Lujan v. Shimizu

Opinion

• FlLEi`)

supt ca COURT

:"~s we

.=»~»M

'IN FEB 28 FH oz SO

l

2 CLERK QF QOURT 3 B'Yt_... 4

5 ii

6

7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

8 LETITIA s. LUJAN, DOMESTIC CASE no. DM 0308-14 9 plaintiff,

10 vs.

DECISION AND ORDER

ll STEVEN E. SHIMIZU, 12

Defendant.

13

14 INTRODUCTION

15 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on January 10, 2019, upon 16 Plaintiff Letitia S. Lujan's Motion for Clarify Court's Appellate Jurisdiction Under 19 GCA 17 Chapter 5A, Section 5501 et. Seq. and Rules for Expedited Process for the Superior Court of 18 Guam, filed November 19, 2018 ("Motion for Clarification"). Attorney James M. Maher 19 represented Plaintiff Letitia S. Lujan ("Plaintiff'), and Attorney Joaquin C. Arriola, Jr.

20 represented Defendant Steven E. Shimizu ("Defendant"). Having reviewed the pleadings and 21 having heard oral arguments in this matter, the Court issues the following Decision and Order.

22 BACKGROUND

23 On May 22, 2014, pursuant to the parties' Integrated Marital and Property Settlement 24 Agreement encompassed by an Interlocutory Decree of Divorce and Final Decree of Divorce, 25 the Court granted both parties joint physical and legal custody of their four minor children. The 26 agreement also provided that "[n]o child support will be requested at this time." See Integrated 27 Marital Settlement Agreement,p. 3 (May 22, 2014). Thereafter, onJune 1, 2016, the Defendant

s

I

Decision and Order Do r e t i c Case No. CF0027-19; Lujan v. Shimizu

1 filed ~a Motion to Modify Child Support, asserting a "substantial or material change of 2 circumstances" as a result of the parties' eldest child having reached the age of majority and 3 because the Plaintiff's income had allegedly increased substantially. Subsequently, the matter 4 was assigned to the Child Support Referee for dispositions. 5 On March 21, 2018, Magistrate Sison issued his recommended Decision and Order on 6 Defendant's Motion to Modify Child Support, finding neither material nor substantial changes 7 in circumstances to support a modification. See Decision and Order (Mar. 21, 2018). On March 8 29, 2018, the Defendant timely filed an Objection to the Magistrate's order. Thereafter, on July 9 18, 2018, this Court heard oral arguments on the Defendant's objection and vacated the 10 Magistrate's Decision and Order denying Defendant's Motion to Modify Child Support. 11 On November 19, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking clarification of the 12 Court's jurisdiction to hear further matters after having vacating the magistrate's recommended 13 order. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that once a trial court, sitting as an appellate court pursuant 14 to Guam Code Annotated Title 19 Chapter 5 and the Local Rules for Expedited Process, has 15 rendered a Decision and Order on a recommendation, the trial court must remand the matter 16 back to the referee to issue an amended recommendation not inconsistent with its opinion. Mot. 17 at 3. The Defendant, on the other hand, maintains that this Court retains exclusive and 18 continuing jurisdiction over the matters at issue, and has concurrent jurisdiction to hear all 19 matters that may be heard by the referee. On January 10, 2019, a hearing was held on the 20 Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification of the Court's Appellate Jurisdiction. At the conclusion of 21 the hearing, the Court took the matter under advisement.

22 DISCUSSION 23 Title 19, Guam Code Annotated, Chapter 5A, created the Judicial Hearings Division

24 an expedited judicial process which "principal purpose . . is to provide a speedy and efficient 25 legal process in child support cases." 19 GCA §§ 5501, 5502(a); see Lamb v. Hoffman, 2005 26

27 1 The matter was initially assigned to Child Support Referee Linda Ingles. However, on June 7, 2017, Judge Ingles reused herself and the matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Benjamin C. Sison, Jr. ("Magistrate Sison").

