Stahl v. Stahl

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: July 3, 2014
• Docket: DM0842-10
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 _

SUPER103' COURT OF GUAM 1 2011 Jt L -3 PM 14: 59 2

5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6

7 CARLA GUTIERREZ STAHL, 8 DOMESTIC CASE NO. DM 0842-10 Plaintiff, 9 V. 10 DECISION AND ORDER CHRISTOPHER STAHL, 11

12 Defendant.

15 INT ROD UCT ION

16 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on the 90' day of 17 April, 2014, for hearing on the Court's Order to Show Cause for Failure to Pay Suit Money and 18 Spousal Support issued to the Defendant. Attorney Joaquin Arriola represented the Plaintiff, and 19

20 Attorney Gerald Grey represented the Defendant. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

21 CONFIRMS the prior suit money order, ORDERS the Defendant to pay spousal support, 22 ORDERS the Plaintiff to prepare Proposed Findings and Order regarding the proper amount of 23 spousal support, DISMISSES the action for dissolution of marriage, and ORDERS the parties to 24 submit further briefing on remaining issues. 25

28 Decision and Order DM0842-10; Stahl v. Stahl

2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

3 On December 28, 2010, Carla Gutierrez Stahl ( " the Plaintiff ') filed a Complaint for 4 Divorce against her husband Christopher Stahl ("the Defendant" ) with the Superior Court of 5 Guam. The parties have two minor children, who are domiciled with the Plaintiff in Guam. 6 In April, 2011, the Defendant filed for divorce in the Circuit Court of Loudoun County, 7

8 Virginia ( " the Virginia Court"). The Virginia Court determined Defendant to be a resident of 9 Virginia. The Plaintiff in this action appeared in the Virginia Court by filing a demurrer and a 10 motion to dismiss, but her motion was denied. The Virginia Court determined that service of 11 process on the Defendant had been properly performed and her appearance waived her right to 12

13 contest personal jurisdiction.

14 On July 17, 2012, the Virginia Court issued a Final Order of Divorce ("Virginia Divorce

15 Decree"). The Virginia Divorce Decree granted a divorce to the Defendant. It also asserted 16 jurisdiction over both child custody and child support issues relating to the parties' Guam- 17 resident children and over issues of spousal support. However, the Virginia Court did not make 18

19 any orders regarding child custody, child support, or spousal support. Lastly, the Virginia Court

20 made certain property determinations relating to Virginia real estate, vehicles, and money, and 21 made debt determinations regarding business and personal debt. 22 In this Court, on May 25, 2012, the Plaintiff moved for spousal support and attorney's 23 fees, and for contempt for the Defendant ' s failure to pay child support, with a Declaration in 24

25 support of the motions. On August 27, 2012 the Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs suit

26 on the basis of the Virginia Divorce Decree. At a hearing on September 12, 2012, the Court 27 noted that the document produced by the Defendant appeared to be a valid decree of divorce, 28

Page 2 of 11 Decision and Order DM0842- 10; Stahl v. Stahl

but that it could not be authenticated because it was not certified or stamped. From the bench, 1

2 the Court denied the motion to dismiss and ordered the Plaintiff to pay ten thousand dollars

3 ($10,000) in suit money. However, the Court did not state the time when the legal expenses 4 were incurred or the evidentiary basis for the order. 5 The Defendant appealed the award of suit money. Meanwhile, the Court retained 6 jurisdiction over other, un-appealed, issues. At a hearing on November 9, 2012, the Court took 7

8 evidence to determine the appropriate amount of spousal support, and instructed the Plaintiff's 9 Counsel to submit Proposed Findings and Order Regarding the Motion for Fees and Support. 10 This document was filed on February 4, 2013. The order was not signed by the Court prior to 11 the Supreme Court's May 10, 2013 stay of the case. 12

13 On November 20, 2013, the Supreme Court of Guam issued an Opinion and Judgment

14 reversing and remanding this Court's order, with instructions to clarify whether any part of the 15 suit money order was for legal expenses the Plaintiff incurred after the Virginia Divorce Decree 16 was issued, and to specify the evidentiary basis of the suit money order. The Supreme Court 17 also directed this Court to dismiss the claim seeking dissolution of the marital relationship, and 18

19 proceed with the issues of "child custody and support."

