1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2
3 "'---' <-'":-,; / (~',
) Child Support Case N@..;CS32J..:fi 4 DONALD J. HARPER, ) ) 5 Plaintiff, ) ) 6 vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER ) (Review ofReferee's Recommended 7 ROSE A. HARPER, ) Findings and Order) ) 8 Defendant. )
9 INTRODUCTION 10
11 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on December 5, 2012, for a
12 Further Proceedings Hearing to review the Referee's Recommended Findings and Order in the 13 above-entitled case. Attorney Jeffrey A. Cook represented Donald J. Harper ("Plaintiff'). 14 Assistant Attorney Generals Nicolas E. Toft and Christopher J. Vanzandt represented the Office 15 of the Attorney General's Child Support Enforcement Division. Following the hearing, the 16
17 Court took the matter under advisement. Upon review of the evidence, written arguments, and
18 legal authorities presented by both parties, the Court hereby issues this Decision and Order. 19 BACKGROUND 20 The Court incorporates by reference the Background of the Recommended Findings and 21
22 Order filed February 6, 2012 (hereinafter "February Findings"). Harper v. Harper, CS323-10,
23 at 1-2 (Feb. 6, 2012). On February 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Recommended 24 Findings and Order. Hence, a Request for Assignment to Superior Court Judge for Review was 25 filed on March 12, 2012, pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the rules for Expedited Process for the 26 Superior Court of Guam. This Court scheduled a Further Proceedings on November 6, 2012. 27
28 On November 13, 2012, the Child Support Enforcement Division filed a Response to Objection.
Page 1 CS323 10: Donald J. Harper v. Rose A. Harper Review of Referee's Recommended Findings & Order The "ourt a1 o heard the matter n Novemb r 20 2012. Plaintiff r qu ted additional time to 1
2 file a r ply. Con equ ntly, Plaintiff filed a Reply to Re ponse to Objection on November 30,
3 2012. nD mber 5, 2012 the ourt h duled a urth r Pr ceedings and allowed the parti 4 to orally argu PI intiff's objection one ming the Recommended Findings and Ord r. The 5 ourt took the matter under advisement and nO\! i sue this D i ion and Ord r. 6
8 This Court is given auth rity to review the Recommended Finding and rder of the
9 Child upport Court upon written objection by a party by virtu of Rule 7.1 of Rules for 10 E pedited Pr cess ti r th uperior C urt of Guam. Rule 7.1 pro ides: 11 (1) Any party obj cting to th recommended order shall file a written objection to the 12 recommendations in the form pr ribed by the Judjcial ouncil and erve copie ofth 13 obj tions on the refer s office and opposing ounsel. (2) Objections hall be filed ithin I 0 days f tb date th r ommendation was made in 14 open court or if taken under advis ment, 1 days after th date of the sub equent written recommendati n mad by the refer . 15 (3) Objections hall be to pecific recommendations and shall t forth reasons ti r the 16 objecti ns. (4) Th " feree hall then refer tb m tt r to a uperior urt Judge for r view of matters 17 sp cifically objec eel to y the parties or c rtifi d b th r ti ree. (5) If no o ~ ction r request for r ie i made ithin J0 days th party i considered ro 18 have consented to entry of an order in conformance with th r fer: s recommendati n. 19 (6 After hearing in the uperior urt, the Court rna award attorney s fe and costs if the appealing party do s not pr ail and th r mmendations of the refere have not n 20 ubstantially modified by th urt. 21 Rul for xpedited Pr for the uperior urt f uam Rule 7.1. 22 [ ]fter a re ommendation is mad in p n court or i taken under advi ment redu ed to 23
writing th parties have ten day to bj l to uch r omm ndation. Palomo v. Manglona 24
2s 20 12 Guam 18 20. When re iewing referee s findings · th trial court [is to mak a g od
26 faith effi rt to supervi e th refere and rr t any obvi us error . 27 Guam 2 41. 28
Page CB323-10: Donald J. Harper v. Rose A. Harper Review of Referee's Recommended Findings & Order Plaintiff argues that "[t]he order that has been presented to the Guam Court for 1
2 registration is not an order reducing arrears to judgment. It is the original order in the divorce
3 decree from 1987." PI's. Objection to Recommended Findings & Order at 3 (Feb. 16, 2012). 4 Plaintiff contends that "[ a]ll that is before the Court is a request to register a 1987 divorce 5 decree and an allegation of arrears that has not been reduced to judgment." !d. Plaintiff further 6
