ANNETTE BLOCH v. DAVID MICHAEL BLOCH (2026)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

Self-represented Defendant-Appellant David Michael Bloch (Husband) appeals from the “Decree Granting Absolute Divorce” (Divorce Decree) entered on June 13, 2024 by the Family Court of the Third Circuit (family court).¹

Upon careful review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and relevant legal authorities, we affirm the Divorce Decree. Husband's opening brief contains no statement of the points of error, as required by Rule 28(b)(4) of the Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure, and provides no discernible argument, references to the record on appeal, or citations to legal authority. Husband did not order any transcripts of proceedings for the record on appeal. See Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai‘i 225, 230, 909 P.2d 553, 558 (1995) (“The burden is upon appellant in an appeal to show error by reference to matters in the record, and he or she has the responsibility of providing an adequate transcript.” (cleaned up)).

Although we do not automatically foreclose self-represented litigants from appellate review if they do not comply with court rules, Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai‘i 368, 380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020), we are unable to discern any basis for Husband's apparent contention that the family court erred by entering the Divorce Decree. See Kakinami v. Kakinami, 127 Hawai‘i 126, 144 n.16, 276 P.3d 695, 713 n.16 (2012) (noting that this court may “disregard a particular contention if the appellant makes no discernible argument in support of that position” (citation omitted)).

We therefore affirm the family court's Divorce Decree.²

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, March 10, 2026.

Katherine G. Leonard Presiding Judge

Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge

Kimberly T. Guidry Associate Judge

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Jeffrey W. Ng presided.

2.   Husband's February 20, 2026 “Appellant/Affiant Personal Affidavit, Consecution,” and February 27, 2026 “CAAP-24-0000459: Written Response in Opposition, Memorandum Entered Objection, (UNTIMELY Recordation, Dkt. 182 AF)(EXH A),” which we construe to be motions, are denied.