20 Upon remand of the case, on December 20, 2013, the Plaintiff made a Motion for Order 21 of Contempt and Order to Show Cause for Failure to Pay Suit Money and Spousal Support. On 22 January 8, 2014, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause for Failure to Pay Suit Money and 23 Spousal Support, nunc pro tunc to December 30, 2013. 24

25 After a pair of continuances, the hearing took place on March 19, 2014. The Court

26 ordered that the ten thousand dollars of suit money be reduced to judgment, with the judgment 27

Page 3 of 11 Decision and Order DM0842-10; Stahl v. Stahl

to be prepared by the Plaintiffs counsel. The Court continued the issue of spousal support to 1

2 April 9, 2014.

3 At the hearing, the Court issued the Judgment and Order Regarding Attorney's Fees that 4 had been prepared by the Plaintiff's counsel a nd a ppr oved a s to for m by the Defenda nt's 5 counsel. The Court also heard oral argument on the question of spousal support. While the 6 Plaintiffs counsel asserted that the Court had the power to award ongoing and future spousal 7

8 support, he did not provide legal authority in support of this assertion. The Court took the matter

9 under advisement. 10 DISCUSSION 11 1. Suit Money Order 12

13 On September 12, 2012, the Court made an oral order for the Defendant to pay the

14 Plaintiff ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in suit money. The Defendant appealed this order. 15 The Supreme Court's reversal and remand was based on the Virginia Divorce Decree, 16 and this Court's obligation to show the Virginia Court's judgment full faith and credit. Stahl v. 17 Stahl , 2013 Guam 26 ¶ 28; see U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1; see Organic Act of Guam, 48 U.S.C. § 18

19 1421 b(u) (2011). Although at the time of the suit money order on September 12 the Virginia

20 Divorce Decree had not been certified or stamped to prove its authenticity, the Plaintiff was able 21 to establish these formalities on September 24. The Supreme Court determined that this Court 22 owes the Virginia Divorce Decree full faith and credit from the time that decree became 23 effective in Virginia, not merely from the time the decree was authenticated in Guam. Stahl v. 24

25 Stahl, 2013 Guam 26 ¶ 33. Because the parties were divorced as of July 17, 2012, this Court lost

26 its jurisdiction over the cause of action for dissolution of marriage as of that date, because after 27 July 17, 2012 the marriage between the parties no longer existed. Id. at ¶ 33. 28

Page 4 of 11 Decision and Order DM0842-10; Stahl v. Stahl

19 GCA § 8402, the Guam statute that enables a Superior Court judge to order payment 1

2 of suit money from one spouse to another, by its terms restricts such an order to the time

3 "[w]hen an action for dissolution is pending." 19 GCA § 8402 (2005). The Supreme Court 4 determined the pendency requirement to mean that although this Court could not award suit 5 money to pay any legal expenses incurred after the Virginia Divorce Decree of July 17 , 2012, it 6

7 could still order suit money paid if the legal expenses were incurred prior to the divorce, when

8 the action was still pending. Stahl v. Stahl, 2013 Guam 26 ¶ 45. The Supreme Court remanded 9 the case for this Court to indicate when the legal expenses that the suit money order was 10 designed to recompense took place, and to detail the evidentiary basis for the award. Stahl v. 11 Stahl, 2013 Guam 26 ¶ 47-48. 12

