Fight over last
name helps jam
isle courtsA divorced couple's dispute over
a hyphen shows the huge cost
of frivolous litigation
The fight consumed hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses, an undetermined amount of court time and resources, hundreds of pages of documents, and hours upon hours of lawyer time.
Several times the Hawaii Supreme Court weighed in on the dispute.
After four years of costly legal wrangling, multiple court sessions, a Family Court ruling, two appeals to the high court and several fee disputes, the issue finally appears to be resolved.
The last name of a divorced couple's 11-year-old girl will be hyphenated.
At a time when the state's judicial system is straining to keep pace with a packed docket, the name dispute illustrates what critics say is a two-fold problem: the tendency of people, especially wealthy ones, to pursue protracted litigation over even minor disagreements (particularly in divorce-related cases) and the court's inability or unwillingness to rein in such disputes in a timely fashion.
"What we're really dealing with is the problem not of meritless lawsuits, but the problem of potentially petty lawsuits," said Shaun Martin, a University of San Diego law professor.
In this case, the four-year dispute focused on the surname of the only child of David Haig, a wealthy Damon estate trustee, and his ex-wife, Myrna Murdoch.
The couple divorced in 1996 but have continued fighting in court over a host of post-divorce issues, including their daughter's last name.
Haig objected to use of the combination surname, Murdoch Haig, and in 1999 asked a Family Court judge to rule that Haig was the girl's last name. He argued in court documents that the couple previously had agreed on that name and questioned the validity of a state surname form Murdoch provided to the court.
But Murdoch, who has raised the girl since birth, said their daughter always has been known by the surname Murdoch Haig or Murdoch-Haig, citing her birth certificate, tax returns, passport, school applications and other documents. The girl's then-first-grade Punahou teacher also testified that the student used the combination surname at school.
After a 1999 trial covering several disputes, Family Court Judge R. Mark Browning ruled that the double surname had been used since birth and continuing to use it was in the girl's best interests.
He designated the hyphenated version.
Not satisfied with Browning's ruling, Haig asked the judge to reconsider, was rebuffed, then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The court in December 1999 rejected the appeal, citing a lack of jurisdiction.
Still not satisfied, Haig asked Browning to reconsider, using a different legal approach. The judge again rebuffed Haig, even admonishing him for resurrecting the name issue.
"It's absolutely ridiculous for us to keep litigating the same issue," Browning said, noting that such fighting wasn't in the child's best interests, according to a transcript of the March 2000 hearing. The judge even threatened to "start fining and sanctioning folks on these things," saying he was losing patience.
Undeterred, Haig filed another appeal, incorporating several issues, with the high court.
That challenge was dismissed in October, although the justices last month ruled that the appeal was not frivolous, denying a Murdoch request for reimbursement of legal fees.
"It certainly seems like a very extreme case, even among the wealthy who have the resources and maybe the ego to fight over these type of things," said University of San Francisco law professor Jay Folberg, who has taught family law for more than 30 years.
Murdoch said Haig has initiated virtually all the legal fights related to the surname, and she has spent more than $300,000 -- the bulk coming from her retirement savings -- to uphold the Family Court's decision and counter Haig's filings.
"How are you going to stop all this?" Murdoch asked.
Murdoch, who isn't employed, represented herself without an attorney for more than two years because the legal costs were breaking her financially.
Haig, she added, has spent much more than her on lawyer fees.
At a 1999 hearing, Haig testified that he earned $100,000 a month and stood to inherit more than $20 million in a few years, according to court documents. He acknowledged at that time spending $230,000 in legal fees in lawsuits against Murdoch, according to a Supreme Court filing by Murdoch.
In 1999, the surname fight was only just beginning.
Haig declined comment for this story, as did attorney John Edmunds, who represented Haig during the surname dispute. Haig's current attorney, Chuck Kleintop, deferred questions on the surname issue to Edmunds.
Folberg, the San Francisco law professor, said the case represents an extreme example of divisive parents wasting money that could otherwise benefit their child.
"The residual anger from the divorce has led these parents to expend tremendous resources in a way that can only be harmful to the child whose best interests they proclaim as their goal," he said.
Marsha Kitagawa, a Judiciary spokeswoman, said she couldn't discuss the Haig-Murdoch case but provided general comments about contentious divorces and what role the courts play to try to resolve disputes.
Americans "have a precious right to litigate certain issues -- regardless of whether others think those issues are 'minor' or a waste of time and money," Kitagawa said.
"The problem arises when the courts become the battleground for emotion-driven litigation aimed at punishing other parties," she said.
Ultimately, a judge has the discretion to determine if a claim has a basis in law or fact, and if it doesn't, it can be dismissed and attorney fees awarded.
A claim deemed frivolous can result in sanctions as well, though that doesn't happen often. The courts have awarded Murdoch less than $10,000 in fees and expenses in the surname case.
Lawyers also can play key roles in contentious divorce cases. "An attorney who has a client's best interest at heart will help that client make rational decisions and avoid an expensive and lengthy legal battle," Kitagawa said.
She noted that Hawaii judges do all they can to encourage litigants to settle disputes amicably and efficiently. Highly contested divorces that are needlessly drawn out constitute only a "handful" of the roughly 5,500 divorce cases closed here each year, according to Kitagawa.
Still, Family Court is concerned about the effect highly contested cases have on the parties, their children and the court's caseload, and soon will start a volunteer settlement masters program, she said. Under the program, judges may appoint a family law attorney to act on the court's behalf to foster settlements in highly contested cases, Kitagawa said.
A mediation attempt in the Haig-Murdoch case was unsuccessful.
When Judge Browning asked Haig why it was in his daughter's best interest to have the Haig surname, the father referred to the pride and history associated with that name. One name he mentioned: Haig Whiskey.
The name dispute actually is only one portion of a bitter eight-year legal battle the two parents have waged since their divorce.
It is so contentious that the couple are now fighting over whether Murdoch should continue serving as a volunteer room parent at their daughter's school.
Haig had threatened to have Murdoch jailed if she didn't resign, citing a judge's ruling saying such a job violates a previous court order.
Murdoch is appealing the ruling to the Supreme Court.