IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM ) A~jZ ~rB 8 ~ !!i. fL. -' n~ 3: 50 2 ) JESSE FRANKLIN TOVES, DOMESTIC CASE NO. DM0669-09 ) 3 ) CLERK OF COURT Plaintiff, ) it'· 4 ) t_-, I ~.~_. _____ _
FINDINGS OF FACT ANJ)-- vs. ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 5 ) AND INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT ) OF DIVORCE 6 ERLINDA CRUZ TOVES, ) ) 7 Defendant. ) ) 8 ) ) 9 ) 10 This matter came before the HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ on December 7, 2011 11 at an evidentiary hearing. Defendant appeared pro se. Attorney Ron Moroni represente 12 Plaintiff. After having heard the Parties' arguments, considering the Parties' pleadings and th l3 record, the Court now issues the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 14 FINDINGS OF FACT 15 1. Any fmding of fact is also a conclusion of law. Any conclusion of law is also a 16 finding of fact. 17 2. This matter arises out of a dissolved marriage between Plaintiff Jesse Franklin 18 T oves (hereinafter "Plaintiff") and Defendant Erlinda Cruz Toves (hereinafter "Defendant"). 19 Parties attempted to enter into a Marital Settlement Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement"), yet 20 were unable to come to a fmal settlement. Parties have expressed an interest to incorporate the 21 Agreement in the Interlocutory and Final Decree of Divorce but have asked to the Court to 22 resolve any remaining issues l . 23 3. There is also a Child Support Order in place put forth by the Honorable Linda 24 Ingles. This Court will not disturb that order. 25 4. The desired Agreement will be respected by this Court except for the following. 26 Plaintiff agrees to pay his share of any credit card debt and the dental and medical insurance 27 1 The Court will attach the Marital Settlement Agreement provided by the parties and apply the provisions therein 28 not inconsistent with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Jesse Toves v. Erlinda Toves, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Domestic Case No. DM0669-09 -PagelofS- 1 payments from November 2009 to February 2011. The total amount of half payments for these 2 debts and payments are as follows. Plaintiff should pay $1,140.62 for previous insurance costs 3 paid for by Defendant including both dental and medical insurance between November 2009 4 and February 2011. There are also three credit cards agreed to be community debt. Plaintiff 5 owes half of the remaining balance of the Pentagon Federal Credit Union Credit Card which 6 was opened and closed during the dates of the marriage and that amount is $4,916.50. See 7 Exhibit A of Defendant's Civil Exhibit List. On that same PFCU Card, Plaintiff also owes half 8 of the payments made on the card between July 2009 and September 2011 and that amount is 9 $3,078.50. The total amount Plaintiff owes to the community for the PFCU Card is $7,995.00. 10 Plaintiff owes half of the remaining balance of the USAA Credit Card which was opened 11 during the dates of the marriage and that amount is $4,718.50. See Exhibit B of Defendant's 12 Civil Exhibit List. Plaintiff also owes half of the payments made from July 2009 to March 2010 13 and that amount is- $825.00. The total amount of community debt owed by Plaintiff on the 14 USAA Card is $5,543.50. 15 Plaintiff owes half of the remaining balance of the American Express Credit Card which 16 was registered under Plaintiff's name and that amount is $3,389.00. See Exhibit D of the 17 Defendant's Civil Exhibit List. Plaintiff also owes half the payments made on the American 18 Express card between July 2009 and August 2010 and that amount is $1,160.00. The total 19 amount of community debt owed by Plaintiff on the American Express Card is $4,549.00. 20 Plaintiff owes to the community the debts incurred during marriage and those debts were 21 mentioned in the Agreement, yet, a definite number was never assigned to clarify Plaintiff's 22 amount owed. This Court will find that Plaintiff owes $1,140.62 for medical insurance 23 payments, $7,995.00 for the PFCU Card, $5,543.50 for the USAA Card and $4,549.00 for the 24 American Express Card. All community debts have been shown by a preponderance of 25 evidence to be true in Defendant's Civil Exhibit List. In addition, Plaintiff has agreed to pay 26 these amounts by his own words at the Evidentiary Hearing for this matter on December 12, 27 2011 so that this divorce can be fmished. The total amount owed by Plaintiff to the Defendant 28 as his share of the community debts and insurance payments is $19,228.12. Plaintiff agreed to