13 On remand, this Court confirmed the suit money order and reduced it to judgment at an

14 oral hearing on March 19, 2014. The order was based on evidence previously submitted by the 15 Plaintiff and her counsel in the Plaintiff ' s Declaration in Support of Motion for Support and 16 Fees. This declaration, filed filed May 25, 2012, detailed the Plaintiff ' s monthly expenses and 17 income, the marital assets, the Defendant ' s income, child support obligations, and the legal 18

19 expenses incurred by the Plaintiff to prosecute the lawsuit. Pl.'s Decl., May 25, 2012. The ten

20 thousand dollar amount ordered by the Court was less than the thirteen thousand dollars of legal 21 expenses the Plaintiff declared she had incurred as of Ma y 25 , 2012. Nor did the amount 22 ordered include the one thousand dollars per month of legal expenses she expected to incur 23 subsequently. 24

25 At the Court' s direction, the Plaintiff's counsel prepared the written Judgment and

26 Order. However, the Court overlooked the date indicated in the Judgment and Order, which 27

Page 5 of 11 Decision and Order DM0842-10; Stahl v. Stahl

read "July, 2013." The Court intended to order payment only for legal expenses incurred prior 1

2 to the Virginia Divorce Decree, which took place on July 17, 2012, not July 2013.

3 II. Spousal Support 4 T he sa me statute that enables a Guam Superior Court judge to order payment of 5 attorney's fees during the pendency of a divorce action also allows for an order to pay spousal 6

7 support: "When an action for dissolution is pending, the court may, in its discretion, require the

8 husband or wife, as the case may be, to pay as alimony any money necessary to enable the wife, 9 or husband, to support herself..." 19 Guam § 8402 (2005). Upon remand of the case, the Court 10 must determine whether it has jurisdiction to award spousal support to the Plaintiff. See Stahl v. II Stahl , 2013 Guam 11 ¶ 49. 12

13 The Guam Supreme Court has ruled that the doctrine of divisible divorce applies in

14 Guam. r i c h e r v . Speicher, 2013 Guam 11 ¶¶ 16-23. "Divisible divorce is based on the 15 principle under which `financial responsibility and marital status may be separately litigated at 16 different times and in different forums."' Speicher v. Speicher , 2013 Guam 11117 (quoting In 17 re Marriage of Gray, 251 Cal. Rptr. 846, 850 (Ct. App. 1988)). The purpose of divisible divorce 18

19 is to ensure that "[t]he dissolution of a marriage, which the law has found to be unworkable and

20 injurious to the public, `is not dependent upon final settlement of property disputes."' Speicher 21 v. Speicher, 2013 Guam 11 ¶ 17 (quoting Hull v. Superior Court , 352, P.2d 161, 165 (Cal. 22 1960)). Applying the doctrine to the present case, the Virginia Court may have only adjudicated 23 some aspect of the parties' divorce, not all aspects. 24

25 The Defendant, Christopher Stahl, submitted a stamped and certified copy of t he

26 Virginia Divorce Decree to this Court on September 24, 2012. Moroni Decl. Ex. A, Sep. 24, 27 2012. That decree ordered the award of a divorce to the Defendant. The decree also made an 28

Page 6 of 11 Decision and Order DM0842-10; Stahl v. Stahl

equitable distribution of the parties' marital residence in Virginia, certain vehicles and the I

2 proceeds of the sale of a vehicle, and business and personal debt, and accordingly made a

3 monetary award to the Defendant. Moroni Decl. Ex. A, Sep. 24, 2012. 4 On child custody and support, and on spousal support, the Virginia Divorce Decree says 5 the following: "II. Custody and Child Support. This Court has jurisdiction to determine custody 6

7 and child support issues but these issues were not presently before the Court for adjudication.

