I ' F . i ? 1L%~7il§ a.. Lf __ ¥§§f;'2*. GCJLQQ1 F @U.£
2:§ t: Ll! .\ l :\ '?'° tT»**El2*:fé ? CG~év~ 1 a Ft ..
cfi~- ·.~•f~~- .i;.__....,,.._ IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM
EULALIA W. w. VALDEZ VALDEZ nka na EULALIA W. w. Domestic Case Domestic Case No. DM0044-13 CORNIELLE, Plaintiff,
vs. vs. DECISION DENYING DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TERMINATE CHILD MOTION PETERNILO L. VALDEZ, VALDEZ, SUPPORT ORDER
Defendant.
This matter came This matter came before before the Honorable Dana A. A. Gutierrez on March 6, 2025 for a motion
hearing on Motion to Terminate Motion to Terminate Child ChildSupport Support Order Order and Memorandum of and Memorandum of Points and Authorities Authorities
("Motion"),filed ("Motion"), byDefendant filedby PeterniloL.L.Valdez DefendantPetemilo Valdez("Defendant"). ("Defendant").Present Presentatat the the hearing via via Zoom Zoom
were Defendant Defendantwith withcounsel counselAttorney AttorneyGeorge GeorgeValdes; Valdes,Plaintiff PlaintiffEulalia EulaliaW.W.Cornielle Comielle("Plaintiff') ("Plaintiff")
with counsel counsel Attorney Daron Daron Berman, Berman; and and Assistant Attorney General General Fred Fred Nishihira Nishihira appearing appearing
on on behalf of ofthe the Government Government of of Guam Guam in in person. person. Upon review of ofthe the filings filings ininthis this matter matter and and
applicable Guam Guam law, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion. Motion.
BACKGROUND
The parties were previously previously married married and sharethree and share threesons, sons,Liam LiamTristen TwisterWhite WhiteValdez, Valdez, Ezra
Byron White Byron White Valdez, Valdez,and andJose Jose White WhiteValdez. Mot.atat1.1.A11 Valdez.Mot. All three three sons sons have since reached the age
ofmajority, of majority, with withLiam Liambeing being29, 29,Ezra Ezra27, 27,and and Jose Jose the the youngest at 18 18 years years old. old.
April 4, On April 4, 2013, 2013, the the Honorable Honorable Judge Judge Michael J. Bordello Michael J. Bordallo signed signed an an Interlocutory Interlocutory
Judgment of Divorce which incorporated Divorce which incorporated the the parties' parties' Divorce Divorce and and Property Property Settlement Settlement Agreement Agreement DECISION AND DECISION AND ORDER ORDER DENYING DENYING MOTION MOTION TO TO TERMINATE TERMINATE CHILD CHILD SUPPORT DM0044-13; Eulalie DM0044-13,' Eulalia W W. Valdez vs. Peternilo Valdez vs. Peternilo L. Valdez
Agreement"), ("Settlement Ag and aa Final reement"), and Final Decree Decree of ofDivorce Divorcethat that incorporated incorporated the the Interlocutory Interlocutory
Judgment of Divorce, Divorce, and thereby, thereby, the theSettlement SettlementAgreement. SeeFinal Agreement.See FinalDecree Decreeof ofDivorce Divorce (April (April
4, 2013). In relevant In relevant part, part, the Settlement Agreement states: Agreement states:
The parties The parties agree that that the the Defendant Defendant shall provide to shall provide to the the Plaintiff Plaintiff Five Hundred Hundred Dollars ($500.00) Dollars ($500.00) per month month pe per cchild in cchild hild in hild ssupport upport forfor the the ssupport upport andand maintenance of maintenance of the parties[sic] the parties [sic]minor minorchild childJose JoseValdez Valdezuntil untilheheturns Tums 2222 .... .... Additionally, Additionally, the Defendant shall the Defendant shall be responsible for be responsible the parties for the [sic] minor parties [sic] minor school tuition and costs children's school costs until until they they reach reach the the age age of of 22 22 or graduate graduate from from college with college with aa bachelors' degree, degree, whichever whichever occurs occurs first. first.