argues that "[his] final child support payment was due and made in June 1999. No judgment of 7
8 arrears has been presented to the Guam Court for registration." PI's. Reply to Response to
9 Objection at 2 (Nov. 30, 2012). 10 The Child Support Enforcement Division contends that "[t]he cases cited by Mr. Harper 11 are in regards to collection methods, not the viability of the arrears themselves. Williams v. 12
Williams, 252 P.3d 998 (Alaska 2011) is an ongoing child support case where the statute of 13
14 limitations is not at issue. AS §25.27.226, as cited, is merely one method for recovery of past
15 due payments. AS § 25.27.227 provides that AS § 25.27.226 and § 25.27.226 provide remedies 16 in addition to and not as a substitute for any other remedies available to the parties." Response 17 to Objection at 2 (Nov. 13, 2012). 18
19 In review of this matter, the Court agrees with the Referee's findings to the extent that
20 "there is no statute of limitations that bars the registration of the Alaska child support order 21 pursuant to Title 5 of the Guam Code Annotated Chapter 35." February Findings at 4-5 (Feb. 6, 22 2012). The February Findings in review of Alaska law stated that "[t]he Supreme Court of 23 Alaska has held that, AS 09.35.020 does not apply to the collection of child support arrears 24
25 unless the child support enforcement agency obtains a writ of execution." !d. Alaska Statute
26 09.35.020 reads as follows: 27 When a period of five years has elapsed after the entry of judgment without an 28 execution being issued on the judgment, no execution may issue except by order
Page 3 CS323 10: Donald J. Harper v. Rose A. Harper Review of Referee's Recommended Findings & Order of the court in which judgment is entered. The court shall grant the motion if the 1 court determines that there are just and sufficient reasons for the failure to obtain 2 the writ of execution within five years after the entry of judgment.
3 AS 09.35.020. 4 The February Findings goes on to further state that "[t]here is no evidence that the [Office of the 5 Attorney General's Child Support Enforcement Division] is seeking to obtain a writ of 6
execution from this Court." /d. at 4. Likewise, the February Findings determined that AS 7
8 09.19.040 does not prevent the enforcement of previously adjudicated arrears." /d. AS
9 09.10.040(a) reads: 10 A person may not bring an action upon a judgment or decree of a court of the 11 United States, or of a state or territory within the United States, and an action may not be brought upon a sealed instrument, unless the action is commenced within 12 10 years. 13 AS 09.10.040(a). 14 Plaintiff argues that "the State of Kansas forwarded the Alaska divorce order to Guam 15
16 seeking enforcement of that order claiming [Plaintiff] did not make payments under that order
17 between 1987 and 1999. The registration petition is for that 1987 Order.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2
3 "'---' <-'":-,; / (~',
) Child Support Case N@..;CS32J..:fi 4 DONALD J. HARPER, ) ) 5 Plaintiff, ) ) 6 vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER ) (Review ofReferee's Recommended 7 ROSE A. HARPER, ) Findings and Order) ) 8 Defendant. )
9 INTRODUCTION 10
11 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on December 5, 2012, for a
12 Further Proceedings Hearing to review the Referee's Recommended Findings and Order in the 13 above-entitled case. Attorney Jeffrey A. Cook represented Donald J. Harper ("Plaintiff'). 14 Assistant Attorney Generals Nicolas E. Toft and Christopher J. Vanzandt represented the Office 15 of the Attorney General's Child Support Enforcement Division. Following the hearing, the 16
17 Court took the matter under advisement. Upon review of the evidence, written arguments, and
18 legal authorities presented by both parties, the Court hereby issues this Decision and Order. 19 BACKGROUND 20 The Court incorporates by reference the Background of the Recommended Findings and 21
22 Order filed February 6, 2012 (hereinafter "February Findings"). Harper v. Harper, CS323-10,
23 at 1-2 (Feb. 6, 2012). On February 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Recommended 24 Findings and Order. Hence, a Request for Assignment to Superior Court Judge for Review was 25 filed on March 12, 2012, pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the rules for Expedited Process for the 26 Superior Court of Guam. This Court scheduled a Further Proceedings on November 6, 2012. 27
