CourtListener opinion 11138373

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

 Electronically Filed
 Supreme Court
 SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX
 15-SEP-2025
 01:56 PM
 Dkt. 19 OPA

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

 ---o0o---
________________________________________________________________

 WILLIAM S. PERREIRA,
 Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,

 vs.

 GERTRUDE B. PERREIRA n.k.a. GERTRUDE B. HAIA,
 Respondent /Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________

 SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX

 CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
 (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX; FC-D NO. 88-279)

 SEPTEMBER 15, 2025

 RECKTENWALD, C.J., McKENNA, EDDINS, GINOZA, AND DEVENS, JJ.

 OPINION OF THE COURT BY RECKTENWALD, C.J.

 I. INTRODUCTION
 This case arises from a marital property division

dispute between former spouses, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant

William S. Perreira (William) and Respondent/Defendant-Appellee

Gertrude B. Perreira n.k.a. Gertrude B. Haia (Barbara), over

 1
 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

Barbara's share of William's State of Hawai‘i Employees'

Retirement System (ERS) benefits following their 1989 divorce.

 William presents two questions to this court. First,

whether Barbara's 2008 motion to enforce the Family Court of the

Third Circuit's division order was time-barred by the ten-year

statute of limitations under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS)

§ 657-5 (Supp. 2001). Second, whether the family court's entry

of a Hawai‘i Domestic Relations Order (HiDRO) under HRS § 88-93.5

(Supp. 2018) was an ex post facto violation of William's rights

under the United States Constitution and Hawai‘i law.

 For the reasons discussed below, we answer both

questions in the negative. Accordingly, we affirm the

Intermediate Court of Appeals' (ICA) judgment on appeal.

 II. BACKGROUND
 In 1990, the Family Court of the Third Circuit (family

court) awarded Barbara a percentage of William's ERS retirement

benefit, with payments to commence at "the earliest date when

[William] shall be qualified to retire." William subsequently

qualified to retire on April 1, 1999.

 In 2008, having not received any payments for her

share of William's retirement benefit, Barbara moved to enforce

the original division order. In 2012, the family court granted

Barbara's motion and awarded her 31% of William's pension as

valued on the date which he qualified to retire. In 2017,

 2
 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

Barbara moved for further relief, alleging that William had

failed to disclose information regarding the value of his

retirement benefits and further failed to make any payments

pursuant to the 2012 order. In 2019, the family court again

granted Barbara's motion, consistent with the 2012 order. The

court further awarded Barbara 10% per annum interest along with

attorneys' fees and costs related to both her 2008 and 2017

motions.

 William appealed the 2019 orders arguing, inter alia,

that Barbara's original 2008 motion to enforce was time-barred

by the ten-year statute of limitations imposed by HRS § 657-5.

 In August 2020, while the 2019 orders were pending on

appeal to the ICA, Barbara moved for entry of a HiDRO under HRS

§ 88-93.5. The family court granted her motion, finding that

Barbara was entitled to William's entire monthly retirement

pension until the sums due to her pursuant to the 2019 orders

were satisfied in full. In March 2021, the family court entered

a HiDRO directing the ERS to pay to Barbara $5,246.85 per month,

William's total monthly distribution. William appealed the

order granting HiDRO, arguing that HRS § 88-93.5, which took

effect on July 1, 2020, could not be applied retroactively to

the family court's 2019 orders.

 The ICA consolidated the appeals and, on January 31,

2025, issued a memorandum opinion. As to William's appeal of

 3
 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

the 2019 orders, the ICA held that Barbara's right to enforce

the family court's 1990 division order did not accrue until

William qualified for retirement on April 1, 1999, and, thus,

Barbara's 2008 motion to enforce was not time-barred. Regarding

the family court's order granting HiDRO, the ICA reversed the

HiDRO without expressly addressing William's ex post facto

argument and remanded "solely for the family court to enter a

final judgment to clarify the record."

 William timely filed an application for writ of

certiorari, which we accepted.

 III. DISCUSSION
 William argues on certiorari that the ICA gravely

erred in holding that Barbara's 2008 motion to enforce was not

barred by the statute of limitations. This argument lacks

merit.

