Flores v. Flores

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: October 20, 2021
• Docket: DM0112-21
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

~FILED ·~suPERIOR COURT OF GUAH 1 Z0210CT20 PM 1:52 2 CLERK OF COURT 3 Oy=-~cJ.~·- - - 4

5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

.6 ANGELINA LYNN FLORES, DOMESTIC CASE NO. DM0112-21 7 Plaintiff, 8 vs. 9 PAUL BRANDON FLORES, DECISION AND ORDER 10 Defendant. 11

12 INTRODUCTION 13 This· matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on June 27, 2021 for a "14 motion hearing on the Plaintiffs Motion for Pendente Lite Spousal Support and Attorney's 15 Fees. Plaintiff Angelina Lynn Flores ("Plaintiff') is represented by Attorney Gary Gumataotao. 16 Defendant Paul Brandon Flores ("Defendant") is represented by Attorney Catherine Bejerana 17 Camacho. 18· Having considered the arguments, pleadings and applicable law, the Court hereby 19 DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Pendente Lite Spousal Support and Attorney's Fees. 20 BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff and Defendant (the "Parties") were married on June 24, 2016 and separate~ on 22 January 1, 2020. Compl. (Mar. 16, 2021). There are two minor children of the marriage, to 23 include Anaiyah (age seven) and Ameah (age four) (collectively the "Children''). /d. Claiming 24

Page 1 of9 1 irreconcilable differences, Plaintiff filed the Verified Complaint for Divorce on March 16,

2 2021. Defendant filed the Verified Answer and Counterclaim for Divorce on April 9, 2021.

3 Plaintiff answered Defendant's Answer and Counterclaim on April 20, 2021.

4 On May 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order

5 seeking to prevent the Defendant from threatening or harassing Plaintiff in order to obtain

6 possession of the Parties' 2016 Toyota Highlander. Plaintiff filed an Addendum to the Ex Parte

7 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order containing a text message between the Parties on 8 May 19, 2021. Defense coun.sel filed the Reply and Opposition to Pla!ntiffs Motion for a

9 Temporary Restraining Order and the Defendant's supporting declaration on May 19, 2021.

10 Plaintiff filed a Partial Response and Objection to TRO on May 19, 2021. After a hearing held

11 on May 19, 2021, the Court issued an order on May 26, 2021 preventing the Parties from

12 threatening, harassing or communicating with each other except as expressly pro~ided in the

13 order, setting temporary visitation arrangements for the Children, setting communication

14 parameters between the Parties regarding the Children, and also providing that Plaintiff shall

15 have use of the 2016 Toyota Highlander .beginning May 2021 and shall also pay the chattel

16 mortgage and insurance on the vehicle from that date forward while it is in her possession. The

17 Order also provided that Defendant shall continue paying the Parties' Docomo·bill.

18 On June 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Pendente Lite Spousal Support and

19 Attorney's Fees along with the Plaintiffs declaration .. On July 6, 2021, Defendant filed his

20 opposition and supporting declaration. Plaintiff filed a Reply to the Defendanfs opposition on

21 July 20, 2021. A motion hearing was held on July 27, 2021, after which' this matter was taken

22 under advisement.

