Babauta v. Babauta

Opinion

\ IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM WIZ JA~! 25 AH II: 5 2 ANTONETTE L. BABAUTA, 3 DOMESTIC CASE NO DM498-06 4 Plaintiff, vs. 5 DECISION & ORDER EVANGELIS J. BABAUTA, 6

7 Defendant. ~

8 The HONORABLE ELIZABETH BARRETT-ANDERSON issued the Interlocutory 9 Decree of Divorce incorporating the Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 10 ("Amended Findings") on March 24, 2010, which was appealed. Babauta v. Babauta, 2011 11 Guam 15. On April 29, 2010, this Court granted Defendant's Motion to Stay Judgment. On 12 October 27, 2011, the Court Ordered the Parties to submit further briefing regarding 13 calculations required pursuant to Babauta, and after considering all of the evidence and briefs 14 hereby issues the foll~wing Decision. 15 In light of the Babauta opinion, the Parties are hereby Ordered to exercise good faith 16 efforts to dispose of the marital residence through sale, or in the alternative either party may 17 purchase fifty percent (50%) interest of the other party, in which case either event must occur 18 within one (1) year of September 28,2011, the date of Opinion from the Guam Supreme Court 19 decision. 20 The Court does not award Defendant reimbursement for lost rental income on his 21 separate property, as this was not preexisting community obligations. The Court does not award 22 Defendant reimburse.inent for lost rental income on the marital residence as Plaintiff is entitled 23 to continued possession and quiet enjoyment throughout the pendency of the appeal and until 24 the marital residence is sold or one party purchases the interest of the other. Lastly, the Court 25 denies Defendant any reimbursement for interest on loans taken as separate debt. 26 This Court retains jurisdiction to divide the property not addressed at trial and address 27 issues arising after trial and prior to the entry of judgment. 19 GCA §§ 8201,8322. 28

Page 1 of3 This Court held that "Evangelis and Antonette each has. an undivided one-half separate 2 property interest in the residence." Babauta v. Babauta, 2011 Guam 15 ~ 43. However, "the 3 mortgage and other obligations on the residence were community obligations subject to 4 satisfaction according to 19 GCA § 6104." Babauta v. Babauta, 2011 Guam 15 ~ 39. "Any 5 disproportionate distribution [of community debt] due to a finding of adultery or extreme 6 cruelty shall only be made on the community property remaining after all community debts 7 have either been satisfied or otherwise accounted for in the valuation of the net community 8 property." Babauta v. Babauta, 2011 Guam 15 ~ 38. Therefore, the Court could not order that 9 Defendant pay all community debts to include property taxes and insurance premiums. ld. at ~ 10 41. Thus, Defendant is entitled to reimbursement of half of the $5,003.27, or $2,501.64, the 11 amount that Defendant paid from his separate property to pay for post-separation property taxes 12 and insurance pren;riums. Dec. ofEvangelis J. Babauta (Nov. 30,2011). 13 Based upon Babauta v. Babauta, 2011 Guam 15 ~ 34("Evangelis is only entitled to a 14 reimbursement of one-half of the amount paid from his separate property, because one-half of 15 the community debt was his obligation stemming from the marriage."), the Court hereby strikes 16 part II(h) on page 9 of the Amended Findings and replace it with the following language: 17 Husband shall be reimbursed half of the $93,524.03, or $46,762.02, the amount Husband paid 18 from his separate property to pay preexisting community obligations. 19 The Amended Findings discuss that the funds used to furnish the house were done with 20 community property,but failed to make a division of such community property. 19 GCA § 21 8412. Evidence presented at trial valued the household goods and furnishings at thirty thousand 22 dollars ($30,000.00). Defendant is awarded credit for half of the furnishings which are 23 community property, or fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00). Wife may retain the furnishings. 24 In the Amended Findings, the Court used the valuation of $220,000.00 for the value of 25 the marital residence. Based upon Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 6O(b)(2) and/or 6O(b)(5), the 26 Court will consider the evidence of the marital residence requiring repairs and the reduced value 27 of the cOmmunity property during the pendency of the appeal. Plaintiff is under an affirmative 28 duty to ensure that Defendant's fifty percent (50%) interest in the marital residence is not

~Page 2 of3 subject to waste and/or reduction of value, other than the reduced value that may have occurred 2 due to real estate market decline, until such time as the marital residence is divided. The Court 3 reviewed the evidence of a check in the amount of $11,726.97 for an insurance claim due to 4 water damage on the marital property. Dec. of Evangelis J. Babauta (Nov. 30,2011). In light of 5 the evidence of the marital residence requiring substantial repairs, the Court determines a 6 hearing on remand is necessary so that the Court may determine the amount of reduced value, if 7 any, attributable to Plaintiffs actions during the pendency of the appeal. The parties may, but 8 are not required to, provide the Court with the appraisal of the marital residence at the hearing. 9 Plaintiff shall allow an appraiser or real estate agent of Defendant's choosing into the marital

10 residence for the purposes of an appraisal. II The hearing on remand shall occur on March 1,2012 at 2:00 p.m. 12 SO ORDERED this January 25,2012.

IS

Page 3 of3