 Generally, "we will not disturb the family court's

decisions on appeal unless the family court disregarded rules or

principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a

party litigant." Kakinami v. Kakinami, 125 Hawai‘i 308, 311-12,

260 P.3d 1126, 1129-30 (2011) (quoting Fisher v. Fisher, 111

Hawai‘i 41, 46, 137 P.3d 355, 360 (2006)).

 HRS § 657-5 prohibits a person seeking enforcement of

a judgment or decree from doing so "after the expiration of ten

years from the date a judgment or decree was rendered." If the

 4
 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

ten-year statute of limitations expires before enforcement or an

extension is sought, then the judgment or decree is "presumed to

be paid and discharged." Id.

 William argues that statute of limitations began to

run as of the date the 1990 Division Order was filed. However,

in construing HRS § 657-5, this court has previously held that

the statute of limitations for enforcing a judgment does not

begin to run until "the cause of action—the judgment that

creates the enforceable claim or right—comes into existence as

an enforceable claim or right." Estate of Roxas v. Marcos, 121

Hawai‘i 59, 69, 214 P.3d 598, 608 (2009) (internal quotation

marks omitted). It would be illogical, and contrary to our

well-established case law, to require that parties seek

enforcement of a divorce decree or judgment, as William

proposes, before the obligor is even in default. Cf. Segelken

v. Hawaiian Tr. Co., 20 Haw. 225, 228 (Haw. Terr. 1910) ("[W]hen

the payment of a claim or the liability of a party is made

dependent upon the performance of any condition precedent or the

happening of any contingency, a right of action does not accrue,

or the statute begin to run, until the performance of such

condition or the happening of such contingency.").

 Here, William was not obligated to begin making

payments, and Barbara's right to enforce the judgment did not

"come[] into existence," until "the earliest date when [William]

 5
 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

shall be qualified to retire," which the family court determined

to be April 1, 1999. See Estate of Roxas, 121 Hawai‘i at 69, 214

P.3d at 608. Thus, Barbara's 2008 Motion to Enforce was not

time-barred because the statute of limitations under HRS § 657-5

did not expire until April 1, 2009, ten years after William

reached retirement eligibility and the first monthly payment

became due.

 William also argues on certiorari that, because the

statute took effect after the divorce decree and division orders

were entered, the application of HRS § 88-93.5 is an ex post

facto violation of article I, section 10 of the United States

Constitution, HRS § 1-3 (2009), and Hawaiʻi state and federal

case law. Because the ICA reversed the HiDRO on other grounds,

it did not address William's ex post facto arguments. 1 We

address them here.

 Under article I, section 10, clause 1 of the U.S.

Constitution, "[n]o state shall enter into any . . . ex post

facto Law." U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1. Interpreting this

clause, the United States Supreme Court has stated, "the true

construction of the prohibition extends to criminal, not to

civil, cases." Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386, 399 (1798). Thus,

the ex post facto prohibition has been widely "interpreted to

 1 Because they are not presented to us on certiorari, we express no
opinion as to the other issues raised before the ICA.

 6
 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

pertain exclusively to penal statutes." Kansas v. Hendricks,

521 U.S. 346, 370 (1997); State v. Nakata, 76 Hawai‘i 360, 375,

878 P.2d 699, 714 (1994) ("The [ex post facto] clause prohibits

states from enacting retrospective penal legislation.")

(emphasis added); Gray v. Admin. Dir. of the Ct., 84 Hawai‘i 138,

141 n.5, 931 P.2d 580, 583 n.5 (1997) (explaining that civil

proceedings "do not apply to constitutional ex post facto

clauses, which relate only to ‘punitive legislation,' i.e.

‘prosecutions for crime.'") (citations omitted). HRS § 88-93.5

is a civil statute concerning the "[d]istribution of property in

a divorce action." Thus, because HRS § 88-93.5 is not punitive

in either its intent or its effect, its application here does

not "run[] afoul of the federal ex post facto clause." See

State v. Guidry, 105 Hawai‘i 222, 235, 96 P.3d 242, 255 (2004).

 William's argument under HRS § 1-3 is also unavailing.