Page 2 of9 1 DISCUSSION

2 I. The Court finds Plaintiff is not entitled to spousal support under 19 GCA § 8402 because her imputed income is sufficient to cover basic living expenses. 3 Plaintiff brings this motion for spousal support under 19 GCA § 8402. Section 8402 4 provides that in a divorce proceeding, "the court may, in its discretion, require the husband or 5 wife, as the case may be, .to pay as alimony any money necessary to enable .the wife, or 6 husband, to support herself and her children .... " See 19 GCA § 8402(a). Section 8402 is based 7 on former California Code Section 137, which makes California case law interpreting this 8 section persuasive. Cruz v. Cruz, 2005 Guam 3, 'I[ 9. When determining spousal support, courts 9 consider "[t]he circumstances of the parties, including the property which each possesses, their 10 respective incomes and earning abilities, as well as their needs .... " Sweeley v. Sweeley, 28 CaL 11 2d 389, 390, 170 P.2d 469, 470 (1946). A wife who is applying for spousal support must also 12 show "[t]he existence .of the marriage, the needs of the wife, and the_ ability of the husband to 13 pay." /d. Other criteria courts may consider include the financial need of the requesting spouse, 14 the other spouse's ability to pay, as ·well as "earning ability, age, health, education, the duration 15 of the marriage, the standard of living enjoyed during its course, and the value of the parties' 16 estates." Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1201-02 (Fla. 1980). 17 The Guam Child Support Guidelines further provide that a court may impute income to 18 a parent should they be unemployed or underemployed as a matter of choice and not for 19 reasonable cause. -See 19 GAR 1203(a)(5). "In determining whether a parent has the . 20 opportunity to work, the court must determine whether there is a 'substantial likelihood that a 21 party could, with reasonable effort, apply his or her education, skills and training to produce 22 income."' Leon ·Guerrero v. Moylan, 2002 Guam 18, 'I[ 32 (quoting Cohen v. Cohen, 76 . ' 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 866, 871, 65 Cal.App.4th 923, 930 (Ct.App.1998)). "Willingness to obtain 24

Page 3 of9 1 employment generating a higher income is shown by good faith efforts, due diligence, and

2 meaningful attempts to secure employment." Leon Guerrero, 2002 Guam 18, <]{ 33 (citing

3 Padilla v. Padilla, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 555, 558, 38 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1218 (Ct.App.1995)).

4 "Generally, if a parent is employable, capable of working, and chooses to remain

5 underemployed or unemployed, the parent's employment status is voluntary." Richardson v.

6 Richardson, 2010 Guam 14, q[ 32 (citing 19 GAR§ 1203(a)(5)).

7 If a parent is voluntarily unemployed, COt!rtS apply a "state of mind" balancing test to

8 determine whether a parent had reasonable cause to be unemployed or underemployed and

9 whether attribution of income to that parent is appropriate. /d. q[ 33 (citing

10 Leon Guerrero, 2002 Guam 18 q[IJI 31-37). "[W]e first look at the impact an employment

11 decision has on the children and then consider the 'overall reasonableness of a parent~s

12 decision, looking at' both the nature and reasons' for the decision." ld. Courts should evaluate

13 whether caring for children is a reasonable cause for ~nemployment. ld. q[ 31 (citing 19 GAR§

14 1203(a)(5)).

15 ~·· While the Guam Child Support Guidelines proviq~ that "'caring for children' may be a

16 'reasonable cause' for being voluntarily unemployed or underemployed," it is unclear as to what

17 specific circumstances constitute reasonable cause. Richardson, 2010 Guam 14, IJI 34 (citing 19 . . . 18 GAR§ 1203(a)(5)). However, the Guam Supreme Court has made clear that caring for children

19 is not a reasonable cause for voluntary unemployment while children are attending school. /d. 'I[

20 37. Furthermore, the Guam Supreme Court has rejected the view that the custodial parent may

21 remain volu~tarily unemployed or underemployed·in all circumstances, because doing so would

22 contradict the shared duty to financially support children, and "would mean the custodial parent

23 would never be expected to work." Id. q[ 35.

Page 4 of9 1 Here, Defendant argues that Plaintiff is fully capable of earning money to support

2 herself, as she did for eighteen months following the Parties' separation. SeeP. Flores Decl. 'I[IJ[

3 6, 10 (Jul. 6, 2021); Opp'n (Jul. 6, 2021) at 2. Plaintiff was employed since the Parties separated

4 in January 2020, but voluntarily quit her job in May of2021. /d. Defendant contends that

5 Plaintiff deliberat~ly chose to be unemployed. Opp'n at 3. At the June 24, 2021 child support

6 hearing, Plaintiff indicated she resigned from her position on May 24, 2021 because her sister

7 and childcare provider was supposed to leave the island, although her sister was still on island at

8 the time of the hearing. P. Flores Decl. '1[10. While Plaintiff claims her only alternative is to

9 seek assistance from the Defendant in the form of spousal support, Defendant contends that he

10 is willing and able to provide childcare for the children to enable Plaintiff t6 work to support

11 herself. /d. 'I[IJ[ 5, 11. D~fendant has indicated that if Plaintiff is unable to care for the Parties'

12 children, he is able to do so, as he already does for his older three children. /d. '1[5. Defendant

13 makes $5,604.37 per month and contends that with his monthly expenses, he cannot afford to

14 provide spousal support in addition to the child support he currently pays to the Plaintiff every

15 month./d. '1['1[6, 8. Defendant is also solely responsible for providing for his three older

16 children, who are ages 9, 10 and 11. /d. '1[4.