Settlement Agreement Agreement (Mar. 26, 2013).
On August On August 19, 19, 2024, 2024, Defendant left Guam as as part of his employment employment with with the the federal federal
government and now government and now resides resides in in Davis, Davis, California. California. Declaration Declarationof ofPeternilo Petemilo L. L. Valdez Valdez ("Deel. ("Deal.
Peternilo") ,i 11 Petemi1o")1[ 11 (Nov. 15, 2024). (Nov. 15, 2024). As As aa result result of ofthe the relocation, relocation, Defendant Defendantstates states that that his salary salary has has
been been reduced by approximately approximately 17%, 17%, or oraa$19,000 $19,000 decrease decrease in in income. income. Id. ,i 12. Furthermore, Id. 1112. Furthermore, he he
states that states that California state taxes California state taxes are are higher higher than than Guam's, Guard's, further further reducing reducing his net income. income. Id.
Defendant also Defendant also states states that that he he "anticipated "anticipated that thatour oursons sonswould would attend attendcollege college on on Guam," Guam,"
and did and did not not expect expect to to pay pay off-island tuition costs. off-island tuition Id. ,i costs. Id. 1]6. The parties' 6. The son, Jose youngest son, parties' youngest Jose now now lives lives
in in Indiana Indiana and and attends Purdue University. attends Purdue University. Jose's Jose's current annual expenses current annual expenses at at Purdue Purdue University University as as
aa non-resident non-resident total totalapproximately approximately $48,184, $48,]84, which which is is higher higher than Defendant's anticipated than Defendant's anticipated $10,379 $10,379
annual cost annual cost of of attending attending the University ofGuam University of Guamasasan anin-state in-state resident. resident. Id. ,i Id. 1]8.
On On November November15, 15,2024, 2024,Defendant Defendantfiled filedthe theMotion Motionarguing arguingthat thataasubstantial substantial and and material
change in circumstances change circumstances justifies justifies termination termination of of his his monthly monthly $500 $500 child support support obligation for for
Jose. Defendant Jose. Defendant argues argues that that the the arrangement arrangementin in the the Settlement SettlementAgreement Agreement was was based based on the the
understanding that understanding that the thechildren childrenwould would remain remain in in the the custody andcare custody and careof ofthe thePlaintiff Plaintiff Mot. at 4. Mot. at 4.
22 DECISION AND ORDER ORDER DENYING DENYING MOTION MOTION TO TERMINATE CHILD TERMINATE C HI SUPPORT DM0044-13; Eulalie DM0044-13; Eulalia W W Valdez Valdez vs. vs. Peternilo L. Valdez Peterni/o L. Valdez
Since Jose is no longer living living with with Plaintiff Plaintiffand and Defendant Defendant is now covering covering Jose's Jose's off-island off-island
expenses, he argues educational expenses, argues that thatcontinued continued support support payments paymentsto toPlaintiff longer serves Plaintiff no longer serves as
child support child support and and would instead "constitute an an increase increase in in discretionary discretionary spending spending to to [Plaintiff]," [Plaintiff],"
and amount amount to toaa"windfall." "windfalL" Id. Id.
On December 11, 11, 2024, 2024, the theOffice Office of of the the Attorney Attorney General General("OAG"), filed an ("OAG"), filed an Opposition Opposition
to the to the Motion to to Terminate Terminate Child Child Support ("Opposition"). 1 The OAG Support Order ("Opposition").1 A states that the states the
language in the Settlement language Settlement Agreement Agreement is is "clear and unambiguous" unambiguous" in in regard regard to Defendant's Defendant's
obligations. Opp. at 1. Additionally, the OAG Additionally, the OAGargues arguesthat that the the Court Court should "review the matter "review the matter as as
a Motion for Deviation Motion for Deviationrequiring requiring the the Defendant Defendant to to submit submit his Financial Financial Declaration Declaration of of income and
expenses." Id. at 2. expenses."
Plaintiffdid Plaintiff did not not file fileany anybriefing, briefing,but butstated statedatatthe themotion motionheading hearing that that she she "supports "supports the
Entry at Government's position." Min. Entry a.m. (Mar. 6, 2025). at 10:06 a.m.
