Champaco v. Champaco

Opinion

TN THE SlJPERlOR COtJRT OF r;VAM 2 I'

1 DOMESTIC CASE NO. O!Vt-0425-08 CLELLA M. CHA:'tt1' ACO, 1 )

4 Plaintiff, 1 .-s. ) DECISION AJ'\D ORDER 5 ) )

VICENTE T. CHAMI'ACO, )

7 )

Defendant. )

8 .....1

This matter ealll~ before the IlONORAI3LE VER,,\01\ P. PEREZ on January 5. 2012 10 for Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. A1tomey Joaquin C. Arriob Jr. repre~ented

Defendant Vicente Champaeo. AtlOrney Harold F. Parker represented Plaintiff Clella

Champaco. Parties snbmitted on the briefs. As both Parties share a common snrname they will 13 be referred to herein solely as Plaintiff and Defendant. Having reviewed the pleadings 14 pre8enled. Ihe Court now jS811e~ the following Decision and Order 15 BACKGROUND

The parties first became acquain!eu in 1986, married on July 20, 1993. and separated on

Angust 6. 2006. The parties have two adult children bm no minor children. Plaintiff filed hcr >8 Complaint for Dissolution of Marriage on July 7, 2008. Defendant filed an Answer and 19 Counter-Claim on July 25. 2008. Plaintiff seeks divorce on the grounds of adull~D-'. ~xtreme 20 emelly, willful desertion. willful negieci and irreconcilable dilferenees. (SL'-e Complaint at pg.

21 4) Plainti)f also seeks spousal support. (See Renewed Notice of Motion and Motion for

Spousal Support. filed February I, 2(10) Defendant seeks divorce on the grounds of extremc

emotional distress. cruelty. and irreconcilable differences. (Sec Answer at pgs. 2-3)

24 It is uncontested thal Mr. C'hmnpaco has developed a romantic relali(ln~hip with 26 Josephine Chanlpa<:o. the \\~d()w of hi~ hrother who pa.~sed away in Septembt'r of 200S. (Sec

Hearing of May 19, 20 I 0 at 10: 12) PiaintilT alleges that the affair began before the separation

of the parties in 2006. bllt admits that she has no evidence of this fact. (See llearing of May 19,

Ch~.~paco ,~. Cil'J"+"""~' i'mding> Qr fa,~ lUld Coociu.,io", ofb" lJ"me<tk {'"-,,, 1\<> IlM-(l4;'.I-08 .l'ogclof4.

I 2010 at J2:27) Defcndant denies that the relationship began /)clore the parties sepunw:d. (See 2 Hearing of May 19.2010at 10:17-10:18). 3 Partie~ tried the case on May 19.2010 and thi~ Court granted Plaintiffs re.quest for

4 Divorce, through interlocutory decree on June 22, 2010. As to the basis for divorce, this Court 5 fonnd thaI Defendant committed adultery. Defendant now mOlions the Court to reconsider the 6 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 7 DISCUSSION 8 I. Standard for Reeonsideratiun 9 Oencral!y, there are several gronnds upon which a motion for reconsideration may be 10 granted. These inclnde situatiollS where thc tria! court: 1) is prcsenlcd with new evidence; 2) 11 committed clear error or the decision was manifestly unjll~t; or 3) if there is an intervening 12 change in controlling law:' Ward l'. Reyes, 1998 Guam 1. 'I; 10 (April 2. 1998) (citations 13 omitted).1 In the case here. Defendant alleges that the Court based its decision on Ihe wrong 14 facts. )5 In addition. "no motion for reconsid"'Hltion shall in any manner repeat any oral or 16 wTitten argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion". CVR 7.I(i). 17 Thns, the Coun will only decide the issue of whether or not b'r<)UJ)ds for reconsideration exist. 18 This Cuurt 1'0';11 not decide on the merits of the case once again_ 19 II. Timing 20 Rnle 60(b) provides thal "the motion shall be madc within a reas()nablc time, and for 21 reasons (1), (2). and (3) not more than one year after the Judgment, ordcr, ()r proceeding was 22 entered or taken. In this matter, reasons (I) and (2) which are mistake and newly discovered 23 evidence respectively where Defendant's reasons for l\."'COnsideration. Thus, Defendant had not 24 "more than one year" to file this Motion. Facially, the motion is uillimely and the Court does 25 not have to consider the Motion for Reconsideration, The Court's Findings of Fact and 26 Condm;ions of Law was filed on June 22, 2010. Defendant had unti! Jlme 23. 2011 to lodge

28 I See "I"" Rule 60(b).

crwmpaGO v. Ch)'-'f)~C'~ Finding, <1f r-ac~ ""d Cencl,,-,;o", 01' L~" Dornoslio C","" NQ, D~H).jH.(l8 his Motion for Reconsideration. Defcndant's Mptio!) fbr RL"<xl11sidcralion: Alternativc Motion 2 for l\ew Trial was filed January 5, 2012 which is long after Rule 60(b) allows frlr such m()li(l!)~. 3 '!1lerejore, the Court will not gram reconsideration of its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of i :

4 ,i Law, Yet. the Court will make a brief analysis of the Defendam' s main contentions th<ll would 5 allow f(}f rec{m~ideration if the motion was timely. which it is not. 6 III.Reeonsideration 7 " The thru~t of f}ere!)dant'~ argumem is that the Motion for Reconsiderat;()!J should he 8 granted because the Court mistakenly based its June 21. 2010 Finding~ of Fact and Conclusions 9 of Law without receiving evidence tending to prove adultery on behalf of thc Defendant.

