6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
7 RUDY RIVERA CAPISTRANO, Case No. DM0199-14 $
9 Plaintiff, 10 V. DECISION & ORDER II LEONOR ARELA CAPISTRANO, 12 Defendant. ‘3 ) 14 ) ) 15
16 INTRODUCTION 17 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on September 13, 2019 18 on Leonor Capistrano’s (“Leonor”) Motion for Contempt and Enforcement of Final Decree of ‘9 Divorce Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (“Motion for Contempt”) (Mar. 21, 2019). On 20
21 April 18, 2019, Rudy Capistrano (“Rudy”) filed a Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion
22 for Contempt and Enforcement of Final Divorce, and Counter Motion for Termination of 23 Spousal Support (“Opposition”) (Apr. 18, 2019). Rudy is represented by Attorney Joaquin C. 24 Arriola, Jr., and Leonor is represented by Attorney Daniel S. Somerfieck. Having heard the 25 arguments and testimony of the parties, and considered the applicable law, the Court now issues 26
27 its Decision and Order denying in part and granting in part Leonor’s Motion for Contempt.
28 \ Decision and Order DM0199-14, Capistrano v. Capistrano
BACKGROUND
2 The action initially arose from a divorce complaint filed by Rudy on April 7, 2014.
3 Verified Complaint for Divorce (Apr. 7, 2019). On June 22, 2016, the Court issued its Findings 4 of Facts and Conclusions of Law and entered both an Interlocutory and final Decree of Divorce.
findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law (“fFCL”) (June 22, 2016); Interlocutory Decree of 6 Divorce (“Interlocutory Decree”) (June 22, 2016); Final Decree of Divorce (“Final Decree”)
(June 22, 2016). Both the Interlocutory Decree and the Final Decree memorialize the terms of
the FFCL, granting divorce on grounds of adultery and ordering Rudy to “. . . pay $600.00 per 9 month to Defendant as spousal support. . .“ Interlocutory Decree at 2; Final Decree at 2.
On March 21, 2019, Leonor filed a Motion for Contempt, alleging Rudy:
has failed to provide [Leonor] with spousal support in the amount of $600.00 = per month as provided in the June 22, 2016 [final Decree] as well as provide 13 [Leonor] with her share of [Rudy’s] accrued retirement benefits totaling $27,000.00 as provided in the June 22, 2016 [fFCL]. 14
15 Motion for Contempt at 2. Rudy filed a response to Leonor’s Motion for Contempt, which also
16 contained a counter motion to terminate spousal support. Rudy’s Opposition alleges his failure
17 to provide Leonor with spousal support was caused by Leonor’s refusal to communicate with
18 him. See id. at 3. The Opposition further alleges that “. . . immediately after Plaintiff RUDY 19 was served with [Leonor’s] [Motion for Contempt], Defendant [sic] secured a loan, and 20 purchased a cashier’s check for $19,800.00 for the amount of spousal support due since June 22, 21 2016, which he delivered to Defendant LEONOR on April 5,2019.” Id. 22 A hearing on the Motion for Contempt and the Opposition was held on September 13, 23 2019. The Court heard testimony limited to the contempt issue. After hearing the testimony 24 and arguments of the parties, the Court took the matter under advisement. Minute Entry (Sept. 25 13, 2019). 26
Page 2 of 6 Decision and Order DM0199-14, Capistrano v. Capistrano
1 DISCUSSION
2 A. Rudy is in willful violation of the court’s order.
3 In her Motion for Contempt, Leonor argues Rudy should be held in contempt for his
failure to pay spousal support due since June 22, 2016. Motion for Contempt at 2. On April 5, 5 2019, after the filing of this enforcement action, Rudy paid the spousal support owed since June 6
22, 2016. Plaintiff’s Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition & Countermotion
$ (“Rudy’s Declaration”) (Apr. 18, 2019). Leonor requests the Court finds Rudy in contempt and
award her attorney’s fees and costs for bringing this enforcement action. Motion for Contempt 10 at 3. Rudy asserts Leonor’s refusal to communicate with him is the cause of his failure to pay 11 spousal support. Opposition at 2. 12
13 The elements of civil contempt are: (I) a valid order; (2) the party’s knowledge of that
14 order; (3) the party has the ability to comply with the order, and; (4) the party willfully violated 15 the order. Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 2003 Guam 8 ¶ 15, overruled on other grounds by Pagttio ij’. 16 Paguio, 2014 Guam 36. The Court issued the Jiiterlocutory Decree and the Final Decree. No 17 issues have been raised as to the validity of these orders. Rudy acknowledges that he was aware
19 of the Final Decree. See Rudy’s Declaration at 1 (“Since the Court entered the Final Decree of
20 Divorce Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law . . . in June 22, 2016, I’ve made several 21 .
attempts to comply with the Court’s Orders . . .“). .
