2025 MAR -6 F'M 3: 23 2 Ct.ER.K OF G:OURT 3
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7
8 JUANITA MARIE TENORIO, DOMESTIC CASE NO. DM0436-22 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. 11
12 PAUL JOSEPH HEALY, DECISION AND ORDER 13 Defendant. Re: Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary 14 Judgment
15 PAUL JOSEPH HEALY, 16 Counterclaim-Plaintiff, 17 vs. 18 JUANITA MARIE TENORIO, 19
20 Counterclaim-Defendant.
· 21
22 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on December 12, 2024 for a 23 hearing on Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff Paul Joseph Healy's ("Defendant") Motion for 24 Partial Summary Judgment ("Motion"). Present at the hearing were Attorney Joaquin C. 25 Arriola, Jr. on behalf of Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Juanita Marie Tenorio ("Plaintiff'), 26
27 and Defendant appeared with counsel, Attorney Daniel J. Berman. Upon consideration of the
28 Decision and Order re: Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Domestic Case No. DM0436-22
record, arguments, and relevant law, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion for Partial
2 Summary Judgment.
3 BACKGROUND 4 Plaintiff and Defendant married on Jariuary 1, 1994, in Guam and remained married for 5 nearly twenty-nine (29) years. They separated in December 2022, and Plaintiff filed for divorce 6
on December 12, 2022. The dispute in this Motion involves Fidelity Brokerage Account No. - 7
8 666 (the "Account"), valued at approximately $342,897.43. The funds to open the Account 9 originated from Defendant's mother's trust, the Gretchen Healy Revocable Trust ("Trust"). 10 Defendant's siblings and co-trustees of the Trust, Susan and Peter Healy, transferred the funds. 11 On December 16, 2020, Susan and Peter initially transferred the funds into a Vanguard 12
13 Joint Brokerage Account, jointly titled with right of survivorship in both Defendant and
14 Plaintiffs names. On June 11, 2021, they transferred the funds from the Vanguard account to 15 the Account in question, which was also jointly titled. 16 Defendant claims the funds were his separate property because he inherited them from 17 his mother and allegedly never commingled them with community funds. He asserts that the 18
19 joint titling of the ac.counts was a mistake and that the funds were intended solely for his
20 benefit. He further claims he did not make any additional deposits into the Account nor 21 withdraw any money for personal use. 22 Plaintiff argues that the funds became community assets because: (1) they were placed 23
24 into a joint account with right of survivorship, indicating an intent to share the funds; (2) the
25 funds were allegedly used for marital expenses, including an $8,351.37 withdrawal for tax 26 payments; and (3) she was actively involved in discussions regarding the transfer of funds from 27 the Trust and was never informed that the funds were solely for Defendant. 28
Page 2 of7 Decision and Order re: Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Domestic Case No. DM0436-22
After Plaintiff filed for divorce, Defendant transferred the funds out of the Account to a
2 separate account on August 6, 2024. In August 2024, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion
3 requesting that the Court order Defendant to return the funds to the Account and prevent further 4 withdrawals until ownership of the Account is properly determined. On September 26, 2024, 5 Defendant opposed the ex parte motion. 6 On October 14, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion, arguing that the Account was 7
8 separate property. On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff opposed the Motion, arguing that the joint
9 titling of the Account and the use of funds created a presumption of community property, and 10 that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment in this case. 11 On November 25, 2024, Defendant replied, asserting that Plaintiffs arguments were 12
13 legally insufficient and that the funds were never transmuted into community property.