28

Page 2 of 4

Decision and Order Domestic Case N o . CF0027-19; Lujan v. Shimizu

1 Guam 2 % 41 (finding that the Legislature created the position of family court referee for the 2 purpose of expediting the process of determining child support). Pursuant to this statute, 3 referees and Hearings Officers perform specific duties in relation to family law matters under 4 the authority of the Superior Court. See 19 GCA § 5503 (emphasis added). The law, however, 5 is silent regarding whether or not the expedited judicial process is the exclusive process in child 6 support matters, or whether the Court "must" or "should" remand the matter to the referee. 7 Nonetheless, in interpreting 19 GCA § 5503, the Supreme Court of Guam held that the trial 8 court must md<e a "good faith effort to supervise the referee and correct any obvious errors." 9 Lamb, 2005 Guam 2 141. Here, the Court, in its Decision and Order vacating the magistrate's 10 recommendation, discovered both factual and analytical deficiencies in the magistrate's findings 11 and declined to accept the recommended order. The Court, sitting in its supervisory capacity, 12 sought to correct those manifest errors under its own authority and jurisdiction mandated by 19 13 GCA §5503, 7 GCA § 4101, and 19 GCA §§ 8403-05. 14 Additionally, the Rules for Expedited Process govern the procedure before the Judicial 15 Hearing Division of the Superior Court. Preamble to Super. ct. Rules for Expedited Process 16 (1994). Not surprisingly, Rule 4.2 mirrors 19 GCA § 5503. See Rule 4.2 of Super. Ct. Rules for 17 Expedited Process ("[u]nder the authority of the Superior Court, a referee shall have the

18 following duties in relation to family law matters . ."). However, under the Rules, "[t]he 19 Superior Court shall have coneunentjunSdiction to hear all matters that may be heard by the

20 referee." Rule 4.2(g) of Super. ct. Rules for Expedited Process (emphasis added). Thus, the 21 referee does not have exclusive jurisdiction over child support matters. See Government of 22 Guam v. Gutierrez, 2015 Guam 8 ("exclusive jurisdiction can be contrasted with concurrent 23 jurisdiction where the [Md] court maintains original jurisdiction in certain matters at the same 24 time that .. [another] court has been granted the same original jurisdiction (citations omitted)). 25 In other words, both the referee and the Superior Court have the ability to exercise judicial 26 review at the same time over the same subject matter. Thus, the Court was well within its 27 authority to vacate the magistrate's recommendation and later resolve the child support matters 28~ in the Superior Court without remanding the matter back to the referee.

Page 3 of 4

Decision and Order Domestic Case No. CF0027-19,Lujan v. Shimizu

1 Nonetheless, as stated above, the Court is to correct obvious errors made by the referee. 2 Lamb, 2008 Guam 2 <][41. The Court, in its Decision and Order found that the magistrate erred 3 when he concluded that the children "aging out" and the Plaintiff's alleged increase in income 4 did not constitute a substantial and material change in circumstances. Decision and Order (July 5 18, 2018). Therefore, the Court reversed and vacated the magistrate's recommendation, and 6 found that the children "aging out" and the alleged increase in Plaintiffs income was a 7 substantial and material change in circumstances. Further, having determined the matter 8 appropriate for mediation, the Court ordered the parties to Ina fa Maolek for mediation. The 9 Court's Decision and Order thus, denied and modified the magistrate's recommendation. LL 10 ("[w]hen the Superior Court approves or modifies the finding of a referee, and converts the ll entire matter into a judgment, the opinions of the judge and referee merge into a single 12 judgment which is then reviewable in its entirety by [the Supreme Court of Guam]."). 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the reasons set forth above, the Court holds, pursuant to 19 GCA §§ 5503, 8403-05 15 and Rule 4.2(g) of the Rules for Expedited Process, that the Superior Court of Guam has 16 concurrent jurisdiction to hear all matters that may be heard by the referee and thus, retains 17 jurisdiction over the instant child support matters and motions for modification. Further, the 18 Court reversed and vacated the magistrate's recommendation in its Decision and Order issued 19 July 18, 2018, finding a substantial and material change in circumstances to modify child 20 support in this matter. A status hearing on the parties' mediation progress is scheduled for 21 March 5. 2019 at 11:00 am. 22

FEB2a2an

23 IT IS so ORDERED 24

25 5ER//I tr BOX I acknowl id. . a copy of the 26 origin' her .vas placed in the

27 court poxOni

Q. r"¢"'V\M g A O \

_

';Se=._ __

28 U " -. ;.. "e-

HONORABLE ARTHUR R. BARCINAS Judge, Superior Court of Guam

5

L¢

et i am

Pa ge 4 of 4

l