Forensic Accountant & Business Valuation Expert for Hawaii Matters

Working With Out-of-State Counsel

Joey Friedman, CPA, P.A. is a litigation-focused forensic accounting and business valuation firm engaged by counsel in Hawaii matters. The firm is based in Florida and works nationwide, handling records-based analysis remotely and traveling for deposition and trial testimony as a matter requires. Mr. Friedman has testified in state, federal and foreign courts, for plaintiffs and defendants, in civil, criminal and marital proceedings. The firm does not prepare income tax returns and does not provide tax planning services.

Divorce in Hawaii is heard in the Family Court. Federal matters are heard in the District of Hawaii. Mr. Friedman is regularly engaged in matters in states across the United States, as well as in international matters, and the firm accepts Hawaii engagements in state and federal proceedings alike.

Retaining a forensic accountant from outside the state is common in financial disputes, and in some matters it is preferred:

• Conflict distance. An out-of-state expert is less likely to have prior or ongoing relationships with the parties, their businesses, their banks or their other advisors.
• Records-based work travels. Valuation and earnings analysis are performed on documents and data. The location of the analyst does not change what the records show.
• Independence is visible. Where the parties move in the same local professional circles, distance from those circles is easier to explain to a finder of fact. In a jurisdiction with a small professional community, that distance is often the practical reason an out-of-state expert is retained at all.

The Three Things That Decide a Hawaii Case

Non-disclosure is a statutory factor, not just bad conduct

In most states, a spouse who hid an account is answered through discovery sanctions or an argument about credibility. Hawaii puts it in the division statute. Section 580-47 says that in making these orders “the court shall take into consideration: the respective merits of the parties, the relative abilities of the parties, the condition in which each party will be left by the divorce, the burdens imposed upon either party for the benefit of the children of the parties, the concealment of or failure to disclose income or an asset, or violation of a restraining order . . . and all other circumstances of the case.”

Read the fifth item again, because it changes what the financial work is for. Establishing that income or an asset was concealed or simply not disclosed is not a side issue that colours the case — it is one of the things the court is directed to weigh in deciding the division.

That places real weight on documentation. An assertion that something was hidden is worth very little; a reconstruction showing what existed, when it existed, and where it went is evidence toward a factor the statute names. The same work also answers the honest version of the question, where nothing was concealed and a schedule was simply incomplete — a distinction worth being able to prove in either direction.

Separate property is not off the table

The statute empowers the court to make orders “finally dividing and distributing the estate of the parties, real, personal, or mixed, whether community, joint, or separate.” Property that would be excluded from the division outright in some states is within the court’s reach here, which changes the scope of the financial work at the very start of a matter.

The practical consequence is that identification cannot be narrowed early. Deciding at the outset that an inherited account or a pre-marriage interest is simply outside the case risks leaving out something the court is entitled to consider. Establish what exists first; questions of character and treatment come after, and they are for the court.

The factor list is short and general, so the evidence carries the argument

Hawaii’s factors are broad ones — the merits of the parties, their relative abilities, the condition each will be left in, the burdens carried for the children — closing with “all other circumstances of the case.” There is no detailed statutory checklist to march through.

A short list rewards a clear record. What each party can actually earn, what each will actually be left holding after taxes and debts, and what the documents show about contribution and disclosure are the things a general standard is applied to. The section was last amended in 2025, so it is a live provision — a reference checked against an older copy of the code may not match.

Personal versus enterprise goodwill

Where a business depends on one individual, part of its value may not transfer to a new owner. The firm calculates and separates the transferable value from the non-transferable value and documents the basis for each. This is a financial calculation, not a legal determination — how that split is treated is a matter for the court under Hawaii law.

Forensic Accounting and Litigation Support

Concealed and Undisclosed Asset Investigation

Establishing what was not disclosed, and documenting it well enough to be presented — the analysis that speaks directly to the concealment factor the statute names, and that equally supports a party whose disclosure was complete.

Hidden Asset and Income Tracing

Following money through business accounts, related entities and personal accounts to establish what exists and where it went — including unreported or understated income, which the statute treats alongside assets.

Complete Asset and Interest Identification

Establishing what actually exists before anything is valued — entity interests, deferred and contingent compensation, receivables and interests in trusts or estates — without narrowing the search by assumed character, since the statute reaches separate property as well.

Earning Capacity and Relative Ability Analysis

Documenting what each party can actually earn and what each will be left holding after taxes and obligations — the financial content behind the relative-abilities and condition-of-the-parties factors.

Business Valuation Disputes

Valuation of closely held businesses and professional practices for divorce, shareholder and partnership disputes and buyouts, including the normalization questions that decide most of these cases: owner compensation, discretionary expenses, related-party transactions and customer concentration.

Economic Damages and Lost Profits

Quantifying what was lost, on a method that survives cross-examination, and identifying where an opposing calculation departs from the records it claims to rest on.

Fraud and Embezzlement Investigations

Reconstruction of what happened from the underlying records — misappropriation, fictitious vendors, payroll schemes and diversion — documented so it can be presented to a court, a board or an insurer.

Rebuttal and Opposing-Expert Review

Review of an opposing expert’s report to identify method departures, unsupported assumptions and figures the underlying records do not support.

Deposition and Trial Testimony

Expert testimony in state, federal and foreign courts, in depositions, mediations, arbitrations including AAA, and jury and non-jury trials, for plaintiffs and defendants alike.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does hiding an asset actually affect the property division in Hawaii?

The statute directs the court to take it into consideration. Section 580-47 lists “the concealment of or failure to disclose income or an asset” among the things the court shall weigh when making these orders. It is a named factor rather than only a discovery issue handled separately.

Is separate property safe from division in Hawaii?

Not automatically. The statute empowers the court to finally divide and distribute the estate of the parties “whether community, joint, or separate.” How any particular asset is treated is for the court; the point for the financial work is that it should not be left out of the picture at the start.

What if nothing was hidden and the disclosure was just incomplete?

That is worth establishing affirmatively. The same reconstruction that can show concealment can show its absence — that the records account for the money and that a gap was an omission rather than a diversion.

How recently has the statute changed?

Section 580-47 was last amended in 2025, and was also amended in 2023. Anything checked against an older copy of the code should be confirmed against the current section.

Which court hears a divorce in Hawaii?

The Family Court.

Can a Florida-based expert work on a Hawaii case?

Yes, and it is common. The analysis is performed on documents and data, which does not depend on the analyst’s location, and the firm travels for deposition and trial testimony as a matter requires. Where the local professional community is small, distance from it is often an advantage rather than a cost.

What records are needed to start?

Tax returns with every schedule, entity documents, and account and loan records. For a business or practice, the general ledger in native form, bank and credit card statements and payroll records. Where non-disclosure is in issue, complete and continuous account histories matter more than any single statement — gaps are where the answer usually is, and selected pages cannot show them.

What credentials should a financial expert in a Hawaii matter hold?

For matters that may reach a hearing, the relevant considerations are accounting credentials, experience with the specific analysis at issue, and a record of testifying. Mr. Friedman is a CPA accredited in Business Valuation (ABV) by the AICPA and a member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners.

Discuss a Hawaii Matter

Joey Friedman is a CPA accredited in Business Valuation (ABV) by the AICPA, a member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, with more than 25 years in accounting and forensic practice and an expert witness practice serving attorneys and litigants nationwide since 2014. To discuss whether the firm is the right fit for a matter — including scope, timing and whether an out-of-state expert suits the case — call 954-282-9615 or use the contact form. The firm accepts engagements in other states as well — see states served for how the analysis differs elsewhere.