Once it is established that a divorce order received by a bidder is not, on the whole, more advantageous than a settlement offer under Rule 68 of the HFCR, the court must determine whether it would be unfair to award the supplier legal fees and expenses in accordance with Rule 68, applying the standards of subsection (f). 89 H. 17 (application), 968 p.2d 184 (1998). After L 1955, c 77, the Court has the power to grant divorce to make asset comparisons between the parties to all real, personal or mixed property, regardless of its holding. 42 H. 279 (1958). Distribution of assets: “The respective merits of the parties” interpreted: meritorious claim not established. 44 H. 491, 355 p.2d 188 (1960). The Order in Council confirms whether it is left to the reasonable discretion of the court.
49 H. 258, 262, 414 p.2d 82 (1966); 49 H. 576, 424 p.2d 671 (1967). On 6 March 17, 2006, the Family Court issued an order that the second lawyer and the wife must file written pleadings by 17 March 2006, if the Family Court was “competent and/or legally competent to maintain and rule on the claims of the [second lawyer] against his former client in the above-mentioned divorce case, unlike a separate dispute between [second lawyer] and [wife] before the District or District Court”. At the hearing on 23 November 2005 on the wife`s second application for discharge before the decree, the wife applied to the Family Court to allow her to remain on the nu`uanu land, since the AITD had been found to be inapplicable and Nu`uanu`s property was therefore subject to division. The woman mentioned that she was charged “[$] 120,000 fees”, she had no personal resources to pay the costs and lived from her mother. She estimated it would cost her $15,000.00 to return to Los Angeles and expressed concern that *271 would move all her belongings “to the sea” before the divorce was over and she knew where she was going to live. She also mentioned that she had to examine the man`s books and recordings to prepare for the trial. The woman also explained that she was in the care of two doctors, that she had “had depression” and that she was “too sick to move now”. In the event of divorce, the court may order the party to receive his former wife and children as beneficiaries under the national pension scheme.
. . .