Agreement Incident To Divorce Hawaii

Starshak was preparing the IRA agreement, which provided that in the event of divorce, Wife would receive half of her husband`s IRA. Starshak recalled that he told the woman by phone that he “wasn`t his lawyer, [he] didn`t represent her, [he] [the man] represented, the case they were dealing with was something that required independent representation, and she had to have her own lawyer.” Starshak denied that he had received an order from the wife instead of a husband to draw up the IRA agreement. On December 22, 2004, with the husband filing his divorce complaint, The Wife made important discoveries. From March 30, 2005 to July 2005, the parties conducted prolonged mediation. If mediation had been successful, it would not have been necessary to initiate legal proceedings or retain experts. The woman asked the court to evacuate the FsOF from the family court with respect to the husband`s lawyer practice and non-payment cases and to remand him in custody for further examination. The woman also asks that we have our participation in Antolik v. Harvey, 7 Haw. 313, 761 P.2d 305 (1988), which states that “in the gross undervaluation of countless successful businesses in Hawaii, there have been divorces simply because its happy owner was a professional.” See also In re Marriage of Kilbourne, 284 Cal. Rptr. at 204-05 – n. 5 (finding that ongoing but unpaid cases at separation are contingency cases, but are not paid, are “divisible community assets”[,]” and the court may reserve jurisdiction in these cases for the allocation of royalties collected in the future); Garrett, 683 p.2d to 1170 (rejecting the husband`s assertion that the value of community work spent on the performance of a contingency agreement should be based on a reasonable hourly rate, because “[t]he type of contract neglects all or nothing. It is equally unfair to require the lawyer/spouse to pay other spouses reasonable benefits that are provided if, in the end, no compensation is earned because the dispute would be lost, as it would be to compel the non-lawyer/spouse to accept an amount on the basis of hourly fees if the lawyer/spouse receives compensation well in excess of that amount….