC-10-0000044 Thursday, March 15, 2012, 11 a.m.

JULIANNE NGUYEN BERRY, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. WAYNE FOSTER BERRY, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.


Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant: Timothy J. Hogan

Attorney(s) for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee: Carl H. Osaki

The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 12/27/11.


[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Wayne Foster Berry filed an Application for Writ of Certiorari seeking review of the August 17, 2011 judgment of the Intermediate Court or Appeals (ICA), filed pursuant to its July 28, 2011 Summary Disposition Order, affirming the September 22, 2010 Order Denying Motion to Set Aside and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by the Family Court of the First Circuit (the court).

Petitioner moved to set aside the default judgment against him that resulted in a Divorce Decree that, among other things, awarded Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee Julianne Nguyen Berry a divorce from Petitioner, alimony, sole custody of children (who he maintains are not his), child support, alimony, and his intellectual property, including copyrights.

In his Application, Petitioner asks whether the ICA gravely erred in concluding that his arguments were not properly preserved in his opening brief or, alternatively, failing to notice for plain error, the court’s entry of the Divorce Decree (1) that, in violation of his right to due process, exceeded the relief previously requested by Respondent; (2) that transferred Petitioner’s copyrights to Respondent in violation of federal copyright law; (3) that was entered as a sanction for failing to attend a settlement conference that he had no notice of; and (4) that was not set aside by the court because Petitioner, who was proceeding pro se at the time, failed to cite a Hawai`i Family Court Rule in his motion.