; i_
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM ) ) DOMESTIC CASE NO. DM0468-07 VICTOR M. REYES, ) r- c 1 ) Plaintiff, ) 4 ) vs. ) 5 ) ) DECISION AND ORDER 6 DIANA M. REYES, ) ) 7 Defendant. ) ) 8 ) ) 9 ___________________________) 10 This matter came before the HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ on March 15, 2013.
11 Attorney Joaquin C. Arriola Jr. represented Plaintiff, who was present. Attorney Delia Lujan
12 Wolf represented Defendant, who was present. After having heard the Parties' arguments,
13 considering the Parties' pleadings and the record, the Court now issues the following Decision
14 and Order. 15 BACKGROUND
16 Plaintiff requests that this Court either amend its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
17 Law filed June 28, 2012 or grant a new trial. In the procedural history of this case, this Court
18 has heard a bench trial and issued an interlocutory decree of divorce while resolving the marital
19 assets and liabilities. The Court now addresses Plaintiffs Motion.
20 DISCUSSION
21 As Plaintiff requests amendment and in the alternative a new trial, the Court will provide
22 the standard for granting such requests before discussing the merits.
23 I. Standard
24 Rule 60 of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure provides: 25 (a) Clerical Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other 26 parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the 27 motion of any party, and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. 28 During the pendency of an appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected
Victor M. Reyes v. Diana M. Reyes, Decision and Order Domestic Case No. DM0468-07 -Page I of5- before the appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate 2 court. (b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered 3 Evidence; Fraud, Etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final 4 judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: 5 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not 6 have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); 7 (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), 8 misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; 9 (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or 10 otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment 11 should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the 12 judgment. (2010). 13 Rule 59 ofthe GRCP provides: 14 (a) Grounds. A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and 15 on all or part of the issues (1) in an action in which there has been a trial by jury, for any of 16 the reasons for which new trials have heretofore been granted in 17 actions at law in the courts of Guam; and (2) in an action tried without a jury, for any of the reasons for 18 which rehearings have heretofore been granted in suits in equity 19 in the courts of Guam.
20 On a motion for a new trial in an action tried without a jury, the court may open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional 21 testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new 22 findings and conclusions, and direct the entry of a new judgment. (20 10).
23 As a motion to amend is essentially a request for reconsideration, the following is also 24 helpful. There are several grounds upon which a motion for reconsideration may be granted. 25 These include situations where the trial court: 1) is presented with new evidence; 2) committed 26 clear error or the decision was manifestly unjust; or 3) if there is an intervening change in 27
Victor lvf. Reyes v. Diana M. Reyes, Decision and Order Domestic Case No. DM0468-07 -Page 2 of5- controlling law." Wardv. Reyes, 1998 Guam 1, ~ 10 (April2, 1998) (citations omitted); See also 2 People v. Haulde, 1999 Guam 3. 3 II. Merits for Plaintiff's Motion 4 Plaintiffs main arguments are that distribution of the community property was unequal 5 in the June 28, 2012 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the Court was without 6 authority to distribute the shares of Heli-Guarn Inc.. Plaintiff does not appear to contest the 7 Courts findings regarding the date of separation and the grounds for divorce. 8 Defendant argues that no authority will grant the Plaintiff amendment as there was no 9 mistake of law or fact. Defendant also contends that there is no new evidence that would 10 warrant a new trial or amendment as nothing has changed in the law or the facts. 11 As the discussion applies to Heli-Guam Inc. shares, the Court finds no error as the Court 12 did have the authority to distribute the Corporation shares. The Court must distribute all 13 community property and debt before closing a domestic divorce case. In Plaintiffs own 14 Complaint for Divorce on the second page, he specifies that Heli-Guam Inc. shares are 15 community property. In essence, it was Plaintiff that requested this Court to distribute the 16 "shares and interest in Heli-Guam Inc." by classifying it as a community property. The Court 17 does agree with Plaintiff about the dissolution of a corporation being reserved for certain Courts 18 designed for such issues. Yet, this Court has near ultimate discretion in awarding distribution of 19 marital assets as long as that distribution is equal. Plaintiff provides no authority that expresses 20 a limitation of a court in divorce proceedings to distribute community property shares of a 21 corporation. Most importantly, the Court did not dissolve Heli-Guam Inc. in its earlier findings, 22 it merely distributed what was community property. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that 23 dissolution of Heli-Guam Inc. may occur before a proper court in the future, but that does not 24 mean this Court was limited in assigning the appropriate community property portion of the 25 shares on June 28, 2012. 26 Furthermore, if any error did exist, the Court finds any error harmless as Heli-Guam Inc. 27 had no or minimal value at the time the Court issued its earlier findings. See Testimony of 28 Plaintiff at bench Trial. While the assets that once belonged to Heli-Guam Inc. had value, they
Victor lvf. Reyes v. Diana M Reyes, Decision and Order Domestic Case No. DM0468-07 -Page 3 of5- were converted to Plaintiff's current business venture prior to the Court's earlier findings. 2 Additionally, the Court already awarded Defendant a reimbursement for her share of the 3 Plaintiff's current business and there is no significant value remaining in Heli-Guam Inc.