17 Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends she was forced to resign from her recent position

18 because of. a lack of adequate childcare and that she is now unable to procure employment

19 because of the pandemic and state of the economy. A. Flores Decl. '1[.9 (Jun. 8, 2021); Mot.

20 (Jun. 8, 2021) at 3. Plaintiff asserts she is currently unable to provide for the bare necessities to

21 maintain her household, while Defendant has income sufficient to support her. A. Flores Decl.

22 'I[IJ[ 8-13. Plaintiff further argues ~hat in part due to her sacrifices during the marriage, Defendant

23 enjoys a higher paying job, higher education, and that her earning capacity does not match

24 Defendant's. Mot. at 3.

Page 5 of9 1 According to the latest Child Support Worksheet filed in CS0026-21, Plaintiffs

2 stipulated income from her recent employment at Guam Regional Transit Authority is $2,210

3 per month. See Stipulated Findings and Order Re: Child Support (Sept. 24, 2021). Plaintiff also

4 receives $1,059.85 from Defendant in child support every month. /d. While one of the Children

5 is not school-aged, the Supreme Court has not determined that caring for children who are not

6 attending schools is always a reasonable cause for voluntary unemployment. The Court finds ,, . 7 that Plaintiff's decisiqn to quit her job was adverse to the children and unreasonable as she now

8 claims to be unable to provide for the bare necessities to maintain her household. The choice to

9 be unemployed is also unreasonable because Defendant indicated that he is willing and able to

10 provide childcare for the children to enable Plaintiff to work to support herself. The Court

11 therefore imputes income to Plaintiff in the amount of $3,269.85. Plaintiffs imputed income of

12 $3,269.85 exceeds her estimated expenses of $2,910. A. Flores Decl. en 13.

13 In Guzman v. Guzman, DM0772-08, (Judge, M.J. Bordallo, April 29, 2009), the court

14 denied the wife's request for separate maintenance payments after the dissolution of a

15 nineteen-year marriage. In that case, the wife asserted she had no employment skills, could not

16 find employment, and even claimed to have to borrow money for items not covered by food

17 stamps. However, the husband provided for the parties' debts, housing and utilities. The court

18 found that after imputing onto the wife a minimum wage income of $1,135.34 per month, her

19 expenses fell within the .income imputed· to her. Furthermore, the court found that she had the

20 skills to obtain full-time minimum wage employment. For these reasons, the court did not grant

21 the wife's request for separate maintenance payments.

22 Similar to Guzman, Plaintiffs request for spousal support should be denied because her

23 basic expenses fall within the $3,269.85 income imputed to her. Unlike Guzman, where the . . 24 Parties were married for 19 years and the wife lacked employment skills, the Parties in this

Page 6 of9 1 matter were married for only 3.5 years before separating. Compl. Additionally, Plaintiff has the

2 skills to obtain full time employment, as she was gainfully employed for eighteen months

3 following the Parties' separation.

4 Because Plaintiff has the earning capacity to provide for her basic expenses based on

5 the income imputed to her, and because Defendant cannot afford to pay Plaintiff additional

6 spousal support in addition to child support he already pays every month, the Court is not

7 p~rsuaded that spousal support is necessary. For these reasons, the Gourt DENIES Plaintiffs

8 request for spousal support.