It is apparent Rudy had the ability to comply 22 with the order as he was able to satisfy the entire balance due for spousal support in full. Id. at 23
2. The element in dispute is whether Rudy willfully violated the Final Decree. Leonor argues
25 Rudy willfully violated the order in only making payments once Leonor filed the Motion for
26 Contempt. Rudy asserts Leonor’s refusal to communicate with him is the cause of his failure to 27 pay spousal support. Opposition at 2. 2$
Page 3 of6 Decision and Order DM0 199-14, Capistrano v. Capistrano
Leonor and Rudy appeared before the Court to testify about the factual scenario
2 surrounding the filing of the motion. Prior to the filing of the Motion for Contempt, Rudy made
3 no payments for spousal support as was required by the Final Decree. Court Recording at
4:04:40 (Sept. 13, 2019). Rudy attempted to contact Leonor to make a spousal support payment. 5 Id. at 3:59:50. When Rudy attempted to discuss payment with Leonor, he was directed to speak 6 with Leonor’s attorney. Id. at 4:14:01. Rudy did not contact Leonor’s attorney to make a
8 transfer of payment for spousal support. Id. at 4:13:25. Rudy offered into evidence a letter,
written January 26, 2017, from Joaquin Arriola, Jr., Rudy’s attorney, to Daniel Somerfieck, 10 Leonor’s attorney. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 (Sept. 13, 2019). The letter requests Mr. Somerfieck to
consult with Leonor as to how she proposes Rudy to begin compliance with the Final Decree.
13 See Id. No other testimony was taken on this letter. After the Motion for Contempt was filed,
14 Rudy made a payment for all past due spousal support. Court Recording at 4:00:30. 15 It appears to the Court that Rudy was in willful violation of the Final Decree. Under the 16 Final Decree, the Court ordered Rudy to pay $600 per month in spousal support. Final Decree 17 at 2. Rudy asserts his attempt to contact Leonor to make payment of spousal support followed 18
19 by Leonor’s refusal to discuss and referral to her attorney relieves Rudy from his prior failure to
20 pay. The Court disagrees. 21 . . . While Leonor may have refused to communicate with Rudy regarding making payments 77
of spousal support, Rudy’s subsequent efforts to make the payments were minimal. Plaintiff’s 23 Exhibit 1, the July 26, 2017 letter, indicates Rudy’s attorney reached out to Leonor’s attorney 24
25 regarding suggested actions for compliance with the order. Although Rudy made some efforts
26 to bring himself in compliance with the Final Decree prior to the filing, these efforts were 27 .
insufficient. It was not until after the Motion for Contempt was filed that Rudy came into full 28
Page 4 of 6 Decision and Order . DM0199-14, Capistrano v. Capistrano
compliance with the final Decree by paying the entire outstanding balance. The Court finds
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
7 RUDY RIVERA CAPISTRANO, Case No. DM0199-14 $
9 Plaintiff, 10 V. DECISION & ORDER II LEONOR ARELA CAPISTRANO, 12 Defendant. ‘3 ) 14 ) ) 15
16 INTRODUCTION 17 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on September 13, 2019 18 on Leonor Capistrano’s (“Leonor”) Motion for Contempt and Enforcement of Final Decree of ‘9 Divorce Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (“Motion for Contempt”) (Mar. 21, 2019). On 20
21 April 18, 2019, Rudy Capistrano (“Rudy”) filed a Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion
22 for Contempt and Enforcement of Final Divorce, and Counter Motion for Termination of 23 Spousal Support (“Opposition”) (Apr. 18, 2019). Rudy is represented by Attorney Joaquin C. 24 Arriola, Jr., and Leonor is represented by Attorney Daniel S. Somerfieck. Having heard the 25 arguments and testimony of the parties, and considered the applicable law, the Court now issues 26
27 its Decision and Order denying in part and granting in part Leonor’s Motion for Contempt.
28 \ Decision and Order DM0199-14, Capistrano v. Capistrano
BACKGROUND
2 The action initially arose from a divorce complaint filed by Rudy on April 7, 2014.
3 Verified Complaint for Divorce (Apr. 7, 2019). On June 22, 2016, the Court issued its Findings 4 of Facts and Conclusions of Law and entered both an Interlocutory and final Decree of Divorce.
findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law (“fFCL”) (June 22, 2016); Interlocutory Decree of 6 Divorce (“Interlocutory Decree”) (June 22, 2016); Final Decree of Divorce (“Final Decree”)
(June 22, 2016). Both the Interlocutory Decree and the Final Decree memorialize the terms of
the FFCL, granting divorce on grounds of adultery and ordering Rudy to “. . . pay $600.00 per 9 month to Defendant as spousal support. . .“ Interlocutory Decree at 2; Final Decree at 2.
