I
FILED supEmoR SBUIIT CF soAH 1 ZUIBHAY 23 PH :3= 30 2 CLERK 0. court 3
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
7 INEZ LUJAN PEREZ SANTOS, ) Case No. DM0266-17 8 ) ) 9 ) Plaintiff, ) DECISION AND ORDER 10 ) vs. ) 11 ) ) 12 KEITH BRANDON CRUZ SANTOS, ) ) 13 ) Defendant. ) 14 ) ) 15 )
16 INTRODUCTION 17 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on March 12, 2018 for 18 a motion hearing concerning Plaintiff Inez Lujan Perez Santos's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Default 19 Judgment. Attorney Joaquin C. Arriola, Jr. represents Plaintiff. Defendant Keith Brandon Cruz 20
21 Santos ("Defendant") is pro Se, however, he was not present at the motion hearing. Having duly
22 considered the Plaintiffs arguments and the applicable law, the Court now issues its Decision 23 and Order and GRANTS IN PART the Motion for Default Judgment. 24 BACKGROUND 25 Plaintiff and Defendant (collectively the "Parties") were married on July 5, 2013 in this 26
27 jurisdiction. The Parties share one minor child- A . P . S . - born on August 19, 2014.
ORIGINAL 1
Decision and Order DM0266-17, Santos v. Santos
On May 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Divorce, Child Custody and Support l
2 ("Complaint") therein requesting, inter alia, for a divorce on grounds of irreconcilable
3 differences and for primary physical custody of the minor child.1 (Con pl., May 10, 2017.) 4 Upon proper service of the Summons and Complaint, Defendant failed to file an answer 5 or otherwise defend against the Complaint within the twenty (20) days allowed under the Guam 6 Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an application for entry of default, which 7
8 was subsequently granted and entered by the Clerk of Court on October 12, 2017. (Entry of
9 Default, Oct. 12, 2017.) 10 On October 31, 2017, Defendant filed his Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint for Divorce, 11 Child Custody and Support ("Answer") agreeing therein to the divorce on the same grounds 12
13 asserted by Plaintiff but requesting that the parties share joint legal custody with Defendant
14 having physical custody of the minor child during summer breaks. (Answer, Oct. 31, 2017.)
15 On January 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment. Defendant did not 16 file an opposition to the motion. On March 12, 2018, the Court heard oral argument on the 17 motion and subsequently took the matter under advisement. 18
19 DISCUSSION
20 I. Adjudication of the Marital Status of the Parties 21 The Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the marital status of the parties pursuant to 22 Section 83l8(a) of Title 19 of the Guam Code Annotated, which states as follows: 23 A divorce or dissolution of marriage may be granted if one (1) of the parties has 24 been a resident of Guam for at least ninety (90) days immediately preceding the 25 tiling of a complaint for divorce, or dissolution of marriage. . Physical presence by one of the parties in Guam for a period of ninety (90) days prior to filing of the 26
28 1 The Complaint indicates that the Parties do not share community assets or debts. (Con pl. at'][7, May 10, 2017.)