On On December December 20, 2024, 2024, Defendant Defendantfiled filed his his Reply Reply to to Opposition Opposition to to Motion Motion to to Terminate
Child Support Order Child Support Order("Reply"). ("Reply").
The Court The Court held held aa motion motion hearing hearing on on March March6,6,2025 2025and andtook tookthe the matter matter under advisement.
DISCUSSION
ultimate goal The ultimate goal in in any any child childsupport support case is to case is to protect protect the the best best interests interests of the children. of the children.
Guerrero Moylan, 2002 Guam Guerrero v. Moylan, 18 at1]16. Guam18 "if 16. "Unless "Unless otherwise limited by statute, courts are vested
with with discretion discretionto to set set child childsupport supportininthe the amounts amounts necessary necessary to to effectuate effectuate that purpose." Id. Id.
Modification Modification of of child child support provisions isis governed support provisions governedby by Guam Guam law law at at 55 GCA GCA §34121, §34121,
11 On On August 10, 2023, the 10, 2023, theOAG OAG entered its appearance entered its thiscase 'mthis appearancein caseasas"attorney "attorneyofrecord of recordfor forGuam Guam... ... for the sole purpose purpose ofof providing providing child child support support enforcement services under Federal and Guam law." services under Federal and Guam law." Entry ofEntry of Appearance (Aug. 10, 2025). (Aug. I 2025). 3 DECISION AND AND ORDER ORDER DENYING DENYING MOTION MOTION TO TO TERMINATE CHILD SUPPORT TERMINATE CHILD DM0044-l Eulalie DM0044-13; Eulalia W Valdezvs. W. Valdez vs. Peternilo L. Valdez Valdez
which provides: which
The provisions The provisions of ofany any order order respecting respecting maintenance or support support may may be be modified modified only as to only as to installments installments accruing accniing subsequent to to the themotion motionfor formodification modification and and only only upon showing of aa substantial substantial and and material materialchange changeofofcircumstances . . .... The circumstances Superior of Guam Superior Court of Guam shall shall have have the the authority authority to to modify modify any any order, order, award, award, stipulation, or stipulation, or agreement as to agreement as to child child support (whether (whether or not not merged or integrated into a decree of of divorce upon a showing of divorce or separation) up of substantial or material change in circumstances.
5 GCA GCA §§34121 34121 (emphasis added). added).
The moving The moving party party bears bears die the burden burden to to establish establish aa substantial substantial and and material material change change of of
circumstances. Lenser circumstances. v. Lenser, Lanser v. 2003 Gua m 114 Lanser, 2003 (citations 4 (cita tion s omitted). is eerror omitted ). "I t is rro r to change the
amount of of support where there there is is no no evidence evidence submitted submitted to to show show a change in in circumstances." Id.
(citations omitted).
Additionally,"[w]hile Additionally, "[w]hilecontract contractprinciples principlesare appliedtotosettlement areapplied settlementagreements, agreements, courts courts are are
unanimous in unanimous in concluding concludingthat that parents parents cannot by agreement agreement limit limit or divest a court court of of its its discretion discretion
in setting in setting child child support." support." Moy 2002 Guam Moylan, 2002 Guam 18 18 atat 1] 'I) 24 (citations ( omitted). "An omitted). agreement "An agreement
purporting to purporting to limit limit the the court's court's ability ability to to achieve achieve that goal is that goal is void as against void as against public public policy." policy." Id. Id.
(citing Lusty (citing Lusby v. v. Lusby, 75 CaLRptr.2d Lusby, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 263, 263, 269, 269, 64 64 CaLApp.4th Cal.App.4th 459, 459, 471 471 (Ct.App.1998) (Ct.App.1998) ("the ("the
court in child court child support support proceedings, to the the extent extent permitted permitted by by the the child child support support statutes, statutes, must be
permitted to permitted to exercise exercise the the broadest broadest possible discretion discretion in order order to achieve achieve equity equity and and fairness fairness in in
these most sensitive and these and emotional emotional cases.") cases.")
