Braray v. Braray

Opinion

5 .. ........ ~ ------~--·,,

9 10 BERNARDBRARAY, DOMESTIC CASE NO.: DM0212-17

12 FINDINGS OF FACT AND vs. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 13 (Complaint for Divorce) TIFFANY ANN BRARAY, 14

18 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola for a Bench Trial on December 5,

19 and December 20, 2017. Bernard Braray ("Plaintiff') was represented by Attorney Daron J.

20 Berman. Tiffany Ann Braray ("Defendant") appeared pro se. After review of the evidence and

21 testimony presented in this matter, the Court issues the instant Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

22 Law. For the reasons set out herein, the Court finds dissolution of the Parties' marriage based on

23 irreconcilable differences is appropriate. The Plaintiffs cause of action for Divorce in the

24 Complaint for Divorce filed on April 12, 2017 is hereby GRANTED. The Plaintiff is hereby

25 ORDERED to file an Interlocutory Decree of Divorce pursuant to 19 GCA § 8321 no later than

26 March 30, 2018. The Plaintiff is further ORDERED to file a Final Decree of Divorce no sooner

27 than six (6) months from the date the Court enters the Interlocutory Decree of Divorce. 28

DM0212-17 Braray v. Braray Page 1 of 4 FINDINGS 0~ FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF Lrrr:; f,l\ , IU ~ 11 e ~,.. il (Compl. for Divorce) , . 11\.AwiWI.i.._ 1

2 The Court makes the following findings of fact by a preponderance of the evidence:

3 1. The Parties were married on January 23, 2015.

4 2. The Parties separated and have remained separated since sometime in December of 2016.

5 3. No children were.born to the marriage.

6 4. There is community property.

7 5. There is no community debt.

8 6. At trial, the Plaintiffs testified to the following:

9 a. The Plaintiff no longer loves the Defendant. Test. of Pl., Bench Trial Proceedings

10 11:45:00 a.m. to 11:50:16 a.m. (Dec. 05, 2017).

11 b. The Plaintiff does not, and does not wish to, live with the Defendant. ld.

12 c. The Plaintiff does not want to procreate with the Defendant. ld.

13 d. The Plaintiff is in love with another woman. ld.

14 e. The Plaintiff believes there is no possibility of the parties reconciling. Id.

15 f. The Plaintiff no longer wants to be a party to the marriage. ld.

17 The Plaintiff asks this Court to grant a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences.

18 Compl. V. (Apr. 12, 2015). The Defendant contests the divorce and asks the Court for time to

19 reconcile. Answer<][ 6 (May 2, 2017). Therefore this Court is confronted with the issue of whether

20 there are irreconcilable differences sufficient to grant a divorce and dissolve the Parties' marriage.

21 Under Guam Law, a "[d]issolution of marriage may be granted for ... [i]rreconcilable

22 differences." 19 GCA § 8203. Guam law further provides that irreconcilable differences are "those

23 differences which are determined by the Court to be substantial reasons for not continuing the

24 marriage and which make it appear that the marriage should be dissolved." 19 GCA §8219. The

25 ground of irreconcilable differences was added as a ground for divorce by Guam Public Law 24-

26 134 (1998), and the Guam statute uses language similar to California's statutory definition of

27 irreconcilable differences. Compare 19 GCA § 8219, with Cal. Fam. Code§ 2311 (West) (2018)

DM0212-17 Braray v. Braray Page 2 of 4 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (Compl. for Divorce) 1 ("Irreconcilable differences are those grounds which are determined by the court to be substantial 2 reasons for not continuing the marriage and which make it appear that the marriage should be 3 dissolved."). Thus this Court looks to California cases interpreting and applying the irreconcilable 4 differences statute as persuasive authority. See Sumitomo Constr. Co. v. Zhang Ye, Inc., 1997 5 Guam 8 I)[ 17 (reasoning "[g]enerally when a legislature adopts a statute which is identical or 6 similar to one in effect in another jurisdiction, it is presumed that the adopting jurisdiction applies 7 the construction placed on the statute by the originating jurisdiction"). 8 Courts have held that "dissolution of marriage based on [irreconcilable differences] 9 requires proof of substantial marital problems which have so impaired the marriage relationship 10 that the legitimate objects of matrimony have been destroyed and as to which there is no 11 reasonable possibility of elimination, correction, or resolution." In reMarriage of Garcia, 221 Cal. 12 Rptr. 3d 319, 329 (Cal. App. 4th 2017) (citing In reMarriage of Walton, 104 Cal. Rptr. 472,481 13 (Cal. App. 4th 1972)). In applying this standard, Courts "must depend to a considerable extent on 14 the subjective minds of the parties." In reMarriage of Walton, 104 Cal. Rptr. at 479. 15 Irreconcilable differences exist where a party demonstrates a subjective desire to end the 16 marriage. See In reMarriage of Greenway, 158 Cal. Rptr. 364, 383-84 (Cal. App. 4th 2013). In 17 Greenway the husband included irreconcilable differences in his petition for dissolution of his 18 marriage. Id. At trial the husband testified he no longer wanted to live with his wife, wanted to 19 participate in his legal separation case to stop his wife from interfering with his medical care, and

20 that he and his wife's relationship had been bad for the last thirty years. Id. Analyzing whether the 21 irreconcilable differences standard was met, the Court found sufficient evidence to grant a 22 dissolution of marriage. Id. The Court reasoned that "a marriage can break down without direct

23 evidence of an affair or identifiable major disagreement between the parties." Id. Citing Walton, 24 the Court found that since the Court was commanded to look at the subjective state of mind of the

25 Parties, neither a determination of fault, nor "direct proof of objective reasons supporting why one

26 party subjectively believes the marriage is past saving [is required]." Id. 27

DM0212-17 Braray v. Braray Page 3 of 4 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (Compl. for Divorce) 1 Here the Court concludes the Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence to show his

2 subjective desire to end the marriage. First, the Plaintiff testified that he no longer wishes to be

3 married to the Defendant. The Defendant further testified that he does not live and does not wish to

4 live with the Defendant. The Defendant also testified that he does not wish to procreate with the

5 Defendant specifically, and that he is in love with another woman. Finally, the Defendant testified

6 that there is no chance of reconciliation. Thus, the Plaintiff has shown a subjective desire to

7 discontinue the marital relationship with the Defendant. Therefore the Court finds dissolution of

8 the Parties' marriage under these circumstances is appropriate.

10 Thus by a preponderance of evidence and for the forgoing reasons, the Court finds

11 DISSOLUTION of the Parties' marriage is appropriate. Therefore the Court ORDERS the

12 following:

13 1. The Plaintiff's cause of action for Divorce in the Complaint for Divorce, filed on April

14 12,2017, is hereby GRANTED.

15 2. The Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file an Interlocutory Decree of Divorce pursuant

16 to 19 GCA § 8321 no later than March 30, 2018.

17 3. The Plaintiff is further ORDERED to file a Final Decree of Divorce no sooner than six

18 (6) months from the date the Court enters the Interlocutory Decree of Divorce.

7-+1- -.t'- -ctf- 1-jl~e,_ 19

20 SO ORDERED _ _ 22

23 't?e Honorable Anita A. Sukola Judge, Superior Court of Guam 24

DM0212-17 Braray v. Braray Page 4 of 4 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (Compl. for Divorce)