9 II. The Court declines to award ~laintiff attorney's fees because she has sufficient earning-capacity to provide f~r her legal expenses. 10 · , In the dissolution of a marriage, a court has the discretion to "require the husband or 11 wife, as the case may be, to pay ... any money necessary to enable the wife, or husband to ... 12 prosecute or-defend the action." See 19. GCA § 8402(a). A Court may award attorney's fees

14 the marriage and post-divorce. Cruz v. Cruz, 2005 Guam 3, lj['I[ 13-14. When considering what is 15 "necessary" for a party to prosecute or defend and action, courts may . consider- the 16 circumstances of the parties, their necessities and financial ability, and a demonstrated need for 17 support through a showing that the expenses of litigation exceed a party's resources. Id. <[ 10. "It 18 is not necessary that one spouse be completely unable to pay attorney's fees in order for the trial 19 court to require the other spouse to pay these fees." Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 20 1205 (Fla. 1980). 21 Here, Plaintiff argues that $5,000 in attorney's fees should be paid by Defendant 22 because Defendant blocked Plaintiffs access to marital community funds. A. Flores Decl. <[ 4, 23 7. Plaintiff also contends she has been stripped of his additional income, and Defendant can 24

Page 7 of9 1 afford to pay for Plaintiffs legal costs. !d. 'f['f[ 3, 8. Although Defendant has a gross income of ~fE~

2 $5,604.37, his take home pay is lower. B. Flores Decl. 'f[ 6. Defendant's monthly estimated

3 expenses total $5,555.70, and include caring not only for the Parties' two children, but also his

4 three older children, whom he is solely .responsible for. !d. 'f['f[ 4, 6. Meanwhile, Plaintiff has an

5 imputed income of $3,269.85 and estimated expenses of only $2,910. Given that Plaintiff

6 should_ have sufficient earning capacity and access to reso~rces to provide for her legal

7 expenses, the _Court does not find a sufficient basis to grant Plaintiffs request.

8 In the case of Johnson v. Johnson, DM0386-04 (Judge, K. Maraman, June 7, 2006), the

9 Court denied awarding the wife's request for attorney's fees despite the fact that· the husband - 10 earned more than double the wife's income. "While "it may be true that [husband's] income

11 exceeds [wife's] income, the Court is not convinced that [wife's] need for proper support and

12 the expenses incurred in the divorce case exceed her available resources." Johnson v. Johnson,

13 DM0386-04 (Judge, K. Maraman, Jun~ 7, 2006), pp 4-5. In that case, the husband had assumed

14 all community debts and paid for dental and health insurance for the minor children. !d.

·15 Similar to Johnson; the Court in the instant matter is not convinced that the Plaintiffs

16 need for support to pay for expenses incurred during the divorce exceed her available resources

17 given her imputed income and earning capacity. Defendant not only pays child support, but

18 continues to pay for the Children's dental and health insurance. Opp'n at 4. Additionally, he

19 pays for the Parties' and children's phone and internet expenses. Thus, similar to Johnson,

20 Plaintiff is not necessarily entitled to attorney'·s fees due to her lower income.

21 Plaintiff cites to Canakaris v. Canakaris; 382 So. 2d 1197, 1205 (1980) to support her

22 .argument that she need not be completely unable to pay attorney's fees in order for the Court to

23 require· the Defendant to pay such fees. However, Canakaris is distinguished because in that

24 case the husband had significantly greater resources than his wife, having retained property

Page 8 of9 1 exceeding $3.3 million while his wife retained property approximating only $385,000. ld. at

2 1204. There, the Supreme Court of Florida found that given the husband's superior financial

3 ability to secure counsel and the complexity of the case, it was proper to award the wife

4 attorney's fees. /d. at 1204-05. The instant case is clearly distinguished because the Defendant

5 does not have a significantly superior financial ability to sec.ure counsel and this matter is not

6 nearly as complex. Thus, the Court finds Canakaris i& .distinguished on its facts and Plaintiffs

7 argument is unpersuasive. For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs request for

8 attorney's fees.

9 CONCLUSION

10 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Pendente Lite

11 Spousal Support and Attorney's Fees. ·

13 · IT IS SO ORDERED _ _O_CT_2_0_l_OZ1 14

15 ~-------· HONORABLE ARTHUR R~ BARCINAS Judge, SuperiorCourt of Guam 16