Page 2 of 5 r
Decision and Order D M0 2 6 6 - 1 7 , Santos v. Santos
action for divorce or dissolution of marriage shall give rise to a conclusive 1 presumption of compliance with this Section. 2 19 G.C.A. § 8318(a). 3 According to the Guam Supreme Court ("Supreme Court"), "[i]f the statutory 4
5 requirements for granting dissolution of the marriage are satisfied, the Court does not have
6 discretion on whether or not to grant the dissolution of the marital relationship" considering that 7 it has jurisdiction. Speicher v. Speicher, 2013 Guam 11 'l 20. This is due to the concept of 8 divisible divorce, which provides generally that "financial responsibility and marital status may 9
be separately litigated at different times and in different forums." Speicher, 2013 Guam 11'll 17. 10
11 (citing In re Marriage of Grav, 251 Cad. Rptr. 846, 850 (Ct. App. 1988). "The Full Faith and
12 Credit Clause compels recognition of the divorce decree as an adjudication of marital status 13 only, without affecting or prejudicing any property rights that may be incident to that status." 14 Here, it is clear that Plaintiff has met the statutory requirements for dissolution of 15
16 marriage as she is a resident of Guam and has lived in this jurisdiction for more than ninety (90)
17 days preceding the Complaint. Moreover, Defendant does not contest the divorce and agrees in
18 his Answer that "a divorce be granted between the parties" on the same grounds asserted by 19 Plaintiff. (Answer at 1-2, Oct. 31, 2017.) Defendant also has not sought to vacate the Entry of 20 Default or to challenge the request to dissolve the marriage as articulated in the Motion for 21
22 Default Judgment. As there is no dispute regarding the divorce, the Court will grant Plaintiff' s
23 motion with regards to the divorce. See 19 G.C.A. § 8320 ("In the event of .. default divorce PA actions, the Court may grant a divorce based upon the verified complaint of the Plaintiff. "). 25 The Court further grants Plaintiff" s request that she be restored to her maiden name. 26
Page 3 of 5 ll I 0
II. Child Custody and Support 1
2 Plaintiff also requests that the Parties be granted joint legal custody and that she be
3 granted primary physical custody in the default judgment, with Defendant having reasonable 4 visitation. The Court, however, is hesitant to grant such a request considering the general rule 5 that custody determinations are guided by the standards and principles articulated in 19 G.C,A. 6 § 8404. Accordingly, this Court will not award custody of the minor child under the present 7
8 circumstances without proper consideration of the best interests of the child and other relevant
9 factors. See 19 G.C.A. § 8404(a) ("Custody should be awarded to either parent according to the 10 best interest of the child."), Lanser v. Lanser, 2003 Guam 14 'IH 8, 16, See Howerton v.
Howerton, 2004 Guam 8 '][q[ 24-25, David A.A. v. Marva fn A., 837 N.Y.S.2d 479, 480 (2007) 12
13 ("[u]nless there is sufficient evidence before the court to enable it to undertake a comprehensive
14 independent review of the child's best interests. . a determination of a custody matter should
15 only be made after a full evidentiary hearing"). 16 Furthermore, Defendant tiled an Answer to the Complaint requesting for custody of the 17 Parties' minor child during summer breaks. Although Defendant's Answer was untimely and 18
19 tiled after the entry of default, the Court will allow him the opportunity to litigate the issue of
20 child custody and support considering that he is appearing pro Se and does not currently reside 21 in this jurisdiction McGhee v. McGhee, 2008 Guam 17 'I ll ("Guam case law, however, has 22 recognized that deference should be given toward pro Se party's litigation efforts."). See 23
Caspino v. Caspino, DCA Civ. No. 87-00065A, 1988 W L 242619, at *2 (D. Guam App. Div. 24
25 June 7, 1988) ("Pro Se litigants must be afforded 'every fair opportunity to present their case
is z Defendant filed his Answer and was served the Complaint and Summons from the State of Alaska.