14 On December 12, 2024, the Court heard arguments from both parties and took the matter 15 under advisement. 16 DISCUSSION 17 The issue before the Court is whether the Account remained Defendant's separate 18
19 property or was converted into community property through joint titling and use during the
20 parties' marriage. 21 Under GRCP 56(a), "[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that 22 there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 23 matter of law." Summary judgment is proper only if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to 24
25 interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
26 genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a 27 matter oflaw." Guam Resorts, Inc. v. G.C. Corp., 2013 Guam 18 ,r 36. In deciding a motion for 28
Page 3 of7 Decision and Order re: Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Domestic Case No. DM0436-22
summary judgment, the court must draw inferences and view the evidence in the light most
2 favorable to the non-moving party. Id. If the movant demonstrates that there are no genuine
3 issues of material fact, the non-movant cannot merely rely on allegations in the pleadings but 4 must produce significant probative evidence supporting the pleadings. Bank of Guam v. Flores, 5 2004 Guam 25 'if 7. A material fact is relevant to an element of a claim or defense and its ) 6
7 existence might affect the outcome of the suit. Id. 'if 8.
8 After reviewing the record, the Court finds that Defendant has not sufficiently
9 demonstrated that there are no genuine issues of material fact. Plaintiff has raised disputes 10 concerning: (1) whether the Account funds were transmuted into community property; (2) 11 whether Defendant's conduct and intent support the community property classification; and (3) 12
13 whether Defendant's Motion is procedurally untimely.
14 A. Transmutation of Account Funds into Community Property 15 Defendant claims the Account is his separate property because the funds originated from 16 his mother's Trust. Plaintiff asserts that depositing the funds into a jointly titled brokerage 17 account and using the funds for marital expenses created a presumption that the funds were 18
19 converted into community property.
20 Under 19 GCA § 6105(a), all property acquired during marriage is presumed to be 21 community property. "The spouse asserting the separate character of property acquired during 22 the marriage has the burden of overcoming this presumption." Kloppenburg v. Kloppenburg, 23 2014 Guam 5 'if 23. The presumption may be overcome by tracing the property to a separate 24
25 source. Id. (citing In re Marriage of Mix, 536 P.2d 479, 484 (Cal. 1975) (en bane)). "If the
26 property, or the source of funds with which it is acquired, can be traced, its separate property 27 character remains unchanged. But if separate and community property or funds are commingled 28
Page 4 of7 Decision and Order re: Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Domestic Case No. DM0436-22
in such a manner that it is impossible to trace the source of the property or funds, the whole will
2 be treated as community property." Id. "Whether or not the presumption of community property
3 is overcome is a question of fact for the trial court." Id. 4.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2025 MAR -6 F'M 3: 23 2 Ct.ER.K OF G:OURT 3
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7
8 JUANITA MARIE TENORIO, DOMESTIC CASE NO. DM0436-22 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. 11
12 PAUL JOSEPH HEALY, DECISION AND ORDER 13 Defendant. Re: Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary 14 Judgment
15 PAUL JOSEPH HEALY, 16 Counterclaim-Plaintiff, 17 vs. 18 JUANITA MARIE TENORIO, 19
20 Counterclaim-Defendant.
· 21
22 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on December 12, 2024 for a 23 hearing on Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff Paul Joseph Healy's ("Defendant") Motion for 24 Partial Summary Judgment ("Motion"). Present at the hearing were Attorney Joaquin C. 25 Arriola, Jr. on behalf of Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Juanita Marie Tenorio ("Plaintiff'), 26
27 and Defendant appeared with counsel, Attorney Daniel J. Berman. Upon consideration of the
28 Decision and Order re: Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Domestic Case No. DM0436-22
record, arguments, and relevant law, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion for Partial
