Horinouchi v. Horinouchi

Opinion

•

1 7 2 V

2

T

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

MADELINE T. HORINOUCHI, DOMESTIC CASE NO. DM0673-11 Plaintiff,

DECISION AND ORDER

10 vs. II KEITH M. HORINOUC HI, 12 Defendant.

13

14 INTROD UCTION

15 This matter came before the Honorable James L. Canto II on Plaintiff M adeline T.

16 Horinouchi ' s motion to enforce decrees of divorce , filed June 9, 2014. Oral arguments were 17 heard on June 2, 2014. At t o rney Georgette B. Concepcion appeared on behalf of Plaintiff, and Is Attorney Daniel S. Somerfleck represented Defendant. Having considered the parties ' brie fs, 19 oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order.

20

21 BAC KG ROU ND

22 On June 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce decrees of divorce. Plaintiff seeks 23 enforcement of the parties' agreement to cooperate with each other to execute a n y a n d a l l 24 documents which may be necessary or convenient to complete the division of assets and debts 25 as set forth in the Interlocutory Decree of Divorce on October 23, 2013. (Mot. Enforce Decrees, 26 2-5, J un. 9, 2014). Specifically, Plaintiff requests documents from Def endant, including a 27 quitclaim deed as to the Kauai property, which are necessary to refinance the loan on the Kauai 28 pro pert y i n Hawai i . Id. a t 5. Plaintiff also seeks enforcement of Defendant's agreement to pay

28

t her $2,000.00 within 180 days of the date the Interlocutory Decree of Divorce was issued. Id . 2 O n J u n e 2 3 , 2014, Defendan t filed an opposition. Defendant argu es t hat P l a i nt i ff' s

3 failure to provide an appraisal of the Kauai property is preventing the transfer of that property.

4 (Opp'n Mot., 2, Jun. 23, 2014).

5 On August 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed a reply. Plaintiff argues that nowhere in the terms of

6 the Interlocutory Decree of Divorce does it require Plaintiff to first obtain an appraisal outside

7 of the refinancing process. (Repl y, 2 , Au g. 2 0 , 2 0 1 4 ). Furthermore, P l ai nt i ff a rgu es t hat

8 nowhere does the Interlocutory Decree of Divorce state that the exchange of quitclaim deeds 9 between the parties is contingent upon the production of an appraisal by Plaintiff. Id . Plaintiff

10 adds that an appraisal outside and prior to the refinancing of the mortgage on the Kauai property

II will result in an undue burden upon her. Id . at 2.

12

13 DISCUSSION

14 At issue in this present motion is the interpretation of several provisions o f th e

15 Interlocutory Decree of Divorc e issued by this Court o n October 23, 2013. The rele vant

16 provision of the Interlocutory Decree of Divorce provides that Plaintiff, as her s ha re of the 17 division of community property between Plaintiff and Defendant, shall receive "Kau ai P ro pert y

Is l o cat ed at 6 0 5 7 Lo ko mai kai P l ace, Kapaa, Hawaii 96746 (Plaintiff shall refinance the debt on

19 this pro pert y within 180 days solely in her name ) and su bj ect to paragraph 3 ." (Interlocutory

20 Decree of Divorce, 1, Oct. 23, 2013). Paragraph 3 provides:

21 3. That the Plaintiff shall have the Kauai Property appraised by the lending 22 institution' s appraiser. Should the value of the property exceed $535,000.00, the parties agree that the Plaintiff shall pay Defendant one-half (1/2) of any value 23 over $535,000.00. Similarly, if the property appraises under $535,000.00, the Defendant shall pay one-half (1/2) of the value below $535,000.00 to Plaintiff.

