Abuan, Jr. v. Abuan

Superior Court of Guam·Decided July 5, 2012·No. DM0222-11·Unknown

Opinion

ry

3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 4 BAROLOME ESTANO ABUAN, JR., ) 5 CASE NO. DM0222-11 ) 6 Plaintiff & ) Counterclaim Defendant, ) FINDINGS OF FACTS AND 7 ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 8 vs. ) AND ORDER ) 9 ESTHER ROSE BUKIKOSA ABUAN, ) ) JO Defendant & ) 11 Counterclaim Plaintiff. ) 12

J3 INTRODUCTION 14 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena III for a Bench 15 Trial on Bartolome Estano Abuan, Jr.'s Verified Complaint for Divorce and Esther 16 Rose Bukikosa Abuan's Verified Counterclaim for Dissolution of Marriage. Plaintiff 17 Bartolome Estano Abuan, JR. was present with counsel, Daniel S. Somerfleck. 18 Defendant Esther Rose Bukikosa Abuan was also present with counsel, Joaquin C. 19 Arriola, Jr. Having heard testimony and reviewed the evidence, the Court now 20 issues its findings of fact and conclusions of law. 21

22 FINDINGS OF FACT 23 After weighing the credibility of the witnesses and reviewing the Exhibits, this 24 Court finds the following by a preponderance of the evidence: 25 1. The parties are residents of Guam and have resided on Guam for more than

26 90 days. 27 2. Plaintiff and Defendant married on Guam on August 4, 1990. 28 3. Plaintiff and Defendant separated on December 8, 2009. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law Case No. DM0222-11

4. The parties have two minor children of the marriage, B.J.A. (DOB 5/17/2001) 2 and S.C.A. (DOB 9113/2002). 3 5. Plaintiff moved out of the marital residence in December 2009 and began 4 permanently living with his current "girlfriend," with whom Plaintiff has a 5 child. 6 6. Defendant began cohabiting with her "boyfriend" in December of 2009 and 7 currently occupies the marital residence. 8 7. Defendant works at First Hawaiian Bank where she earns approximately 9 $2,250 per month. 10 8. Plaintiff currently works for Guam Power Authority and Air Force Reserves, 11 earning approximately $4,500.00 per month. 12 9. Since the separation, both parties have made varIOUS payments and 13 contributions towards community debts. 14 10. Following the separation, Defendant received tax refunds for tax years 2009 15 and 2010 and applied the funds towards community debts. Defendant also 16 sold a Ford van belonging to the community at fair market price and applied 17 the funds to pay down community debts. 18 11. Plaintiff continues to make mortgage payments on the marital residence. 19

20 Community Debts 1 21 1. Mortgage at First Hawaiian Bank: at date of separation, the mortgage 22 balance was $140,812.00. As of the time of trial, the balance was $127,912. 23 2. Pentagon Federal Credit Union Visa card: $5,000 24

25 1 "As a general rule, a spouse who, after separation of the parties, uses his or her separate funds to pay preexisting community obligations should be reimbursed upon 26 divorce." Babauta v. Babauta, 2011 Guam 15'1 (citations omitted). The evidence here showed that both parties contributed to the community debts using separate funds 27 following the separation, but the exact contribution by each is not in evidence. As such, this 28 Court finds that the parties' distinct contributions are sufficient and that no further offset or reimbursement is necessary for either.

-2- Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law Case No. DM0222-11

3. FHB Mastercard: $14,615 2 4. Star Card: $8,351 3 5. Take Home Charge Card: $4,133 4 6. Citibank Debt: $18,604 5 7. Bank of Hawaii Personal Loan: $3,158 6 8. Total value of community debts: $181,773 7 Community Property 8 9. Household furnishings and property consisting of computer (not working), 9 freezer, washer and dryer (not working), television, and other household and IO bedroom furniture: $1,500. II 10. Construction equipment: The evidence showed that various construction and 12 tool items were acquired during the marriage. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 lists the I3 values the construction equipment as well as certain vehicles. Some of the 14 listed items-most evident, the vehicles-are apparently no longer in either 15 the Plaintiffs or Defendant's possession. 16

17 Notwithstanding the fact that this list appears to give purchase prices rather 18 than values current at the time of separation, as this is the only evidence 19 regarding these community property items this Court accepts the items and 20 their values, except for the vehicles, which this Court addresses separately. 21 This court finds that the value of the construction equipment and tools is 22 $20,598. 23 1 L Pentagon Federal Credit Union Savings Account: $9.00; 24 12.American Amicable Life Insurance Policy: $1,334 (as of May 15, 2009) 25 13. Defendant's 401 K Retirement Benefits: $43,311 26 14. Plaintiffs Government of Guam Retirement Benefits: $4,837 27 15. Thrift Savings Plan: $5,939 28

-3- Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law Case No. DM0222-11

16. Government of Guam Employees Federal Credit Union Savings Account: 2 $116 3 17. Vehicles: 2 4 a. 2001 Toyota Tacoma Pickup truck: $6,500 5 b. 1994 Toyota Xtra Cab Pickup Truck (Damaged): $2,000 3 6 18. Total value of the community assets: $86,144 7 Separate Property 8 19. Marital Residence: The evidence showed that Plaintiff executed a Deed of 9 Gift conveying to Defendant an equal interest in the Marital Residence (Lot 10 No. 16-4, Tract 292, Yigo, Guam) as a joint tenant with the right of II

12 2 Although Defendant also lists a "2008 Highlander" as a community asset in her I3 Counterclaim, the evidence revealed that Plaintiff merely cosigned for the loan that enabled the parties' adult daughter to purchase the vehicle. Defendant did not provide evidence, 14 such as a title in either parties' name, showing that either Defendant or Plaintiff owned the vehicle or that the vehicle constitutes an asset that this court should consider as part of the 15 marital estate. For the purposes of this property distribution, the Court considers the 2008 16 Highlander to be the property of the daughter as opposed to community property. Moreover, even if this Court were to consider the vehicle as community property, 17 Defendant failed to meet her burden of providing evidence of the value of the vehicle-loan papers document a loan balance is not an accurate indicator of the true value of a vehicle. 18 Finally, while a spouse's co-signature on a loan generally creates a presumption of community liability, Rainier Nat. Bank, Bellevue Midlakes Branch v. Clausing, 34 Wash. 19 App. 441, 445, 661 P.2d 1015, 1018 (1983), in this case the evidence showed that the vehicle 20 loan represents only a contingent liability, and this Court will not include the loan amount in its community debt calculations. See, e.g., McManus v. McManus, 638 So. 2d 1051, 1053 21 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994) (Reversing trial court's termination of order for permanent alimony to be paid by husband based in part upon finding that a debt of $300,000 listed by 22 husband represented merely a contingent liability as cosigner on his daughters' mortgages 23 and thus carried no debt service in the absence of defaulL); R.M. v. D.B.M., CN02-06578, 2002 WL 32101218 (Del. Fam. Ct. Dec. 20, 2002) (unpublished decision) (finding that debt 24 for daughter's car, for which the parties had cosigned, constituted daughter's liability and should not be included as the liability in the marital estate). 25

26 3 The testimony suggested that following the separation, the vehicle was given to another and is no longer in either parties' possession. However, it is unclear whether title to 27 the vehicle remains with the parties.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Abuan, Jr. v. Abuan, (superctguam 2012).

Abuan, Jr. v. Abuan (Abuan, Jr. v. Abuan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rainier National Bank v. Clausing
661 P.2d 1015 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1983)
McManus v. McManus
638 So. 2d 1051 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)