10 'Defendant also arglleR thai he maintains an affirmativc defense 10 a claim of atlultery as 11 Plaimif'r has forgiven him.) Defendant claims the June 22, 2010 Findings of Fact and 12 Conclusions of Law should be reconsidered due to mislake and ncwly discovered evidence. 13 RuJc60(b), t4 Adult~f)' is deJin<,d as '"[h<' voluntary sexual intercourse of a married person with a

I

15 persun other than the ojTender's husband or \vife'·. 19 GCA § 8204. A person is still husband I 16 'and wife umil final decree of divorce. Without speculating on the pmdieality of the statute on

17 most marital dissolutions. the Court mllsl conclude that adultef)' is not excused by the physical 18 separation of the Parties as many jllriwidi()!)~ have found similarly. Set' Boyatl v, Boyall, 19 2485.\V.3d 144 (Ten. App. 2(07); Se~ also Ayala v. Ayala. 2011 WL2930311 (Tex. App. 20 lIollston.l'oisL20 II); J<;kul v. JekOl, 232 S. W.3d 744 (Tenn. App. 20(7); Gce v. Uee, 13 21 Pa.C.C 382 (Pa Com I'i. 1893); Arkinson v, Atkinson. 32 S.W. 3d 41 (Ark. App. 20(0). 22 Additionally, the Coun has enongh evidence to bas~ ils eonclu$ion of adultery. Ddendant 23 admitted that an affair occurred between his ~elf and the wife of his deceased brother belore 24 inter/ocutof)' de<:ree of divurce and wjthoul a separation agreement in place. Defendant's 25 arguments. which include that no evidence sllpportcd a conclusion of adulter), and that any 26 adultery occurred aJkr the dme of separation and therefor is excused. both faiL n 28 ' Defendant argue, thar Plaintiff condoned the adult~f)' and therefore it could n(lt be the ba,i; for Divorce acting as an affi.mative defense to a complaint for diwr,e,

'C"""'p.'"'' ". ell",,,.,,,,, ,.f

bodEn.!\-' Fot1 and CmlciL,,,oL" of La" Oo"",W< ca", 1'0, ))\1_042,·1)8

Defcndant finally ~fgue~ that condonation or recrimination makc il impossible for th~ ~ ICOlin to find adultery as the basis for divor~e_ Thc COU1t finds now that ir the OPPOrlllllil} 3 ~x.sted a! tnal to submIt ev.d"nce oj such affinnatne defen'~s. thr Court 1S limited m heann

4 evidence ~v~ilable to Defendant a! the time or tri~L Rule 60(b}; See Ward '"_ Reves, 1998 (iLla1 5 L According to the Supreme <ourt of the TCITitory of GUllm, a parly's failure to submi 6 cviden~e does not make Sl1ch evidence ncwly dis~(lvered and Iherefore, that evidence cannot b

7 Ibasi8 filr reconsideration, Ward v, Reyes, 1998 Guam 1 '113. Furlheml0re, if the evidcIlc1 8 "could have and should have been presented to the trial <:our!'", it is not an abuse of di8cretion 011 9 a trial court to deny a motion for reeonsiderJtion_ fd 10 Here. the evidence existed at the time of the trial and the Court will not take ne\\' II evidence that a Party could have presented. Thus, the Court mu.~t review only wh~t is already in 12 the 11k There is not adequate evidence of" PlaintitTs condonation or recrimination that the I, {'"uT! could have bascd the June 22, 201 {) Findings on. Even if the Court could review new 14 evidence that was not ~vllilable to Drf'endant at the time of the brneh trial. the Court does not IS find the elements 01" eilher defense to adultery to be satisfied. Therefore, neither or Dcfcndant's 16 three arguments submitted by Defendant !lHow li)r roconsideration. There me no grounds for 17 reconsideration and the Court will not decide the merits of Plaintiffs cause for divorce where 18 thc Court has already decided almost two years ago. 19 CONCLUSION 20 For the foregoing rea,ons. the Court DENIES ndendant's Motion for Reconsideration.

Parties will return on MY 25 2012..- 9~r a statlL~ hearing.

. ...... ,J 22 So ORDERED this day of ~ May, 2012.

23 j

24 I 25

liON

L6?:'~~~_~

ABLE VERNO::\, P. PFRFJ.

27 JUDGE, SUPER10R COURT OF GUAM

28

Cil""!,,', __" I', CI.""po _-'0 F.nding' of Fact "oJ Concbions "r C"" I)""'NJC ("iN N,,_ nM_042l·0S _ !\\go ~ ,,1'4_