8 III. Spousal support. This Court has jurisdiction over issues of spousal support. However, as

9 neither party petitioned the Court to award spousal support, the Court declines to make any 10 award for spousal support, alimony or maintenance to the other party." Moroni Decl. Ex. A Sep. 11 24, 2012. The Virginia Court asserted jurisdiction over the parties' marriage and over certain of 12

13 their properties and debts, and issued orders accordingly. But while the Virginia Court also

14 asserted jurisdiction over child custody and support and spousal support, it made no 15 determinations and issued no orders with regard to these issues. 16 The Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV of the United States Constitution applies 17 to the courts of Guam via the Organic Act of Guam. U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1; Organic Act of 18

19 Guam, 48 U.S.C. § 1421b(u) (2011). The obligation to show a sister state court's judgment full

20 faith and credit requires this Court to determine the contours of the judgment rendered in the 21 Virginia Divorce Decree. 22 The Supreme Court ruled that the issuance of the Virginia Divorce Decree rendered the 23 parties divorced and ended this Court's subject matter jurisdiction over the dissolution action. 24

25 Stahl v. Stahl, 2013 Guam 26 ¶ 15. However, a valid decree of divorce issued by one court does

26 not necessarily end another court's jurisdiction over ancillary issues relating to the divorce. See 27 Speicher v. Speicher, 2013 Guam 11117. Instead, "the Full Faith and Credit Clause compels 28

Page 7of11 Decision and Order DM0842-10; Stahl v. Stahl

recognition of the divorce decree as an adjudication of marital status only, without affecting or 1

2 prejudicing any property rights that may be incident to that status." Id (citing In re Marriage of

3 Gray, 251 Cal. Rptr. 846, 850 (Ct. App. 1988)); see also Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541, 549 4 (1948) (holding that a Nevada divorce decree could not restrain a party's assertion of a New 5 York judgment). The factual difference in this case is that the Virginia Divorce Decree also 6 adjudicated some property matters as well as the divorce itself. 7

8 Because the Virginia Divorce Decree ended the pendency of the Plaintiff's Guam action

9 for dissolution of marriage, the Supreme Court ruled that this Court could not award attorney's 10 fees for legal expenses incurred after the parties were divorced. Stahl v. Stahl, 2013 Guam 26 ¶¶ 11 36-47. However, in light of the its Cruz v. Cruz ruling that the time in which a divorce action is 12

13 pending includes appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that this Court could order suit money paid

14 for legal fees and expenses incurred by the Plaintiff before the divorce on July 17, 2012. See

15 Cruz v. Cruz, 2003 Guam 3 IT 18-20; Stahl v. Stahl, 2013 Guam 26 ¶ 44-45. 16 The current stage of the litigation is a remand from the Supreme Court to the Superior 17 Court on the appealed issue of suit money. Judgment has been entered as to the suit money, but 18

19 not as to spousal support. As the question of attorney's fees was still pending because the

20 appellate process was incomplete, so to the question of spousal support still pending, as any 21 appellate process with regard to spousal support that may occur has not taken place yet. 22 Due to the application of the doctrine of divisible divorce and the meaning of 23 "pendency" in 19 GCA § 8402, this Court is not barred from awarding spousal support accrued 24

25 before July 17, 2012. While the Virginia Divorce Decree is due full faith and credit by this

26 Court, that decree did not adjudicate the issues of spousal support, child custody, or child 27 support. Moroni Decl. Ex. A, Sep. 24, 2012. Thus, with regard to those issues, there is no 28

Page 8 of 11 Decision and Order DM0842- 10; Stahl v. Stahl

judgment to grant full faith and credit to. The Supreme Court instructed this Court to relinquish 1

2 jurisdiction over the claim for marital dissolution, but with regard to child custody, child

3 support, and spousal support, the Supreme Court instructed that: "The trial court may proceed 4 with determining its ongoing jurisdiction in the child custody and support issues in light of the 5 Virginia Divorce Decree." Stahl v. Stahl, 2013 Guam 26 ¶ 49. 6 The Court determines that it retains jurisdiction over spousal support. A contrary ruling, 7

8 holding that the Virginia Divorce Decree's non-adjudication of spousal support precludes this