4 currently. 5 As the discussion applies to the equality of distribution, the Court extensively reviewed 6 and gave great consideration to the record due to the sheer volume of assets and liabilities in this 7 case. The Court will admit that it had difficulty valuing the complex and voluminous marital 8 property. Yet, a trial court must be granted leeway in distribution of marital assets where the 9 record and exhibits do little to provide accurate and exact valuations. A trial court maintains I0 great discretion as long as the total distribution is generally equal. In this case, the Parties II provided near opposite valuations of almost all property. For example, Plaintiff argues that his 12 current income is hardly enough to survive on while Defendant claimed that Plaintiff earned 13 hundreds of thousands annually based on multimillion dollar contracts.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
; i_
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM ) ) DOMESTIC CASE NO. DM0468-07 VICTOR M. REYES, ) r- c 1 ) Plaintiff, ) 4 ) vs. ) 5 ) ) DECISION AND ORDER 6 DIANA M. REYES, ) ) 7 Defendant. ) ) 8 ) ) 9 ___________________________) 10 This matter came before the HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ on March 15, 2013.
11 Attorney Joaquin C. Arriola Jr. represented Plaintiff, who was present. Attorney Delia Lujan
12 Wolf represented Defendant, who was present. After having heard the Parties' arguments,
13 considering the Parties' pleadings and the record, the Court now issues the following Decision
14 and Order. 15 BACKGROUND
16 Plaintiff requests that this Court either amend its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
17 Law filed June 28, 2012 or grant a new trial. In the procedural history of this case, this Court
18 has heard a bench trial and issued an interlocutory decree of divorce while resolving the marital
19 assets and liabilities. The Court now addresses Plaintiffs Motion.
20 DISCUSSION
21 As Plaintiff requests amendment and in the alternative a new trial, the Court will provide
22 the standard for granting such requests before discussing the merits.
23 I. Standard
24 Rule 60 of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure provides: 25 (a) Clerical Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other 26 parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the 27 motion of any party, and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. 28 During the pendency of an appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected
Victor M. Reyes v. Diana M. Reyes, Decision and Order Domestic Case No. DM0468-07 -Page I of5- before the appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate 2 court. (b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered 3 Evidence; Fraud, Etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final 4 judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: 5 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not 6 have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); 7 (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), 8 misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; 9 (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or 10 otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment 11 should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the 12 judgment. (2010). 13 Rule 59 ofthe GRCP provides: 14 (a) Grounds. A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and 15 on all or part of the issues (1) in an action in which there has been a trial by jury, for any of 16 the reasons for which new trials have heretofore been granted in 17 actions at law in the courts of Guam; and (2) in an action tried without a jury, for any of the reasons for 18 which rehearings have heretofore been granted in suits in equity 19 in the courts of Guam.
20 On a motion for a new trial in an action tried without a jury, the court may open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional 21 testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new 22 findings and conclusions, and direct the entry of a new judgment. (20 10).