Page 4 of 5 Decision and Order D M0 2 6 6 - 1 7 , Santos v. Santos
[s].' ") (quoting Rev v. Proxmire, 581 F.2d 998, 1003 (D.C.Cir.1978), McNeil v. Pub. Defender
Serf. Corp Civ. No. 90-00044A, 1990 WL 320362 (D. Guam App. Div.1990).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
I
FILED supEmoR SBUIIT CF soAH 1 ZUIBHAY 23 PH :3= 30 2 CLERK 0. court 3
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
7 INEZ LUJAN PEREZ SANTOS, ) Case No. DM0266-17 8 ) ) 9 ) Plaintiff, ) DECISION AND ORDER 10 ) vs. ) 11 ) ) 12 KEITH BRANDON CRUZ SANTOS, ) ) 13 ) Defendant. ) 14 ) ) 15 )
16 INTRODUCTION 17 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on March 12, 2018 for 18 a motion hearing concerning Plaintiff Inez Lujan Perez Santos's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Default 19 Judgment. Attorney Joaquin C. Arriola, Jr. represents Plaintiff. Defendant Keith Brandon Cruz 20
21 Santos ("Defendant") is pro Se, however, he was not present at the motion hearing. Having duly
22 considered the Plaintiffs arguments and the applicable law, the Court now issues its Decision 23 and Order and GRANTS IN PART the Motion for Default Judgment. 24 BACKGROUND 25 Plaintiff and Defendant (collectively the "Parties") were married on July 5, 2013 in this 26
27 jurisdiction. The Parties share one minor child- A . P . S . - born on August 19, 2014.
ORIGINAL 1
Decision and Order DM0266-17, Santos v. Santos
On May 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Divorce, Child Custody and Support l
2 ("Complaint") therein requesting, inter alia, for a divorce on grounds of irreconcilable
3 differences and for primary physical custody of the minor child.1 (Con pl., May 10, 2017.) 4 Upon proper service of the Summons and Complaint, Defendant failed to file an answer 5 or otherwise defend against the Complaint within the twenty (20) days allowed under the Guam 6 Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an application for entry of default, which 7
8 was subsequently granted and entered by the Clerk of Court on October 12, 2017. (Entry of
9 Default, Oct. 12, 2017.) 10 On October 31, 2017, Defendant filed his Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint for Divorce, 11 Child Custody and Support ("Answer") agreeing therein to the divorce on the same grounds 12
13 asserted by Plaintiff but requesting that the parties share joint legal custody with Defendant
14 having physical custody of the minor child during summer breaks. (Answer, Oct. 31, 2017.)
15 On January 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment. Defendant did not 16 file an opposition to the motion. On March 12, 2018, the Court heard oral argument on the 17 motion and subsequently took the matter under advisement. 18
19 DISCUSSION
20 I. Adjudication of the Marital Status of the Parties 21 The Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the marital status of the parties pursuant to 22 Section 83l8(a) of Title 19 of the Guam Code Annotated, which states as follows: 23 A divorce or dissolution of marriage may be granted if one (1) of the parties has 24 been a resident of Guam for at least ninety (90) days immediately preceding the 25 tiling of a complaint for divorce, or dissolution of marriage. . Physical presence by one of the parties in Guam for a period of ninety (90) days prior to filing of the 26
28 1 The Complaint indicates that the Parties do not share community assets or debts. (Con pl. at'][7, May 10, 2017.)
Page 2 of 5 r
Decision and Order D M0 2 6 6 - 1 7 , Santos v. Santos
action for divorce or dissolution of marriage shall give rise to a conclusive 1 presumption of compliance with this Section. 2 19 G.C.A. § 8318(a). 3 According to the Guam Supreme Court ("Supreme Court"), "[i]f the statutory 4
5 requirements for granting dissolution of the marriage are satisfied, the Court does not have
6 discretion on whether or not to grant the dissolution of the marital relationship" considering that 7 it has jurisdiction. Speicher v. Speicher, 2013 Guam 11 'l 20. This is due to the concept of 8 divisible divorce, which provides generally that "financial responsibility and marital status may 9
be separately litigated at different times and in different forums." Speicher, 2013 Guam 11'll 17. 10
11 (citing In re Marriage of Grav, 251 Cad. Rptr. 846, 850 (Ct. App. 1988). "The Full Faith and