On March 21, 2019, Leonor filed a Motion for Contempt, alleging Rudy:
has failed to provide [Leonor] with spousal support in the amount of $600.00 = per month as provided in the June 22, 2016 [final Decree] as well as provide 13 [Leonor] with her share of [Rudy’s] accrued retirement benefits totaling $27,000.00 as provided in the June 22, 2016 [fFCL]. 14
15 Motion for Contempt at 2. Rudy filed a response to Leonor’s Motion for Contempt, which also
16 contained a counter motion to terminate spousal support. Rudy’s Opposition alleges his failure
17 to provide Leonor with spousal support was caused by Leonor’s refusal to communicate with
18 him. See id. at 3. The Opposition further alleges that “. . . immediately after Plaintiff RUDY 19 was served with [Leonor’s] [Motion for Contempt], Defendant [sic] secured a loan, and 20 purchased a cashier’s check for $19,800.00 for the amount of spousal support due since June 22, 21 2016, which he delivered to Defendant LEONOR on April 5,2019.” Id. 22 A hearing on the Motion for Contempt and the Opposition was held on September 13, 23 2019. The Court heard testimony limited to the contempt issue. After hearing the testimony 24 and arguments of the parties, the Court took the matter under advisement. Minute Entry (Sept. 25 13, 2019). 26
Page 2 of 6 Decision and Order DM0199-14, Capistrano v. Capistrano
1 DISCUSSION
2 A. Rudy is in willful violation of the court’s order.
3 In her Motion for Contempt, Leonor argues Rudy should be held in contempt for his
failure to pay spousal support due since June 22, 2016. Motion for Contempt at 2. On April 5, 5 2019, after the filing of this enforcement action, Rudy paid the spousal support owed since June 6
22, 2016. Plaintiff’s Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition & Countermotion
$ (“Rudy’s Declaration”) (Apr. 18, 2019). Leonor requests the Court finds Rudy in contempt and
award her attorney’s fees and costs for bringing this enforcement action. Motion for Contempt 10 at 3. Rudy asserts Leonor’s refusal to communicate with him is the cause of his failure to pay 11 spousal support. Opposition at 2. 12
13 The elements of civil contempt are: (I) a valid order; (2) the party’s knowledge of that
14 order; (3) the party has the ability to comply with the order, and; (4) the party willfully violated 15 the order. Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 2003 Guam 8 ¶ 15, overruled on other grounds by Pagttio ij’. 16 Paguio, 2014 Guam 36. The Court issued the Jiiterlocutory Decree and the Final Decree. No 17 issues have been raised as to the validity of these orders. Rudy acknowledges that he was aware
19 of the Final Decree. See Rudy’s Declaration at 1 (“Since the Court entered the Final Decree of
20 Divorce Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law . . . in June 22, 2016, I’ve made several 21 .
attempts to comply with the Court’s Orders . . .“). .
It is apparent Rudy had the ability to comply 22 with the order as he was able to satisfy the entire balance due for spousal support in full. Id. at 23
2. The element in dispute is whether Rudy willfully violated the Final Decree. Leonor argues
25 Rudy willfully violated the order in only making payments once Leonor filed the Motion for
26 Contempt. Rudy asserts Leonor’s refusal to communicate with him is the cause of his failure to 27 pay spousal support. Opposition at 2. 2$
Page 3 of6 Decision and Order DM0 199-14, Capistrano v. Capistrano
Leonor and Rudy appeared before the Court to testify about the factual scenario
2 surrounding the filing of the motion. Prior to the filing of the Motion for Contempt, Rudy made
3 no payments for spousal support as was required by the Final Decree. Court Recording at
4:04:40 (Sept. 13, 2019). Rudy attempted to contact Leonor to make a spousal support payment. 5 Id. at 3:59:50. When Rudy attempted to discuss payment with Leonor, he was directed to speak 6 with Leonor’s attorney. Id. at 4:14:01. Rudy did not contact Leonor’s attorney to make a
8 transfer of payment for spousal support. Id. at 4:13:25. Rudy offered into evidence a letter,
written January 26, 2017, from Joaquin Arriola, Jr., Rudy’s attorney, to Daniel Somerfieck, 10 Leonor’s attorney. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 (Sept. 13, 2019). The letter requests Mr. Somerfieck to
consult with Leonor as to how she proposes Rudy to begin compliance with the Final Decree.