Jesse Toves v. Erlinda Toves, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Domestic Case No. DM0669-09 - Page 2 of5- pay what the Court finds as owed at the hearing in order to expedite this process. Plaintiff did 2 not agree, however, to pay in one lump sum and will make reasonable payments over time on a 3 monthly basis in addition to the Child Support Payments which was $400.00 per month as 4 ordered in the Findings and Order Re: Child Support filed July 12, 2011 by the Honorable Linda 5 Ingles. The Court orders Plaintiff to pay at least $600.00 a month for the above debts and 6 insurance payments until paid in full unless the Parties can stipulate otherwise. Plaintiff can pay 7 more than that amount but not less in order to make complete payment faster. Interest shall 8 accrue at 6% per annum. This amount shall be incorporated into the Interlocutory and Final 9 Divorce Decree. These Orders will only be added to the Agreement at Section 9, Subsection b 10 as the defmed amount discussed by that subsection. 11 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 12 5. Plaintiff and Defendant have been residents of Guam for more than ninety (90 13 days in satisfaction of 19 GCA § 8318(a). This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 7 GCA § 3105 14 and § 4101. 15 6. The standard and law governing divorce is discussed in this section below 16 Separate property means property acquired by either spouse before marriage or after entry of 17 decree of dissolution of marriage. 19 GCA § 6101. Property is classified as separate 0 18 community based upon when it is acquired. Id; In re Marriage of Moore, 28 Cal.3d 366,37 19 (Sup.Ct.Ca1.1980); Fisher v. Fisher, 383 P.2d 840, 842-43 (Id.Sup.Ct.1963); Hollingsworth v. 20 Hicks, 258 P.2d 724, 729-30 (N.M.Sup.Ct.1953); Lawson v. Ridgeway, 233 P.2d 459, 46 21 (Ariz.Sup.Ct.1951); Smith v. Smith, 685 So.2d 649, 651-52 (La.Ct.App.lst Cir.1996); In r 22 Marriage of Harrington, 935 P.2d 1357, 1365 (Wash.App.Div.1 1997); and Scott v. Estate a 23 Scott, 973 S. W.2d 694, 695-96 (Tex.App.EI Paso 1998). Pursuant to the Guam Supreme Court' 24 ruling in Rinehart v. Rinehart, enhancement to separate property or debt will allow th 25 community to seek reimbursement for community funds contributed during the marriage toward 26 that asset. Rinehart v. Rinehart, 2000 Guam 14, ~~19-21 (Sup.Ct.Guam 2000). The Suprem 27 Court of Guam has extended the Rinehart ruling to apply to both assets and debt in Navarro v. 28 Navarro, again holding that "absent proof of the enhancement of a spouse's separate property
Jesse Taves v. Erlinda Taves, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Domestic Case No. DM0669-09 - Page 3 of5- 1 there should be no reimbursement to the community." Navarro v. Navarro, 2000 Guam 31, ~1 2 (Sup.Ct.Guam 2000). The formula used by the Supreme Court of California grants the non 3 owning spouse a pro tanto community share in the equity or capital appreciation of the home 4 enhanced by community payments made to the principal owed on the mortgage, based on th 5 real property's appraised value. In re Marriage of Moore, 28 Cal.3d 366, 370-71, 373-7 6 (Sup.Ct.Cal.1980).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM ) A~jZ ~rB 8 ~ !!i. fL. -' n~ 3: 50 2 ) JESSE FRANKLIN TOVES, DOMESTIC CASE NO. DM0669-09 ) 3 ) CLERK OF COURT Plaintiff, ) it'· 4 ) t_-, I ~.~_. _____ _
FINDINGS OF FACT ANJ)-- vs. ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 5 ) AND INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT ) OF DIVORCE 6 ERLINDA CRUZ TOVES, ) ) 7 Defendant. ) ) 8 ) ) 9 ) 10 This matter came before the HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ on December 7, 2011 11 at an evidentiary hearing. Defendant appeared pro se. Attorney Ron Moroni represente 12 Plaintiff. After having heard the Parties' arguments, considering the Parties' pleadings and th l3 record, the Court now issues the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 14 FINDINGS OF FACT 15 1. Any fmding of fact is also a conclusion of law. Any conclusion of law is also a 16 finding of fact. 17 2. This matter arises out of a dissolved marriage between Plaintiff Jesse Franklin 18 T oves (hereinafter "Plaintiff") and Defendant Erlinda Cruz Toves (hereinafter "Defendant"). 19 Parties attempted to enter into a Marital Settlement Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement"), yet 20 were unable to come to a fmal settlement. Parties have expressed an interest to incorporate the 21 Agreement in the Interlocutory and Final Decree of Divorce but have asked to the Court to 22 resolve any remaining issues l . 23 3. There is also a Child Support Order in place put forth by the Honorable Linda 24 Ingles. This Court will not disturb that order. 25 4. The desired Agreement will be respected by this Court except for the following. 