Vega v. Vega9/13/2000
Plaintiff-Appellant Leo B. Vega (Leo) appeals the family court's July 13, 1999 Order Denying Alimony. In the process, he challenges parts of the family court's August 17, 1999 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (August 17, 1999 FsOF and CsOL).
This is the second appeal emanating from the same contested trial. The Complaint was filed on January 3, 1996, and the trial occurred on December 19, 1996. In Vega v. Vega, No. 20531, memo. op. (Haw. App. June 22, 1998), this court (a) vacated the paragraph of the family court's January 31, 1997 Decree of Absolute Divorce denying Leo's request for spousal support and (b) remanded for reconsideration Leo's request for spousal support.
On remand, after arguments on July 13, 1999, the family court orally denied Leo's request for spousal support and then entered its Order Denying Alimony. Leo appealed. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Leo, born on April 1, 1943, and Kathleen Kazuko Vega (Kathleen), born on November 16, 1946, were married on September 18, 1971. Their daughter (Daughter) was born on June 28, 1973. Their son (Son) was born on August 9, 1976.
According to Leo's December 4, 1996 Income and Expense Statement, he receives $1,006 a month in disability payments ($666 from social security and $340 from an insurance company). He reports that his expenses are as follows:
Rent $900
Utilities 250
Vehicle insurance 147
Vehicle maintenance 100
Vehicle operation 120
Food 125
Medical and dental 150
Laundry and cleaning 50
Personal articles 50
TOTAL $1,892
At the time of trial, Son had been employed and living with Leo for about one year. Although Leo testified that he had asked Son to contribute $100 per week toward Leo's rent expense, Son had contributed a total of only $200 towards Leo's rent expenses during that one year.
During the marriage, Leo ran businesses financed by Kathleen's father and/or mother, including a car wash and a carpet and drapery business (sales, service, cleaning, maintenance). Kathleen testified that months before Leo got hurt, the latter business was sold for a net of about $15,000.
On December 16, 1985, outside a bar where he had been drinking, Leo slipped and fell. The slip-and-fall incident left him permanently disabled. The January 27, 1995 "Physician's Certified Report on . . . Disability for Tax Exemption Purposes," signed by Raymond M. Taniguchi, M.D., reports in relevant part as follows:
a. Diagnosis[:] Residual left hemiparesis and cortical sensory loss left hand, partial left homonymous hemianopsia from right parietal lobe damage.
c. Diagnosis and pertinent symptoms or findings that preclude ability to engage in gainful work[:] Permanent weakness and sensory loss of his left extremities[.]
In a letter dated September 26, 1996, to Vega's lawyer, Stewart Y. Matsumoto, M.D., opined:
[Leo's] major disability revolves around a closed head injury which produced a left hemiparesis and seizure disorder. . . .
It is my opinion that the combination of his neurologic deficit which includes the seizure disorder and left hemiparesis compounded by his single vessel coronary artery disease makes totally and permanently disabled and unable to work.
In a letter dated September 25, 1996, to Vega's lawyer, James S. Tsuji, M.D., opined that Leo was "totally disabled and unable to work."
In January 1990, Leo received a net of approximately $50,000 in settlement of the personal injury suit related to the s
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|