HRS § 1-3 provides that "[n]o law has any retrospective

operation, unless otherwise expressed or obviously intended."

Interpreting Hawaiʻi law on retrospective operation, the United

States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i has recently

distilled the analysis as follows:

 The [Hawai‘i Supreme] Court begins its analysis by
 considering the text of the statute. If retrospectivity is
 not clearly stated or the text is ambiguous, the Court will
 turn to the legislative history. If the retrospectivity is
 not clearly stated or the legislative history is ambiguous,
 the Court will then consider whether application of the
 statute to [a party] would impair [that party's] existing
 substantial rights.

 7
 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

N.K. Collins, LLC v. William Grant & Sons, Inc., 472 F.Supp.3d

806, 820-21 (D. Haw. 2020).

 Put differently, absent any express language limiting

the temporal scope of the statute, "the court must determine

whether the new statute would have retroactive effect, i.e.,

whether it would impair rights a party possessed when he acted,

increase a party's liability for past conduct, or impose new

duties with respect to transactions already completed." Gov.

Emps. Ins. Co. v. Hyman, 90 Hawaiʻi 1, 5, 975 P.2d 211, 215

(1999) (quoting Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 280

(1974)).

 Here, HRS § 88-93.5 does not by its plain text

expressly limit the temporal scope of the statute. HRS § 88-

93.5(a) defines a HiDRO as a domestic relations order that:

 (1) Creates or recognizes the right of an alternate
 payee, or assigns to an alternate payee, the right to
 receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with
 respect to a member, a former member with vested
 benefit status, or retirant under the system;

 (2) Directs the system to disburse benefits to the
 alternate payee; and

 (3) Meets the requirements of this section.

(Emphasis added.)

 Clearly, the statute is prospective in its operation

in the sense that it "[d]irects the system to disburse benefits

 8
 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

to the alternate payee." 2 See HRS § 88-93.5(a)(2). However, the

statute expressly provides that the right of an alternate payee

"to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with

respect to a . . . retirant under the system," may be "create[d]

or recognize[d]" by the entry of a HiDRO. See id. (emphasis

added). This phrasing plainly indicates that a HiDRO may be

entered to effectuate payment to a former spouse whose right to

the benefit was established prior to the entry of the HiDRO and,

in some cases, prior to the ERS member's retirement. This

application is spelled out even more plainly in the legislative

history of HRS § 88-93.5. Act 263, the enacting legislation of

HRS § 88-93.5, provides:

 The purpose of this Act is to authorize and require the
 [ERS] to make direct payments to the spouse or former
 spouse of an [ERS] member or retirant when the spouse or
 former spouse has been awarded all or a portion of the
 member's or retirant's retirement benefits as part of a
 property division adjudicated, ordered, or decreed by a
 court in a domestic relations proceeding.

2016 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 263, § 1 at 846 (emphasis added).

 Given that the legislature expressly contemplated that

a HiDRO may recognize a former spouse's existing rights to a

retirant's benefits, it is reasonable to conclude that the

 2 The prospective operation of the statute is further evidenced by
the statutory definition of "benefits payable" as "any payment to be made to
a member, a former member with vested benefit status, or retirant." HRS
§ 88-93.5(a) (emphasis added); see also HRS § 88-93.5(n) (stating that
payment according to the terms of a post-retirement HiDRO "shall commence as
of the first day of the month following the date upon which the order is
determined to be qualified").

 9
 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

legislature intended that HRS § 88-93.5 would be invoked to

effectuate payments pursuant to judgments or court orders issued

prior to the statute's effective date. 3 The relevant

determination is whether the retroactive application of HRS

§ 88-93.5 in this case, i.e., the entry of a HiDRO, would impair

William's substantive rights or merely "prescribe methods of

enforcing or giving effect to existing rights" as defined by the

family court's prior division orders. See Clark v. Cassidy, 64

Haw. 74, 77, 636 P.2d 1344, 1347 (1981).