2 Summary Judgment.
3 BACKGROUND 4 Plaintiff and Defendant married on Jariuary 1, 1994, in Guam and remained married for 5 nearly twenty-nine (29) years. They separated in December 2022, and Plaintiff filed for divorce 6
on December 12, 2022. The dispute in this Motion involves Fidelity Brokerage Account No. - 7
8 666 (the "Account"), valued at approximately $342,897.43. The funds to open the Account 9 originated from Defendant's mother's trust, the Gretchen Healy Revocable Trust ("Trust"). 10 Defendant's siblings and co-trustees of the Trust, Susan and Peter Healy, transferred the funds. 11 On December 16, 2020, Susan and Peter initially transferred the funds into a Vanguard 12
13 Joint Brokerage Account, jointly titled with right of survivorship in both Defendant and
14 Plaintiffs names. On June 11, 2021, they transferred the funds from the Vanguard account to 15 the Account in question, which was also jointly titled. 16 Defendant claims the funds were his separate property because he inherited them from 17 his mother and allegedly never commingled them with community funds. He asserts that the 18
19 joint titling of the ac.counts was a mistake and that the funds were intended solely for his
20 benefit. He further claims he did not make any additional deposits into the Account nor 21 withdraw any money for personal use. 22 Plaintiff argues that the funds became community assets because: (1) they were placed 23
24 into a joint account with right of survivorship, indicating an intent to share the funds; (2) the
25 funds were allegedly used for marital expenses, including an $8,351.37 withdrawal for tax 26 payments; and (3) she was actively involved in discussions regarding the transfer of funds from 27 the Trust and was never informed that the funds were solely for Defendant. 28
Page 2 of7 Decision and Order re: Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Domestic Case No. DM0436-22
After Plaintiff filed for divorce, Defendant transferred the funds out of the Account to a
2 separate account on August 6, 2024. In August 2024, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion
3 requesting that the Court order Defendant to return the funds to the Account and prevent further 4 withdrawals until ownership of the Account is properly determined. On September 26, 2024, 5 Defendant opposed the ex parte motion. 6 On October 14, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion, arguing that the Account was 7
8 separate property. On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff opposed the Motion, arguing that the joint
9 titling of the Account and the use of funds created a presumption of community property, and 10 that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment in this case. 11 On November 25, 2024, Defendant replied, asserting that Plaintiffs arguments were 12
13 legally insufficient and that the funds were never transmuted into community property.
14 On December 12, 2024, the Court heard arguments from both parties and took the matter 15 under advisement. 16 DISCUSSION 17 The issue before the Court is whether the Account remained Defendant's separate 18
19 property or was converted into community property through joint titling and use during the
20 parties' marriage. 21 Under GRCP 56(a), "[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that 22 there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 23 matter of law." Summary judgment is proper only if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to 24
25 interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
26 genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a 27 matter oflaw." Guam Resorts, Inc. v. G.C. Corp., 2013 Guam 18 ,r 36. In deciding a motion for 28
Page 3 of7 Decision and Order re: Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Domestic Case No. DM0436-22
summary judgment, the court must draw inferences and view the evidence in the light most
2 favorable to the non-moving party. Id. If the movant demonstrates that there are no genuine
3 issues of material fact, the non-movant cannot merely rely on allegations in the pleadings but 4 must produce significant probative evidence supporting the pleadings. Bank of Guam v. Flores, 5 2004 Guam 25 'if 7. A material fact is relevant to an element of a claim or defense and its ) 6
7 existence might affect the outcome of the suit. Id. 'if 8.
8 After reviewing the record, the Court finds that Defendant has not sufficiently
9 demonstrated that there are no genuine issues of material fact. Plaintiff has raised disputes 10 concerning: (1) whether the Account funds were transmuted into community property; (2) 11 whether Defendant's conduct and intent support the community property classification; and (3) 12
13 whether Defendant's Motion is procedurally untimely.
14 A. Transmutation of Account Funds into Community Property 15 Defendant claims the Account is his separate property because the funds originated from 16 his mother's Trust. Plaintiff asserts that depositing the funds into a jointly titled brokerage 17 account and using the funds for marital expenses created a presumption that the funds were 18
19 converted into community property.