26 Plaintiff agrees to pay his share of any credit card debt and the dental and medical insurance 27 1 The Court will attach the Marital Settlement Agreement provided by the parties and apply the provisions therein 28 not inconsistent with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Jesse Toves v. Erlinda Toves, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Domestic Case No. DM0669-09 -PagelofS- 1 payments from November 2009 to February 2011. The total amount of half payments for these 2 debts and payments are as follows. Plaintiff should pay $1,140.62 for previous insurance costs 3 paid for by Defendant including both dental and medical insurance between November 2009 4 and February 2011. There are also three credit cards agreed to be community debt. Plaintiff 5 owes half of the remaining balance of the Pentagon Federal Credit Union Credit Card which 6 was opened and closed during the dates of the marriage and that amount is $4,916.50. See 7 Exhibit A of Defendant's Civil Exhibit List. On that same PFCU Card, Plaintiff also owes half 8 of the payments made on the card between July 2009 and September 2011 and that amount is 9 $3,078.50. The total amount Plaintiff owes to the community for the PFCU Card is $7,995.00. 10 Plaintiff owes half of the remaining balance of the USAA Credit Card which was opened 11 during the dates of the marriage and that amount is $4,718.50. See Exhibit B of Defendant's 12 Civil Exhibit List. Plaintiff also owes half of the payments made from July 2009 to March 2010 13 and that amount is- $825.00. The total amount of community debt owed by Plaintiff on the 14 USAA Card is $5,543.50. 15 Plaintiff owes half of the remaining balance of the American Express Credit Card which 16 was registered under Plaintiff's name and that amount is $3,389.00. See Exhibit D of the 17 Defendant's Civil Exhibit List. Plaintiff also owes half the payments made on the American 18 Express card between July 2009 and August 2010 and that amount is $1,160.00. The total 19 amount of community debt owed by Plaintiff on the American Express Card is $4,549.00. 20 Plaintiff owes to the community the debts incurred during marriage and those debts were 21 mentioned in the Agreement, yet, a definite number was never assigned to clarify Plaintiff's 22 amount owed. This Court will find that Plaintiff owes $1,140.62 for medical insurance 23 payments, $7,995.00 for the PFCU Card, $5,543.50 for the USAA Card and $4,549.00 for the 24 American Express Card. All community debts have been shown by a preponderance of 25 evidence to be true in Defendant's Civil Exhibit List. In addition, Plaintiff has agreed to pay 26 these amounts by his own words at the Evidentiary Hearing for this matter on December 12, 27 2011 so that this divorce can be fmished. The total amount owed by Plaintiff to the Defendant 28 as his share of the community debts and insurance payments is $19,228.12. Plaintiff agreed to
Jesse Toves v. Erlinda Toves, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Domestic Case No. DM0669-09 - Page 2 of5- pay what the Court finds as owed at the hearing in order to expedite this process. Plaintiff did 2 not agree, however, to pay in one lump sum and will make reasonable payments over time on a 3 monthly basis in addition to the Child Support Payments which was $400.00 per month as 4 ordered in the Findings and Order Re: Child Support filed July 12, 2011 by the Honorable Linda 5 Ingles. The Court orders Plaintiff to pay at least $600.00 a month for the above debts and 6 insurance payments until paid in full unless the Parties can stipulate otherwise. Plaintiff can pay 7 more than that amount but not less in order to make complete payment faster. Interest shall 8 accrue at 6% per annum. This amount shall be incorporated into the Interlocutory and Final 9 Divorce Decree. These Orders will only be added to the Agreement at Section 9, Subsection b 10 as the defmed amount discussed by that subsection. 11 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 12 5. Plaintiff and Defendant have been residents of Guam for more than ninety (90 13 days in satisfaction of 19 GCA § 8318(a). This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 7 GCA § 3105 14 and § 4101. 15 6. The standard and law governing divorce is discussed in this section below 16 Separate property means property acquired by either spouse before marriage or after entry of 17 decree of dissolution of marriage. 19 GCA § 6101. Property is classified as separate 0 18 community based upon when it is acquired. Id; In re Marriage of Moore, 28 Cal.3d 366,37 19 (Sup.Ct.Ca1.1980); Fisher v. Fisher, 383 P.2d 840, 842-43 (Id.Sup.Ct.1963); Hollingsworth v. 20 Hicks, 258 P.2d 724, 729-30 (N.M.Sup.Ct.1953); Lawson v. Ridgeway, 233 P.2d 459, 46 21 (Ariz.Sup.Ct.1951); Smith v. Smith, 685 So.2d 649, 651-52 (La.Ct.App.lst Cir.1996); In r 22 Marriage of Harrington, 935 P.2d 1357, 1365 (Wash.App.Div.1 1997); and Scott v. Estate a 23 Scott, 973 S. W.2d 694, 695-96 (Tex.App.EI Paso 1998). Pursuant to the Guam Supreme Court' 24 ruling in Rinehart v. Rinehart, enhancement to separate property or debt will allow th 25 community to seek reimbursement for community funds contributed during the marriage toward 26 that asset. Rinehart v. Rinehart, 2000 Guam 14, ~~19-21 (Sup.Ct.Guam 2000). The Suprem 27 Court of Guam has extended the Rinehart ruling to apply to both assets and debt in Navarro v. 28 Navarro, again holding that "absent proof of the enhancement of a spouse's separate property