13 See Id. No other testimony was taken on this letter. After the Motion for Contempt was filed,
14 Rudy made a payment for all past due spousal support. Court Recording at 4:00:30. 15 It appears to the Court that Rudy was in willful violation of the Final Decree. Under the 16 Final Decree, the Court ordered Rudy to pay $600 per month in spousal support. Final Decree 17 at 2. Rudy asserts his attempt to contact Leonor to make payment of spousal support followed 18
19 by Leonor’s refusal to discuss and referral to her attorney relieves Rudy from his prior failure to
20 pay. The Court disagrees. 21 . . . While Leonor may have refused to communicate with Rudy regarding making payments 77
of spousal support, Rudy’s subsequent efforts to make the payments were minimal. Plaintiff’s 23 Exhibit 1, the July 26, 2017 letter, indicates Rudy’s attorney reached out to Leonor’s attorney 24
25 regarding suggested actions for compliance with the order. Although Rudy made some efforts
26 to bring himself in compliance with the Final Decree prior to the filing, these efforts were 27 .
insufficient. It was not until after the Motion for Contempt was filed that Rudy came into full 28
Page 4 of 6 Decision and Order . DM0199-14, Capistrano v. Capistrano
compliance with the final Decree by paying the entire outstanding balance. The Court finds
2 this to be sufficient evidence for a finding that Rudy willfully violated the terms of the final
3 Decree.
B. Rudy has purged himself from civil contempt. 5 Leonor, in her Motion for Contempt, has requested the Court to hold Rudy in contempt 6 for his failure to pay spousal support. However, it is clear that after the filing of the Motion for
8 Contempt, Rudy paid the outstanding amount due in full.
If a party is found in civil contempt, “the sentence imposed is conditional and grants the 10 [contemnor] the ability to end the penalty by complying with the order,” which differs
substantially from criminal contempt “where the penalty is fixed and there is no possibility of 12
13 complying with the court order.” People v. Torres, 2008 Guam 26 ¶ 20 (quoting United States
14 v. Haggerty, 528 F. Supp. 1286, 1296 (D. Col. 1981)). In the remedial nature of civil contempt
sanctions, once the “court’s order [is] fulfilled ... there is no actual or imminent threat of 16 contempt.” People v. Superior Court of Guam, 2001 Guam 2691 28. 17 Considering Rudy paid the amount owed for spousal support, the subject of the Motion 18
19 for Contempt, the Court finds Rudy was in compliance with the Final Decree as of the date of
20 the Court’s hearing on this matter. As the threat of contempt has been purged by Rudy’s 21 payment, the Court no longer has any basis to hold Rudy in civil contempt. 7)
C. Leonor is owed reasonable attorney’s fees. 23
74 Leonor, in her Motion for Contempt, requests the Court to order Rudy to pay Leonor’s
25 “attorney fees and costs for this enforcement action.” Motion for Contempt at 3.
26 “Guam courts may impose either civil or criminal sanctions under the general contempt 27 .
powers found in Title 7 of the Guam Code Annotated.” People v. Tennessen, 2011 Guam 2 9[ 2 28
Page 5 of 6 Decision and Order DM0199-i 4. Capistrano v. Capistrano
(citation omitted). “In a civil contempt proceeding, a contemnor may be required to reimburse a
2 complainant for the costs he incurred in enforcing the court’s prior order, including reasonable
3 attorney’s fees.” Foston v. Foston, 502 S.E.2d 86, 90 (S.C. 1998).
While Rudy has purged himself of contempt, Leonor has still incurred attorney’s fees 5 and costs in bringing the current action. The Court finds that if it were not for the filing of the 6 Motion for Contempt, Rudy would not have paid the outstanding spousal support owed.
8 Therefore, the Court finds Rudy is responsible for Leonor’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs
incurred in bringing her Motion for Contempt. 10 CONCLUSION Ii For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby DENIES in part and GRANTS in part 12
13 Leonor’s Motion for Contempt. The Court does not hold Rudy in contempt since he has purged
14 himself from contempt by paying the amounts owed for spousal support. However, the Court 15 finds Rudy responsible for and shall pay reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by 16 Leonor. Within thirty (30) days of the filing of this Decision and Order, Leonor’s counsel shall 17 submit to the Court a declaration of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 18
19 IT ISSO ORDERED on this day of September, 2019.
24 HONORABLE ALBERTO C. LAMORENA III 25 C URT •C Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam a cer t the 26 re ras pce tre A
Page 6 o16