20 Under 19 GCA § 6105(a), all property acquired during marriage is presumed to be 21 community property. "The spouse asserting the separate character of property acquired during 22 the marriage has the burden of overcoming this presumption." Kloppenburg v. Kloppenburg, 23 2014 Guam 5 'if 23. The presumption may be overcome by tracing the property to a separate 24
25 source. Id. (citing In re Marriage of Mix, 536 P.2d 479, 484 (Cal. 1975) (en bane)). "If the
26 property, or the source of funds with which it is acquired, can be traced, its separate property 27 character remains unchanged. But if separate and community property or funds are commingled 28
Page 4 of7 Decision and Order re: Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Domestic Case No. DM0436-22
in such a manner that it is impossible to trace the source of the property or funds, the whole will
2 be treated as community property." Id. "Whether or not the presumption of community property
3 is overcome is a question of fact for the trial court." Id. 4. Defendant argues that the funds in the Account remain separate property because they 5 can be traced directly from his mother's Trust, overcoming the presumption of community 6
7 property. Plaintiff argues that tracing is irrelevant because the funds were deposited into a joint
8 account with right of survivorship, and that Defendant has not overcome the presumption of 9 community property due to the joint titling of the Account. This raises the question of whether 10 joint titling alone is sufficient to transmute the funds into community property. The Court must 11 conduct additional factual analysis to determine whether the presumption of community 12
13 property is overcome. Thus, this is a question of fact that precludes summary judgment, and the
14 Court DENIES Defendant's Motion on this basis. 15 B. Intent Behind Joint Titling of the Account 1,6 Even if the above were not enough to deny the Motion, there is disputed evidence of 17 intent between the parties. Defendant argues that the joint titling of the Account and the original 18
19 account was a mistake, and that the funds were always intended as his separate inheritance, not
20 for the parties as a couple. Plaintiff argues that the joint titling was deliberate, and that the funds 21 were used for marital expenses, supporting the presumption of community property. 22 The Court understands the question here to be one of willfulness, which the Guam 23
24 Supreme Court finds may apply to conduct that is both "voluntary and intentional," and "does
25 not require a 'specific fraudulent intent or evil motive."' Guam Resorts, 2012 Guam 13 ,r,r 11, 26 13. If Defendant willfully created the Account intending it to serve as a joint account, that 27 supports Plaintiffs argument that the funds were originally intended to be community property. 28
Page 5 of7 Decision and Order re: Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Domestic Case No. DM0436-22
The question of whether a person acted willfully is a question of fact to be decided by a fact-
2 finder. Id. ,r 30. The Court finds that determining Defendant's intent when titling the account
3 requires credibility assessments that must be made at trial and cannot be determined through 4 summary judgment. 5 Accordingly, the Court also DENIES the Motion on the basis of disputed intent. 6
7 C. Use of Account Funds for Joint Marital Expenses
8 Plaintiff asserts that the Account funds were used "throughout our marriage for our joint 9 assets, debts, and expenses." PL Deel., ,r 11 (Sept. 25, 2024). She also claims in her opposition 10 to the Motion that these expenses included paying the parties' 2022 joint tax return. Defendant 11 contends that Plaintiff withdrew those funds from the Account over his objections. 12
13 This factual dispute is material because the Guam Supreme Court has established a
14 general presumption that "separate property used for community purposes during the marriage 15 [is] a gift to the community." Sablan v. Sablan, 2017 Guam 3 ,r 50. If Plaintiffused funds from 16 the Account with Defendant's authorization, it supports her argument that the funds were 17 intended to benefit both parties and challenges Defendant's assertion that the funds were 18
19 exclusively his separate property. The Court finds that resolving this dispute requires an
20 evidentiary hearing to determine the intent and authorization behind the use of the funds. 21 Therefore, this issue precludes summary judgment, and the Court DENIES the Motion on this 22 basis. 23
24 CONCLUSION
25 In summary, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
26 The Court finds unresolved factual disputes regarding the transmutation of the Account funds 27 into community property, the intent behind the joint titling of the Account, and the use of 28
Page 6 of7 Decision and Order re: Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Domestic Case No. DM0436-22
Account funds for joint marital expenses. These issues require further factual analysis and an
2 evidentiary hearing, precluding summary judgment at this stage.
4 IT IS SO ORDERED MAR D6 2025 ·5
8 HONORABli,E-ARTHlT({R. BARCINAS Judge, Superior ·court olGuam 9 ·:s-- /~---- - ;· --:- _· '?-.....__...__ -- ,.,. ,/ ,...-:., -- r_. - ,,·r.·- .•.,., .- :: /~ ,> ;- ·:: 11
Page 7 of7