Stahl v. Stahl

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2

3 CHRISTOPHER STAHL, )

)

4 Plaintiff, ) DOMESTIC CASE NO. DM0735-11 5 )

vs. )

6 ) DECISION AND ORDER CARLA G. STAHL, )

7 )

8 Defendant. )

9

10 INTRODUCTION 11 This matter came before the Honorable Judge James L. Canto II on the Plaintiff's 12 objections to the orders of the Child Support Referee, filed May 9 and 18, 2012. Oral 13 arguments were heard on June 18,2012. Attorney Ronald P. Moroni appeared on behalf of the 14 Plaintiff and Attorney Joaquin C. Arriola, Jr. represented the Defendant. Having considered the 15 parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the following 16 Decision and Order. 17 BACKGROUND 18 On December 28,2010, Defendant Carla G. Stahl ("Carla") filed a complaint for divorce 19 and child custody against Plaintiff Christopher Stahl ("Christopher") in Domestic Case No. 20 DM0842-10. A hearing for temporary child support was scheduled with the divorce and child 21 custody action pursuant to 5 GCA § 34153. On April 22, 2011, the Child Support Referee 22 ordered Christopher to pay $1,522.80 per month in temporary child support on the basis of the 23 Child Support Guidelines. (Order for Temporary Child Support, 1, Jan. 13,2012.) 24 On October 24, 2011, Christopher filed this second action for child custody pending 25 resolution of the divorce and child custody action. On January 13, 2012, the Child Support 26 Referee reaffirmed the divorce order that Christopher, "shall pay temporary child support in the 27 amount of $1,522.80 per month ... commencing April 22, 2011." (Order for Temporary Child 28 Support, 2, Jan. 13,2012.) Christopher and Carla did not object to these orders.

Page 10f4

On April 30, 2012, the Child Support Referee recommended arrears in the amount of

2 $18,479.01. (Referee's Record Log at 10:09-10:14, Apr. 30, 2012; Findings and Order, May 3 21,2012.) This amount was calculated as $1,522.80 per month from the date of separation in 4 August 2010 minus payments received. Id. On May 9, 2012, Christopher filed a written 5 objection to the arrears recommendation on the grounds that child support cannot be granted

6 before the date of the complaint pursuant to 5 GCA § 341l6.1. On May 22, 2012, the Child 7 Support Referee referred the matter to this Court for review pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules

8 for Expedited Process for the Superior Court of Guam. 9 On June 6 and 8, 2012, the Court entered orders to abate and dismiss this action due to

10 .

the prior pending divorce action. The dismissal is effective at the conclusion of temporary

11 summer visitation on August 1,2012. 12 DISCUSSION 13 As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that Christopher properly filed a written

14 objection within ten (10) days after the arrears recommendation in open court. See Rules for 15 Expedited Process for the Super. Ct. of Guam Rule 7.1. Furthermore, this action shall be

16 dismissed on August 1,2012, but the Court is averse to ignore an arrearage or delinquency in 17 temporary child support payment because it may harm the best interests of the children.

18 Finally, Christopher and Carla may obtain identical relief or modification of temporary child

19 support in their prior pending divorce and child custody action. See 19 GCA § 8403. For these 20 reasons, the Court shall address the merits of the objection pending abatement and dismissal. 21 Under Guam law, a child support recommendation may be appealed to the Superior

22 Court in order to, "make a good faith effort to supervise the referee and correct any obvious

23 errors." Lamb v. Hoffman, 2008 Guam 2 ~ 41. The obligation to pay child support may be 24 established by an order that, "state [s] the date upon which payments are to commence." 5 GCA 25 § 34114. The unpaid balance and interest of a support obligation, "shall be the arrearage," that 26 is reduced to judgment. 5 GCA §§ 34114 and 34129 (emphasis in original). This application of 27 arrearage under Guam law is consistent with the definition of arrears as, "[t]he state of being 28

Page 2 of4

behind in the payment of a debt or the discharge of an obligation." Black's Law Dictionary 88 2 (8th ed. 2006). 3 In this case, temporary child support in the amount of $1,522.80 per month was ordered 4 to commence on April 22, 2011. Pursuant to 5 GCA § 34114, any unpaid amount of$I,522.80 5 per month after April 22, 2011 shall be the arrearage subject to judgment. On April 20, 2012, 6 the Child Support Referee calculated arrearage from the date of separation in August 2010 and 7 recommended a finding that Christopher is in arrears in the amount of $18,479.01. Christopher 8 objects to this calculation and the Court must make a good faith effort to correct any obvious 9 errors in the arrearage recommendation.

,

10 Under Guam law, the Child Support Referee may establish a retroactive temporary child 11 support obligation. See e.g. 5 GCA § 34105(a)(7) and (8), 19 GCA § 5503(b), and Rules for 12 Expedited Process for the Super. Ct. of Guam Rule 4.2. Guam law does not articulate the 13 differences between a retroactive support obligation and an arrearage in payment. However, 14 other jurisdictions draw a clear distinction. See e.g. Stapleton v. Holstein, 723 N.E.2d 164, 166- 15 67 (Ohio App. 4 Dist. 1998) (arrearage is the amount of delinquency in payment due according 16 to the terms of a child support order); Milopoulos v. Milopoulos, 691 So.2d 1199, 1200 (Fla. 17 App. 4 Dist. 1997) (arrearage is a vested right to unpaid support under order of payment, not 18 subject to modification, and distinct from the discretionary award of retroactive child support); 19 Korf v. Korf, 553 N.W.2d 706, 711 n. 3 (Minn. App. 1996) (temporary child support order 20 retroactive to the date of separation with finding of arrears is error as obligor is not given 21 opportunity to pay); Richardson on Behalf of Lanier v. Junious, 134 Misc.2d 148, 149-50 (N.Y. 22 Fam. Ct. 1986) (retroactive support only constitutes arrears ifnot paid when due). 23 In this case, the Child Support Referee did not enter an order for temporary child support 24 retroactive to August 2010. Instead, the order for temporary child support commencing April 25 22,2011, was calculated retroactively to August 2010 in order to determine the arrearage of due 26 and unpaid support payments. This application contradicts the plain language of 5 GCA § 27 34114 that arrearage shall be the unpaid balance after support payments are to commence. 28 Furthermore, a finding of retroactive arrearage in the absence of a retroactive support order may

Page 3 of4

create an immediate delinquency without the opportunity to be heard and in violation of due 2 process principles. See 5 GCA § 34129. For these reasons, the arrearage must be calculated as 3 the unpaid balance after payments are to commence on April 22, 2011, pursuant to the order for

4 temporary child support. 1 5

6 CONCLUSION 7 Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff's objection is hereby GRANTED. Pursuant to Rule 8 7.1 of the Rules for Expedited Process for the Superior Court of Guam, the April 30, 2012, 9 recommended finding of arrearage and the May 21, 2012, finding and order of arrearage are IO .

hereby modified to calculate arrearage as the unpaid balance of temporary child support 11 payments due and commencing April 22, 2011. The matter is remanded to the Child Support 12 Referee for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 13

14 SO ORDERED this ~day of July, 2012. 15

16

17

18

19 ~~~Oll Judge Superior Court of Guam

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 I In a similar manner, if Christopher's temporary support obligation is modified to appl 28 retroactive to a prior date, any arrearage is thereafter calculated as the unpaid balance afte payments are to commence under the modified support order and pursuant to 5 GCA § 34114.

Page 4 of 4