Jesse Taves v. Erlinda Taves, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Domestic Case No. DM0669-09 - Page 3 of5- 1 there should be no reimbursement to the community." Navarro v. Navarro, 2000 Guam 31, ~1 2 (Sup.Ct.Guam 2000). The formula used by the Supreme Court of California grants the non 3 owning spouse a pro tanto community share in the equity or capital appreciation of the home 4 enhanced by community payments made to the principal owed on the mortgage, based on th 5 real property's appraised value. In re Marriage of Moore, 28 Cal.3d 366, 370-71, 373-7 6 (Sup.Ct.Cal.1980). 7 The formula used to compute the community pro tanto share in the Moore case is calle 8 the Lucas/Aufmuth formula and requires the court to first determine the separate prope 9 percentage interest by crediting the separate property with the down payment and full amount 0 10 the loan or the original value of the contributed separate property, minus the amount by whic 11 the community payments reduced the principal balance of the loan. 12 community property is different than community debt. Compare 19 GCA § 6101 with 19 GCA 13 6102. Loans acquired during a marriage constitute community debt. 19 GCA § 6102 states 14 "(b) Community debt means a debt contracted or incurred by either or both spouses which is no 15 separate debt." The Supreme Court of Guam has determined that it is not the burden of the tria 16 court to find or show valuation, that burden lies with the parties. Navarro v. Navarro, 200 17 Guam 31, ~9 (Sup.Ct.Guam 2000). As aptly stated by the Supreme Court of Guam, "[on 18 party]" bore the burden of establishing the value of community property at trial, where he faile 19 to provide or contest valuation, the trial court was well within its discretion to accept the value 20 provided by [the opposing party]." Id. at ~11. As stated by the Moore court, this method 0 21 using capital appreciation and equity best credits the amount given from separate property for th 22 original contribution, and best credits the role the original separate asset played in creating th 23 equity in the home/real property. In re Marriage of Moore, 28 Ca1.3d 366, 37 24 (Sup.Ct.Cal.1980). 25 7. Under 19 GCA §8411(b) and Sin/ao v. Sin/ao, 2005 Guam 24, ~23 (Sup.Ct.Gu 26 2005), the Court is required to strive to divide the community property equally between th 27 parties whenever possible. In this case, the Court was presented with evidence of the existenc 28 of community property and community debt. The Court retains the obligation to attempt t
Jesse Taves v. Erlinda Taves, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Domestic Case No. DM0669-09 -Page4of5- equally divide that property. The Parties have stipulated that the Agreement controls the asset 2 of the marriage except for the items mentioned above in Section 4. The Parties have presente 3 enough evidence that the Court finds the agreement to sufficiently dispose of the remainin 4 assets and debts of the community. The Court is confident that all marital assets and debts hav 5 been disposed of and divided fairly in the Agreement and in accordance with the Orders put fo 6 by this Court in Section 4 of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
7 8. On evidence presented to the satisfaction of this Court, Plaintiff's Complaint 8 Divorce should be granted to Plaintiff on the basis of irreconcilable differences. It is ORDERE 9 and DECREED as an Interlocutory Judgment that Plaintiff is entitled to Divorce from Defendan 10 on the above stated grounds, with the Order provided herein and the Martial Settlemen 11 Agreement integrated and incorporated by reference herein. Within six(6) months of thi 12 Interlocutory Judgment, the Parties or the Court may move the Court to enter a Final Judgmen 13 granting divorce and restoring the Parties to the status of single persons, and permitting eithe
14 Party to marry after the entry thereof.
15 9. This is not a fmal judgment of divorce, the Parties are still husband and wife
16 neither can remarry in Guam or anywhere els:.'lB-.!il a Final Judgment of Divorce is entered.
17 So ORDERED this _19'_d ay ofFebI11¥Y, 2012.
IJ/~_ 18
19 ~ ----~~~--------------------- HON RABLE VERNON P. PEREZ -- 20 JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 21 22 23
26 27 28
Jesse Taves v. Erlinda Taves, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Domestic Case No. DM0669-09 - Page 5 of5-