28 On November 13, 2012, the Child Support Enforcement Division filed a Response to Objection.
Page 1 CS323 10: Donald J. Harper v. Rose A. Harper Review of Referee's Recommended Findings & Order The "ourt a1 o heard the matter n Novemb r 20 2012. Plaintiff r qu ted additional time to 1
2 file a r ply. Con equ ntly, Plaintiff filed a Reply to Re ponse to Objection on November 30,
3 2012. nD mber 5, 2012 the ourt h duled a urth r Pr ceedings and allowed the parti 4 to orally argu PI intiff's objection one ming the Recommended Findings and Ord r. The 5 ourt took the matter under advisement and nO\! i sue this D i ion and Ord r. 6
8 This Court is given auth rity to review the Recommended Finding and rder of the
9 Child upport Court upon written objection by a party by virtu of Rule 7.1 of Rules for 10 E pedited Pr cess ti r th uperior C urt of Guam. Rule 7.1 pro ides: 11 (1) Any party obj cting to th recommended order shall file a written objection to the 12 recommendations in the form pr ribed by the Judjcial ouncil and erve copie ofth 13 obj tions on the refer s office and opposing ounsel. (2) Objections hall be filed ithin I 0 days f tb date th r ommendation was made in 14 open court or if taken under advis ment, 1 days after th date of the sub equent written recommendati n mad by the refer . 15 (3) Objections hall be to pecific recommendations and shall t forth reasons ti r the 16 objecti ns. (4) Th " feree hall then refer tb m tt r to a uperior urt Judge for r view of matters 17 sp cifically objec eel to y the parties or c rtifi d b th r ti ree. (5) If no o ~ ction r request for r ie i made ithin J0 days th party i considered ro 18 have consented to entry of an order in conformance with th r fer: s recommendati n. 19 (6 After hearing in the uperior urt, the Court rna award attorney s fe and costs if the appealing party do s not pr ail and th r mmendations of the refere have not n 20 ubstantially modified by th urt. 21 Rul for xpedited Pr for the uperior urt f uam Rule 7.1. 22 [ ]fter a re ommendation is mad in p n court or i taken under advi ment redu ed to 23
writing th parties have ten day to bj l to uch r omm ndation. Palomo v. Manglona 24
2s 20 12 Guam 18 20. When re iewing referee s findings · th trial court [is to mak a g od
26 faith effi rt to supervi e th refere and rr t any obvi us error . 27 Guam 2 41. 28
Page CB323-10: Donald J. Harper v. Rose A. Harper Review of Referee's Recommended Findings & Order Plaintiff argues that "[t]he order that has been presented to the Guam Court for 1
2 registration is not an order reducing arrears to judgment. It is the original order in the divorce
3 decree from 1987." PI's. Objection to Recommended Findings & Order at 3 (Feb. 16, 2012). 4 Plaintiff contends that "[ a]ll that is before the Court is a request to register a 1987 divorce 5 decree and an allegation of arrears that has not been reduced to judgment." !d. Plaintiff further 6
argues that "[his] final child support payment was due and made in June 1999. No judgment of 7
8 arrears has been presented to the Guam Court for registration." PI's. Reply to Response to
9 Objection at 2 (Nov. 30, 2012). 10 The Child Support Enforcement Division contends that "[t]he cases cited by Mr. Harper 11 are in regards to collection methods, not the viability of the arrears themselves. Williams v. 12
Williams, 252 P.3d 998 (Alaska 2011) is an ongoing child support case where the statute of 13
14 limitations is not at issue. AS §25.27.226, as cited, is merely one method for recovery of past
15 due payments. AS § 25.27.227 provides that AS § 25.27.226 and § 25.27.226 provide remedies 16 in addition to and not as a substitute for any other remedies available to the parties." Response 17 to Objection at 2 (Nov. 13, 2012). 18
19 In review of this matter, the Court agrees with the Referee's findings to the extent that
20 "there is no statute of limitations that bars the registration of the Alaska child support order 21 pursuant to Title 5 of the Guam Code Annotated Chapter 35." February Findings at 4-5 (Feb. 6, 22 2012). The February Findings in review of Alaska law stated that "[t]he Supreme Court of 23 Alaska has held that, AS 09.35.020 does not apply to the collection of child support arrears 24
25 unless the child support enforcement agency obtains a writ of execution." !d. Alaska Statute
26 09.35.020 reads as follows: 27 When a period of five years has elapsed after the entry of judgment without an 28 execution being issued on the judgment, no execution may issue except by order
Page 3 CS323 10: Donald J. Harper v. Rose A. Harper Review of Referee's Recommended Findings & Order of the court in which judgment is entered. The court shall grant the motion if the 1 court determines that there are just and sufficient reasons for the failure to obtain 2 the writ of execution within five years after the entry of judgment.