23 As a motion to amend is essentially a request for reconsideration, the following is also 24 helpful. There are several grounds upon which a motion for reconsideration may be granted. 25 These include situations where the trial court: 1) is presented with new evidence; 2) committed 26 clear error or the decision was manifestly unjust; or 3) if there is an intervening change in 27
Victor lvf. Reyes v. Diana M. Reyes, Decision and Order Domestic Case No. DM0468-07 -Page 2 of5- controlling law." Wardv. Reyes, 1998 Guam 1, ~ 10 (April2, 1998) (citations omitted); See also 2 People v. Haulde, 1999 Guam 3. 3 II. Merits for Plaintiff's Motion 4 Plaintiffs main arguments are that distribution of the community property was unequal 5 in the June 28, 2012 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the Court was without 6 authority to distribute the shares of Heli-Guarn Inc.. Plaintiff does not appear to contest the 7 Courts findings regarding the date of separation and the grounds for divorce. 8 Defendant argues that no authority will grant the Plaintiff amendment as there was no 9 mistake of law or fact. Defendant also contends that there is no new evidence that would 10 warrant a new trial or amendment as nothing has changed in the law or the facts. 11 As the discussion applies to Heli-Guam Inc. shares, the Court finds no error as the Court 12 did have the authority to distribute the Corporation shares. The Court must distribute all 13 community property and debt before closing a domestic divorce case. In Plaintiffs own 14 Complaint for Divorce on the second page, he specifies that Heli-Guam Inc. shares are 15 community property. In essence, it was Plaintiff that requested this Court to distribute the 16 "shares and interest in Heli-Guam Inc." by classifying it as a community property. The Court 17 does agree with Plaintiff about the dissolution of a corporation being reserved for certain Courts 18 designed for such issues. Yet, this Court has near ultimate discretion in awarding distribution of 19 marital assets as long as that distribution is equal. Plaintiff provides no authority that expresses 20 a limitation of a court in divorce proceedings to distribute community property shares of a 21 corporation. Most importantly, the Court did not dissolve Heli-Guam Inc. in its earlier findings, 22 it merely distributed what was community property. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that 23 dissolution of Heli-Guam Inc. may occur before a proper court in the future, but that does not 24 mean this Court was limited in assigning the appropriate community property portion of the 25 shares on June 28, 2012. 26 Furthermore, if any error did exist, the Court finds any error harmless as Heli-Guam Inc. 27 had no or minimal value at the time the Court issued its earlier findings. See Testimony of 28 Plaintiff at bench Trial. While the assets that once belonged to Heli-Guam Inc. had value, they
Victor lvf. Reyes v. Diana M Reyes, Decision and Order Domestic Case No. DM0468-07 -Page 3 of5- were converted to Plaintiff's current business venture prior to the Court's earlier findings. 2 Additionally, the Court already awarded Defendant a reimbursement for her share of the 3 Plaintiff's current business and there is no significant value remaining in Heli-Guam Inc.
4 currently. 5 As the discussion applies to the equality of distribution, the Court extensively reviewed 6 and gave great consideration to the record due to the sheer volume of assets and liabilities in this 7 case. The Court will admit that it had difficulty valuing the complex and voluminous marital 8 property. Yet, a trial court must be granted leeway in distribution of marital assets where the 9 record and exhibits do little to provide accurate and exact valuations. A trial court maintains I0 great discretion as long as the total distribution is generally equal. In this case, the Parties II provided near opposite valuations of almost all property. For example, Plaintiff argues that his 12 current income is hardly enough to survive on while Defendant claimed that Plaintiff earned 13 hundreds of thousands annually based on multimillion dollar contracts. This Court correctly I4 accepted the values provided, as exhibits at trial by Defendant, based on the existence of the 15 actual contracts Plaintiff maintains and a lack of satisfactory evidence to contradict such a large 16 income. 1 In sum, the Court's earlier findings were fair and the distribution was equal based on I7 the totality of marital property distributed amongst the Parties. 18 Based on the standard discussed above, the Court is unable to grant a new trial or 19 amendment of its earlier findings without some showing of grounds to do so under Rule 60. 20 There is no fraud alleged that either Party fully misrepresented to the Court the details of the 21 marital property. The Court did not make clerical errors or any mistake that could warrant
22 amendment. The prior judgment was also not void or satisfied. Additionally, there was no new
23 evidence unavailable at the time of bench trial and no change in law that would allow the Court
24 to reconsider its prior ruling. The only ground the Court believes potentially actionable based
25 on Plaintiff's Motion is manifest injustice or some other justice based reason under Rule
26 60(b)(6).
27 1 At bench trial, Plaintiff did not present the Court adequate evidence that his extraordinary income equated to a barely livable
wage after expenses. The Court does appreciate that Plaintiff has costs and loans that must be paid before his salary realizes true 28 profit, yet, the roughly $2,000.00 a month claimed by Plaintiff hardly seems realistic.
Victor M. Reyes v. Diana M. Reyes, Decision and Order Domestic Case No. DM0468-07 -Page 4 of5 The Court concludes that its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were manifestly 2 just and the Court believes that the total distribution was equal. There is no reason based on 3 notions of fairness, justice or some other rationale that would allow or suggest to this Court that 4 it should amend its June 28, 2012 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. If Plaintiff is 5 unable to make monthly payments on spousal support or towards the reimbursement owed to 6 Defendant, the Court believes a motion to lessen spousal support based on Plaintiffs current 7 income or hardship would be a more appropriate avenue. 8 The Court reviewed its June 28,2012 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in detail 9 and finds that the total distribution was equal based on its valuation of all assets and liabilities. 10 CONCLUSION 11 The Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs Motion. ~ 12 So ORDERED thisl:(_ day ofMarch, 2013.
15 HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ 16 JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 17
20 I I 21 22 23 I I 24
Victor M. Reyes v. Diana 1'vf. Reyes, Decision and Order Domestic Case No. DM0468-07 -Page 5 of5