Garcia v. Garcia

Opinion

brary

2

3

4

5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6 EMMA REYES GARCIA )

7 CASE NO. DM0453-10 )

8 Plaintiff, )

)

9 FINDINGS OF FACTS AND vs. ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 10 ) AND ORDER ARIC CRAIG BORJA GARCIA )

11 )

Defendant. )

12

13

14 INTRODUCTION

15 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III, on 16 December 19th , 2011, for a Bench Trial on Plaintiffs Verified Complaint for Divorce.

17 Both parties appeared with counsel. Having weighed all the evidence the court 18 makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

19

20 FINDINGS OF FACT

21 Upon consideration of the evidence and after weighing the credibility of the 22 witnesses, this Court finds the following by a preponderance of the evidence:

23 1. Plaintiff and Defendant are residents of Guam and have resided on Guam for 24 more than 90 days.

25 2. Plaintiff and Defendant were married on August 4, 1990 in Guam.

26 3. Plaintiff and Defendant separated on February 22,2010

Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law Case No. DM0453-1 0

4. The parties agree that there are irreconcilable differences and that the 2 marriage should be dissolved. 3 5. There are no minor children of the marriage. 4 6. There are no community debts. 5 7. While married, the parties entered into a lease agreement. The parties paid a 6 security deposit in connection with the lease and $975.00 of that deposit was 7 returned to Plaintiff upon expiration of lease agreement, which occurred after 8 the parties separated. l 9 8. Plaintiffs family purchased various items of furniture and appliances that 10 were placed in the community apartment. The testimony indicated that the 11 furniture was on loan from the family members and that the furniture was 12 later returned to the purchasing family members. Furthermore, although 13 there was testimony regarding the cost of various items, there was no 14 evidence regarding the value of the furniture items at the time of separation. 15 9. During the marriage the parties purchased a microwave, television set, DVD 16 player, and two computers. The television set broke and neither party now 17 possesses the television. One laptop was a gift to Plaintiff on her birthday. 18 The other laptop was purchased by the parties, but there was no evidence as 19 to the value of the computer at the time of separation. Plaintiffs brother also 20 loaned the parties a desktop computer. 21 10. Plaintiff bought Defendant a second wedding band as a gift to replace a lost 22 band, and Plaintiff is currently is possession of that wedding band. 23 11. Plaintiff and Defendant purchased a 1991 Toyota 4x4 truck during the 24 marriage. While Defendant was incarcerated, Plaintiff sold the truck for 25 $5,500.00. Both Plaintiffs and Defendant's names appeared on the ownership 26

27 I Plaintiff's testimony regarding the lease term and when the security deposit was returned to her

28 was not entirely clear. However, Plaintiff indicated that she used the deposit to pay bills from "last year, December." Trial recording 11 :28:50. Thus, clearly Plaintiff received the deposit refund after the parties separated on February 22, 2010.

Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law Case No. DM0453-10

document and thus Defendant's signature was required to validly transfer 2 the truck into another's name. Defendant did not personally sign over the 3 ownership documents. Plaintiff, while perhaps having Defendant's 4 permission to sell the truck, did not possess a power of attorney authorizing 5 her to sign papers on Defendant's behalf. Plaintiff forged Defendant's 6 signature on the ownership document in order to effect the sale of the vehicle. 7

8 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 9 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to title 7, section 3105 10 of the Guam Code. 11 2. Where a party asserts irreconcilable differences as the basis for a claim for 12 maintenance, the trial court must strive to effect an equal distribution of the 13 community property and debts. 19 G.C.A. § 8411. The burden of proving the 14 value of community property "lies with the party who seeks the division of 15 community property." Navarro v. Navarro, 2000 Guam (citing Baker v. 16 Baker, 98 Cal.App.2d 424, 425, 220 P.2d 576, 577 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950). 17 3. In this case, Defendant is the party seeking division of various items he 18 alleges are community property and Defendant therefore has the burden to 19 prove the existence and value of any community property. The 20 characterization of each item of alleged community property is as follows: 21 a. Security Deposit: The security deposit refund, consisting of $975.00, 22 was a community asset that was returned after the parties separated. 23 At the time of separation, Defendant was entitled to receive one-half of 24 the value of the refund. This Court therefore awards Defendant 25 $487.50 constituting his one-half share in the security deposit. 26 b. 1991 Toyota 4x4: The Toyota 4x4 was acquired during the marriage 27 and was community property. The sale of the vehicle for $5,500.00 also 28 occurred during the marriage. However, both parties' signatures were

Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law Case No. DM0453-10

required to sell the truck. See 19 G.C.A. § 6107(c)(1) ("If both spouses 2 are named in a document evidencing ownership of community personal 3 property then both spouses must join to dispose of or encumber such 4 property.). Regardless of whether Plaintiff obtained Defendant's oral 5 permission to sell the truck, Plaintiff could not dispose of that 6 community asset without Defendant's signature, which Defendant did 7 not provide. Defendant retained his one-half interest in the truck and 8 this Court will award Defendant $2,750.00 as his portion of the sale of 9 the vehicle. 10 c. Other Vehicles: The evidence relating to other vehicles was vague and 11 insufficient to allow this Court to make any distribution. Defendant's 12 only witness, an employee at Guam Department of Revenue and 13 Taxation, testified about Plaintiffs ownership of various vehicles. 14 Plaintiff testified that she was no longer in possession of any of the 15 described vehicles. There was no evidence establishing the timing of 16 acquisition and dispossession of the vehicles. Even if this Court could 17 find that the vehicles constitute community property subject to 18 division, Defendant failed to present any evidence of value for any of 19 the described vehicles. Therefore, Defendant has not met his burden 20 with respect to these items of personal property. 21 d. DVD player, microwave, and broken television set: These items were 22 purchased during the marriage and are therefore community property. 23 However, no evidence was offered to establish the current value of any 24 of the items. As Defendant has not met his burden of proving their 25 value, this court cannot attempt a division and therefore assigns them 26 no value. 27 e. Computers: There were three computers in the marital home: one 28 desktop computer belonged to Plaintiffs brother and is not a

Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law Case No. DM0453-1 0

community asset; one laptop was purchased for Plaintiff as a birthday 2 present and constitutes her separate property; another laptop, 3 purchased for $499.00 dollars during the marriage, constitutes 4 community property. Although there was evidence of the purchase 5 price of the community laptop, testimony indicated that the computer 6 does not function and is currently at a repair shop. Defendant had the 7 burden of showing the value of the computer in its state of disrepair. 8 Defendant offered no evidence of the computer's current value and 9 thus failed to meet his burden on this issue. Therefore, this Court 10 cannot attempt to divide this asset and assigns it no value. 11 f. Furniture: The testimony established that couches and various other 12 furnishings were purchased by Plaintiffs family, that these items were 13 merely loaned to Plaintiff and Defendant, and that the furniture was 14 returned to Plaintiffs family. This property was not "acquired" by the 15 parties during the marriage and does not constitute community 16 property subject to division.

17 4. The parties are entitled to their separate property. Plaintiff may retain 18 possession of the laptop that she received as a birthday gift. Defendant is 19 entitled to his wedding band. Aside from the wedding band, there was no 20 evidence that Plaintiff possessed other items constituting Defendant's 21 separate property. 22 ORDER 23 In accordance with the above findings and conclusions the court ORDERS the 24 following:

25 1. The request for dissolution is GRANTED.

26 2. Plaintiff will be restored to her maiden name: EMMA NGWAL REYES 27 3. Plaintiff shall pay Defendant the sum of $3,237.50 representing 28 Defendant's share of the community property.

Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law Case No. DM0453-10

4. Plaintiff shall return to Defendant the wedding band purchased for 2 Defendant. 3 5. Plaintiffs counsel shall prepare interlocutory and final decrees of divorce 4 consistent with these findings and conclusions and submit such decrees, 5 with defense counsel's approval as to form, no later than 30 days from 6 entry of this Order. 7

8 It is SO ORDERED this 5th day of July 9

10

II HONORABLE ALBERTO C\ LAMORENA, III 12 Presiding Judge, ~ourt of Guam 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25