Capristrano v. Capristrano

Opinion

sU UR

1 - -‘-

2 3 -‘ --‘

6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7 RUDY RIVERA CAPISTRANO, Domestic Case No. DM0199-14 $ Plaintiff,

9

10 v. DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING

ii LEONOR ARELA CAPISTRANO, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY SPOUSAL SUPPORT

12 Defendant. 13

14 INTRODUCTION 15 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on December 23, 2020 for

16 hearing on Plaintiff Rudy Rivera Capistrano’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Motion to Modify Spousal Support 17 (“Motion”). Attorney Nicole G. Cruz represents Plaintiff, and Attorney Daniel S. Somerfieck 1$ represents Leonor Arela Capistrano (“Defendant”). Having duly considered the parties’ briefs, oral 19 arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order and 20 GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion.

21 BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff and Defendant were married for approximately five years. Motion at 2. There were

23 no children in the marriage. Id. at 2. On June 22, 2016, the Court issued its final Decree of 24 Divorce and ordered Plaintiff to provide Defendant with permanent spousal support in the amount

25 of $600.00 per month. j4 at 2. 26 In November 2019, the Court denied Plaintiffs first request to terminate spousal support. Id. 27 at 2. On September 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed this Motion once again requesting a modification of 2$ spousal support. Id. at 1.

Decision and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify Spousal Support DM0 199-14, capistrano v. Capistrano Page 1 of 3

.

1 Plaintiff argues that the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has left him incapable

2 of paying the spousal support. at 3. Plaintiff used to work at United Airlines (“United”) as a

3 Manager for Technical Operations where he took home a net income of $5,000/month. Court 4 Recording (12/23/2020 at 10:1 1:30); Motion at 2. However, Plaintiffs income has suffered greatly

5 this past year following pay cuts and employment terminations implemented by United. In April 6 2020, Plaintiff incurred a 20% reduction in pay to support United’s employment directive amid the 7 pandemic. Court Recording (12/23/2020 at 10:15:05). In July 2020, Plaintiff was informed he’d $ be let go at the end of September due to company-wide layoffs. Court Recording (12/23/2020 at 9 10:18:40). However. Plaintiffs last day at work was on August 15, 2020, as he voluntarily opted

10 for an earlier separation date due to health concerns over the pandemic. Court Recording 11 (12/23/2020 at 10:20:20). In return for Plaintiffs early separation. United agreed to pay him 25%

12 of his salary up until the end of November 2020. Court Recording (12/23/2020 at 10:22:10). 13 Plaintiff has not received a paycheck since November 30, 2020 Court Recording (12/23/2020 at

14 10:23:00). In fact, Plaintiff currently isn’t receiving funds from any source. Court Recording 15 (12/23/2020 at 10:28:40).

16 Defendant argues that she has not received any spousal support since August 2020, months 17 before the November 30, 2020 date when Plaintiff stopped receiving paychecks. Court Recording 18 (12/23/2020 at 10:27:50). As such, Defendant argues Plaintiff should be held in contempt of court 19 for failing to pay spousal support as ordered. 20 The Court held a hearing on December 23, 2020. After hearing the arguments of the parties, 21 the Court took the matter under advisement.

22 DISCUSSION 23 Courts may, in their discretion, vary, alter, or revoke an order for permanent spousal support

24 as they may deem necessary. 19 G.C.A. § 8402. Factors determining modification for child support 25 include “the extent to which the earning capacity of each party is sufficient to maintain the 26 standard of living established during the marriage,” the “ability of the supporting party to pay 27 spousal support, taking into account the supporting party’s earning capacity, earned and unearned 28 income, assets, and standard of living,” the “duration of the marriage,” the “age and health of

Decision and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify Spousal Support DM019914, Capistrano Capistrano ‘.

Page 2 of 3

1 the parties.” and “any other factors the court determines are just and equitable.” Cal. Farn. Code § 2 4320. See also Gray v.Gray, 103 So.3d 962. 966 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2t)12) (“Permanent periodic

3 alimony is used to provide the needs and the necessities of life to a former spouse as established 4 during the parties’ marriage; in determining whether to award permanent periodic alimony, the trial 5 court is to weigh the parties’ respective needs and ability to make alimony payments.”’). 6 In this case, substantial circumstances have risen since the trial court’s post-divorce order in 7 June 2016, and its rLtlrng in November 2019. Plaintiff is has been without income since December 8 1, 2020 and his income prior to that was reduced by 20% in April 2020 and by 75% in August 9 2020. These circumstances represent substantial changes that warrant modification of the spousal 10 support. As such, Defendant’s spousal support obligations will temporarily he suspended for the 11 next six (6) months. The Court will then hold a Status Hearing six months from now and will 12 continue the spousal support suspension if Defendant is still without employment. 13 However, Defendant is still liable for the spousal support he failed to pay between August 14 2020 through the end of November when his income stream stopped. Defendant still had funds 15 coming in through the end of November, and it was improper for him not to pay the ordered spousal 16 support during that period.

17 CONCLUSION 1$ for the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. Plaintiff’s spousal

19 support obligations will temporarily be suspended for the next six (6) months. The Court will then 20 hold a Status Hearing, and if Defendant is still without employment the Court will continue the 21 suspension. However, Defendant must pay Plaintiff all outstanding spousal support still owed 22 through November 30, 2020. The next Status Hearing is scheduled for Monday, August 2, 2021, at 23 10:00am. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED this February 3, 2021.

26 SERVICE VIA E-MAIL acknowtege that an etectronic copy of the original was e-mailed to:

27

28 HONORABLE ALBERTO C. LAMORENA, III Date: Time: 2-/ ?/z1 Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam flision and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify Spousal Support Deputy Clerk, Superior court of Guam DM0 199-14, Capistrano v. Capistrano Page 3 of 3