3 AS 09.35.020. 4 The February Findings goes on to further state that "[t]here is no evidence that the [Office of the 5 Attorney General's Child Support Enforcement Division] is seeking to obtain a writ of 6
execution from this Court." /d. at 4. Likewise, the February Findings determined that AS 7
8 09.19.040 does not prevent the enforcement of previously adjudicated arrears." /d. AS
9 09.10.040(a) reads: 10 A person may not bring an action upon a judgment or decree of a court of the 11 United States, or of a state or territory within the United States, and an action may not be brought upon a sealed instrument, unless the action is commenced within 12 10 years. 13 AS 09.10.040(a). 14 Plaintiff argues that "the State of Kansas forwarded the Alaska divorce order to Guam 15
16 seeking enforcement of that order claiming [Plaintiff] did not make payments under that order
17 between 1987 and 1999. The registration petition is for that 1987 Order. There is no attempt to 18 register a judgment of arrears because there has been absolutely no action taken by Alaska or 19 Kansas prior to Kansas forwarding this matter to the Guam Court in 201 0 to enforce either by a 20 collection process through the Courts or administrative action any alleged arrears owed by Mr. 21
22 Harper." Pl.'s Reply to Response to Objection at 2 (Nov. 30, 2012).
23 The Court agrees with Plaintiffs analysis with respect to Koss v. Koss, 981 P.2d 106 24 (Alaska 1999), when the Alaska Court was talking about two judgments, it was not talking 25 about just unpaid support obligations, but judgments of arrears that had been entered. "John and 26 Madonna Koss married in 1953 and divorced in 1973. In 1975 the superior court in Fairbanks 27
28 ordered John to pay child support in the amount of $400 per month. In 1982 the court entered
Page 4 CS323-10: Donald J. Harper v. Rose A. Harper Review of Referee's Recommended Findings & Order judgment against Koss for $25,425 in unpaid support. In 1985, after Koss's youngest child had 1
2 reached the age of majority, the court entered another judgment against Koss for $10,492 in
3 arrearage accruing since 1982." Koss, 981 P.2d 106. 4 The Court also agrees with Plaintiff that "even if the ten (1 0) years statute of limitations 5 in Alaska does not apply to child support enforcement orders as the Alaska Courts have ruled, 6
the Alaska Courts have clearly ruled that the five (5) year requirement that some action be taken 7
8 to act on the judgment in court actions must be demonstrated. Since neither Alaska or Kansas
9 have provided the Government of Guam any evidence that there was any attempt to collect this 10 judgment through court processes or administrative processes, this Court finds that the record is 11 devoid of such a judgment of arrears and that there cannot be enforcement of such since the 12
13 issue of arrears was never adjudicated.
14 For these reasons, the Court finds that there is no judgment of arrears for the Guam 15 courts to enforce. 16 CONCLUSION 17 This Court finds in favor of the Plaintiff and REVERSES the Referee's Recommended 18
19 Findings and Order ofF ebruary 6, 2012.
20 SO ORDERED this__;;_ day of MARCH, 2013. 21
23 tNt HONORABLE ANITA A. SUKOLA 24 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 25
Page 5 CS323 10: Donald J. Harper v. Rose A. Harper Review of Referee's Recommended Findings & Order