12 Credit Clause compels recognition of the divorce decree as an adjudication of marital status 13 only, without affecting or prejudicing any property rights that may be incident to that status." 14 Here, it is clear that Plaintiff has met the statutory requirements for dissolution of 15
16 marriage as she is a resident of Guam and has lived in this jurisdiction for more than ninety (90)
17 days preceding the Complaint. Moreover, Defendant does not contest the divorce and agrees in
18 his Answer that "a divorce be granted between the parties" on the same grounds asserted by 19 Plaintiff. (Answer at 1-2, Oct. 31, 2017.) Defendant also has not sought to vacate the Entry of 20 Default or to challenge the request to dissolve the marriage as articulated in the Motion for 21
22 Default Judgment. As there is no dispute regarding the divorce, the Court will grant Plaintiff' s
23 motion with regards to the divorce. See 19 G.C.A. § 8320 ("In the event of .. default divorce PA actions, the Court may grant a divorce based upon the verified complaint of the Plaintiff. "). 25 The Court further grants Plaintiff" s request that she be restored to her maiden name. 26
Page 3 of 5 ll I 0
II. Child Custody and Support 1
2 Plaintiff also requests that the Parties be granted joint legal custody and that she be
3 granted primary physical custody in the default judgment, with Defendant having reasonable 4 visitation. The Court, however, is hesitant to grant such a request considering the general rule 5 that custody determinations are guided by the standards and principles articulated in 19 G.C,A. 6 § 8404. Accordingly, this Court will not award custody of the minor child under the present 7
8 circumstances without proper consideration of the best interests of the child and other relevant
9 factors. See 19 G.C.A. § 8404(a) ("Custody should be awarded to either parent according to the 10 best interest of the child."), Lanser v. Lanser, 2003 Guam 14 'IH 8, 16, See Howerton v.
Howerton, 2004 Guam 8 '][q[ 24-25, David A.A. v. Marva fn A., 837 N.Y.S.2d 479, 480 (2007) 12
13 ("[u]nless there is sufficient evidence before the court to enable it to undertake a comprehensive
14 independent review of the child's best interests. . a determination of a custody matter should
15 only be made after a full evidentiary hearing"). 16 Furthermore, Defendant tiled an Answer to the Complaint requesting for custody of the 17 Parties' minor child during summer breaks. Although Defendant's Answer was untimely and 18
19 tiled after the entry of default, the Court will allow him the opportunity to litigate the issue of
20 child custody and support considering that he is appearing pro Se and does not currently reside 21 in this jurisdiction McGhee v. McGhee, 2008 Guam 17 'I ll ("Guam case law, however, has 22 recognized that deference should be given toward pro Se party's litigation efforts."). See 23
Caspino v. Caspino, DCA Civ. No. 87-00065A, 1988 W L 242619, at *2 (D. Guam App. Div. 24
25 June 7, 1988) ("Pro Se litigants must be afforded 'every fair opportunity to present their case
is z Defendant filed his Answer and was served the Complaint and Summons from the State of Alaska.
Page 4 of 5 Decision and Order D M0 2 6 6 - 1 7 , Santos v. Santos
[s].' ") (quoting Rev v. Proxmire, 581 F.2d 998, 1003 (D.C.Cir.1978), McNeil v. Pub. Defender
Serf. Corp Civ. No. 90-00044A, 1990 WL 320362 (D. Guam App. Div.1990).
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs Motion for
Default Judgment such that the Parties' marriage shall be dissolved on grounds of irreconcilable
differences. Plaintiff shall submit revised interlocutory and final decrees of divorce consistent
with this decision for the Court's consideration within twenty (20) days of this order. Issues
pertaining to child custody and support are preserved for determination upon further notice in
later proceedings. The Court also declines to award any attorney's fees or costs at this time.
The Court FURTHER ORDERS that a custody study be completed by the Department of
Public Health and Social Services concerning the minor child. A status hearing is scheduled for
August 27, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 23rd day of May, 2018.
HONORABLE ALBERTO c. LAMORENA, III Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam
Qavice vIA count pop £.;l;=tw='twta ReedvedforServiee _ M 20
lhnhl Superior Cellt- & M *1.rc.E g g ; of Gui n Page 5 of 5