9 Court from ordering spousal support, would necessarily also extend to the decree's non- 10 adjudication of child custody and child support. This could potentially leave the parties without 11 any clarity on custody or support for the remainder of their children's minorities. However, 12

13 while this Court owes full faith and credit to the Virginia Divorce Decree, that decree does not

14 revoke this Court's jurisdiction over the aspects of the litigation that were unresolved by the 15 Virginia Court's judgment. See Speicher v. Speicher, 2013 Guam 11 ¶¶ 17; see also Estin v. 16 Estin , 334 U.S. 541, 549 (1948); see also In re Marriage of Gray, 251 Cal. Rptr. 846, 850 (Cal. 17 App. 1988). 18

19 Prior to the Defendant's appeal, on November 9, 2012 the Court took evidence relating

20 to the Plaintiffs motion for spousal support to determine the amount of support she was entitled 21 to during the pendency of the action. The Court stated that any spousal support award would 22 only be for expenses that were non-duplicative or otherwise part of child support. The Court 23 directed the Plaintiff's Counsel to submit proposed Findings of Fact, and specified which 24

25 expenses would not be included in the support order. On February 4, 2013 the Plaintiff's

26 Proposed Findings and Order were submitted, proposing a monthly sum of three thousand one 27

Page 9of11 Decision and Order DM0842-10; Stahl v. Stahl

hundred one dollars ($3,101.00) as temporary spousal support. The order was not signed by the 1

2 Court prior to the Supreme Court's May 10, 2013 stay of the case.

3 The Court ORDERS the Defendant to pay spousal support in an amount to be 4 determined. The Court ORDERS the Plaintiff, by and through counsel, to prepare and file 5 Proposed Findings and Order regarding the amount to be ordered, within thirty days of the date 6

7 of this order. Consistent with the Opinion of the Supreme Court and with the above analysis, the

8 Findings and Order shall reflect that the Defendant's obligation began on December 28, 2010,

9 when the Plaintiffs Complaint for dissolution of marriage was filed, and ceased upon the 10 parties' divorce on July 17, 2012. The Proposed Findings and Order shall bring any relevant 11 facts or circumstances that reflect on the Plaintiffs financial needs during that time period to 12

13 the attention of the Court.

14 III. Dissolution 15 The Supreme Court's November 20, 2013 Opinion and Judgment directed this Court to 16 dismiss the Plaintiff's action for dissolution of marriage. Stahl v. Stahl, 2013 Guam 26 ¶ 49. As 17 it does not appear that such dismissal has been officially ordered, the Plaintiff's action for 18

19 dissolution of marriage is hereby DISMISSED.

20 CONCLUSION 21

22 For the reasons set forth above, the Court CONFIRMS the previous order of attorney's

23 fees. The Court ORDERS the payment of spousal support in an amount to be determined. The 24 Court ORDERS the Plaintiff to submit Proposed Findings and Order regarding the amount of 25 spousal support that are consistent with the above analysis within thirty (30) days of this 26

27 Decision and Order. The Court DISMISSES the Plaintiff's claim for dissolution of marriage.

28 Questions of child support are before the proper jurisdiction of Referee Ingles. The Court

Page 10 of 11 Decision and Order DM0842-10; Stahl v. Stahl

ORDERS the Plaintiff to submit a brief on the Court's power to order ongoing and future 1

2 spousal support within twenty (20) days. This brief must acknowledge the law of the case as

3 established by the Supreme Court in Stahl v. Stahl, 2013 Guam 26, and the Plaintiff must make

4 arguments that are consistent with the Supreme Court's Opinion. The Court ORDERS the 5 parties to submit briefs on the community property issues remaining in this litigation within 6 thirty (30) days of this Decision and Order. 7

8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED - � � 27 0 1 4 10 • 11

12 HONORABLE ARTHUR R. BARCINAS Judge, Superior Court of Guam 13

15 ,.' V1CE VIA. COURT BO)( 16 I.acknowli

Page 11of11