24 Id. at 2.

25 Readi ng t hese pro vi si o ns t o get her, the Court finds that the P laintiff's receipt of the 26 Kauai Property, and her obligation to refinance the debt on the property solely in her name, is 27 not necessarily contingent upon the appraisal of the property. However, considering the fact that the Plaintiff and the Kauai Property are both situated outside t hi s j u ri sdi ct i o n and

2 anticipating the difficulty in enforcing payments related to the appraisal after the deeds are 3 exchanged by the parties, the Court finds that it is in the best interest of the parties to have the

4 appraisal produced to Defendant before the exchange of deeds.

5 Plaintiff states that it would be an undue financial burden for her to p a y f o r t w o 6 appra isals of the same property - one demanded by Defendant and another as part of the

7 refinancing process. (Decl . Madel i ne Torres, 1-2, Au g. 20 , 2014). Ho wever, she fai l s t o

8 explain why she needs to obtain two appraisals when she could procure just one to use for both

9 purposes of the refinancing and the payment to Defendant. Presumably, there was some sort of

10 appraisal of the Kauai Property as Plaintiff was approved for a loan on the Kauai Property from

II a financial institution. (Mot. Enforce Decrees, 3, Jun. 9, 2014). F u rt hermo re, i n t he event she

12 does need to acquire two appraisals, she fails to sufficiently demonstrate the cost of an appraisal 13 and precisely how a second appraisal would be an undue financial burden to her.

14 As such, the Court orders Plaintiff to provide Defendant with an appraisal of the Kauai

Is Property. Upon receipt of this appraisal, Defendant shall execute a quitclaim deed in Plaintiff's

16 favor with respect to the Kauai Property and provide Plaintiff with the necessary documents to

17 co mpl et e the transfer and refinancing of the Kauai Property. Additionally, P l ai nt i ff shal l

18 execute a quitclaim deed in Defendant's favor with respect to the Loma Linda Property and 19 provide Defendant with the necessary documents to complete the transfer and refinancing of the

20 Lo ma Li nda P ro pert y.

21 Furthermore, Defendant shall make a $2,000.00 payment to Plaintiff pursuant to the 22 Interlocutory Decree of Divorce. At the motion hearing, Defendant's counsel explained that 23 Defendant has not paid the $2,000.00 because Defendant has not received the personal property

24 owed to him pursuant to the Interlocutory Decree of Divorce. (Motion Hr'g, Re c ord Log a t

25 9:24:36, Aug. 27, 2014). However, this does not relieve Defendant of his obligation to comply 26 with this Court's order. If Plaintiff fails to comply with any Court order, Defendant may bring

27 the matter before the Court for appropriate relief, if deemed necessary.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiffs motion to enforce decrees of divorce is hereby GRANTED in part. P l ai nt i ff shal l present Defendant wi t h an apprai sal o f t he Kau ai P ro pert y within 15 days of the date of issuance of this Court's order. Upon receipt of the appraisal, (1)

Defendant shall execute a quitclaim deed in Plaintiffs favor with respect to the Kauai Property

6 and pro vi de P l ai nt i ff wi t h t he necessary do cu me nt s t o co mpl et e t he t ransfer and refi nanci ng o f

7 the Kauai Property; and, (2) Plaintiff shall execute a quitclaim deed in Defendant's favor with 8 respect to the Loma Linda Property and provide Defendant with the necessary documents to 9 complete the transfer and refinancing of the Loma Linda Property. F u rt hermo re, Defendant 10 shall immediately transmit a $2,000.00 payment to Plaintiff pursuant to the Interlocutory Decree

II of Divorce. Finally, Plaintiff shall immediately return to Defendant all of the personal property

12 items listed under paragraph 5 of the Interlocutory Decree of Divorce.

13

14

15 SO ORDERED this /"/'r day of September, 2014. 16

17

18

19

HO N. JAMES L. CANTO H

20 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 21

22 23

24

25

26 SERVICE VIA COURT BOX

27 I acaoaMedW thata copy of the odtiul hereto vinplaced to Lho of ^, ,•

28 JW L

Dab

ChT*.&;MwCmMM04r