 Turning again to the legislative history, in 2015, the

Senate Committee on Judiciary and Labor, after voting to approve

the provision, reported its finding "that this measure will

ensure that a member's or retirant's pension or related benefits

are correctly divided pursuant to a divorce action award and

promptly paid." S. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 1058, in 2015 Senate

Journal, at 1274. The committee further noted that the new

provision would "help align [HRS] chapter 88 . . . to the

federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act [(ERISA)]." Id.

Under ERISA, by way of amendment through the Retirement Equity

 3 William rejects this conclusion. He argues that, because Act 30
amending HRS § 88-93.5 "specified that the Act would take effect in the
future – on July 1, 2020," the statute should be read only to apply
prospectively. [App. at 7-8, SC Dkt. 1:9-11] This contention is belied by
the legislative history of Act 30, which explains that delay of the effective
date was not meant to limit the temporal scope of the statute, but rather was
"necessary for development and application of necessary resources to support
implementation and fund the costs of computer system modifications, ERS
member and other affected parties' education, and increased operational
costs." S. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 3205, in 2018 Senate Journal, at 1363.

 10
 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-397, a former spouse may request

entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) pursuant to

29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). The QDRO, like a HiDRO, "creates or

recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to . . .

receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to

a participant under a plan" provided by the participant's

private employer. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I).

 Interpreting the application of a QDRO, Hawaiʻi courts

have held that a QDRO is "merely a collateral enforcement device

that will implement the substantive rulings that are already

within the [existing order]." Romero v. Romero, Nos. 28664,

28898, 2012 WL 1951328, at *2 (Haw. App. May 31, 2012) (SDO).

This treatment of the QDRO is consistent with other

jurisdictions that have held "the entry of a QDRO is a method of

enforcing or implementing the terms of an existing divorce

judgment." Ex parte Montgomery, 79 So.3d 660, 669 (Ala. Civ.

App. 2011); Kesting v. Kesting, 370 P.3d 729, 732 (Idaho 2016)

("[W]e agree with other courts that have concluded that a QDRO

may be entered to enforce a prior support obligation.")

(collecting cases). More specifically, federal courts have

expressly held that the QDRO statute may be applied to divorce

orders entered prior to the enactment of the statute. Samaroo

v. Samaroo, 193 F.3d 185, 187 (3d Cir. 1999) ("Although the

Retirement Equity Act was not in effect on [the date of the

 11
 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

parties' divorce], plan administrators may, in their discretion,

treat orders entered before the date of the Act as QDROs.");

John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Timbo, 67 F.Supp.2d 413, 417-

18 (D.N.J. 1999) (mem. op.) ("A divorce decree entered prior to

the effective date of the Retirement Equity Act can be treated

as a QDRO.").

 Upon review of the legislative history of HRS § 88-

93.5, and the weight of authority relating to the analogous

federal statute, we conclude that the family court's application

of the HiDRO statute in this case was merely a method of

enforcing or giving effect to Barbara's existing rights under

the 2019 orders. See Clark 64 Haw. at 77, 636 P.2d at 1346-47.

 Barbara's rights to William's ERS retirement benefits

were established by the 1990 division order. Those rights were

later clarified by the family court's 2012 and 2019 orders. At

no point over the two decades of proceedings did William comply

with the family court's orders or make any payment from his

retirement benefit to Barbara as he was required to do. The

family court's order granting HiDRO made clear that the HiDRO

was a method of enforcing Barbara's rights as defined by the

court's 2019 Orders. The ICA affirmed as much, holding that

"the Order Granting H[i]DRO sought to enforce the [2019 orders],

rather than amend or alter them." As such, the order granting

HiDRO did not further impair William's rights to his ERS

 12
 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

benefit, increase his liability for past conduct, or impose on

him any new obligations. See Hyman, 90 Hawaiʻi at 5, 975 P.2d at

215. Accordingly, entry of the HiDRO pursuant to HRS § 88-93.5

was not an ex post facto violation of William's substantive

rights. See id.

 IV. CONCLUSION
 The ICA's March 5, 2025, Judgment on Appeal is

affirmed.

Douglas L. Halsted /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
for petitioner
 /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
Moses K.N. Haia III
for respondent /s/ Todd W. Eddins

 /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

 /s/ Vladimir P. Devens

 13