I. The Settlement Agreement The Settlement Agreement Can Can Be Be Modified Modified
At the March At the March 6, 6, 2025 2025 hearing, hearing, the the OAG argued that the OAG argued the "parties "poNies should stick by by their their own own
agreement," and that agreement," that the the Settlement SettlementAgreement Agreement "cannot "cannot be modified unless both modified unless both parties parties agree agree to
it." Min. Entry it." Min. Entry at at 10:13 10: 13 a.m. (Mar. 6,6, 2025). am. (Mar. OAGalso TheOAG 2025). The alsoinsisted insistedthat that the the proper proper procedure procedure was
to hear the the matter as as aamotion motion for for deviation for this deviation for this case. case. Id. at at 10:18 10: 18 a.m.
4 4 DEcIé1on DECISION AND AND ORDER DENYING MOTION ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TERMINATE TERMINATE CHILD CHILD SUPPORT SUPPORT DM0044-13; Eulalie DM0044-13; W. Valdez Eulalia W Valdez vs. vs. Peternilo L. Valdez
The Court Court disagrees. Under 55 GCA §§34121, disagrees. Under 34121, the the Superior Superior Court Court of ofGuam Guam retains retains the the
authority to authority to modify "any order, modify "any order, award, award, stipulation, stipulation, or or agreement" support, even agreement" concerning child support, even
when "merged or integrated "merged or integrated into into aa decree decree of ofdivorce divorceororSeparation" separation"as as isis the the case case here. This This statute statute
modification independent expressly permits modification ofthe independent of the parties' parties' mutual mutual consent consent upon upon proof proofsubstantial substantial
and material material change change in in the the Defendant's circumstances. Defendant's circumstances.
Additionally, Guam law recognizes recognizes the importance of the importance of"fair "fairand and equitable support support orders" orders"
between between parents and yet parents and yet allows allows courts to to intervene intervene on on behalf behalf of of the the child's child's best best interest. interest.55GCA GCA §
34105(a). This 34l05(a). This includes, includes, but but is is not not limited limited to, the Court's to, the Court's discretion discretion "to "to move move to to modify modify existing existing
[child support] [child order up support] order up or or down down as asthe thecircumstances circumstancesand and equity equity demand demand ...." .... " 55 GCA GCA §§ 34105 34105
(a)(4). This (a)(4). language supports This language supports the the Court's ability to Court's ability to reevaluate reevaluate support support obligations obligations where where
warranted by changes warranted by changes in in income, income, expenses, special needs expenses, special of the needs of the child, child, or or other other relevant relevant factors. factors.
See Thurston See v. Pinkstaff, Thurston v, 292 Ark. Pinkstaj 292 Ark. 385, 385, 389, 389, 730 730 S.W.2d S.W.2d 239, 239, 241 241 (1987) (1987) ("In considering considering the the
amount to to be contributed for child child support, support, the court should consider the needs of the children, the
assets of each parent, assets of parent, their their respective respective ages, earning earning capacities, incomes :Md indebtedness, state and indebtedness, state of of
health, future prospects health, future prospects and andany any other other factors factorswhich which will will aid the court court in in reaching reaching aa just just and and
equitable equitable result.")(cited in Lenser, cited in Lanser, 2003 2003 Guam Guam 14 I n.3), n.3); See Moylan, 2002 See Moylan, 2002 Guam Guam 18 18 at at 1116 ("An 16 ("An ,r award of award of child child support support is is reviewed reviewed for for an an abuse discretion, keeping abuse of discretion, keeping in in mind mind the the best best interests interests of of
the children."). children?) .
Furthermore, althoughthe Furthermore, although theOAG OAG contends that aa motion contends that motion for deviation deviation is the the proper proper
mechanism here, here, the the OAG OAG does not explain why a deviation as opposed opposed to to a modification modification of of the
child support agreement would be appropriate in this this case. case. The child child support support ordered by the Court
did did not Child Support not arise from the Child SupportGuidelines, Guidelines,but buthrough throughan anagreement agreementbetween betweenthe the parties parties that that
was incorporated into was then incorporated into the theFinal FinalDecree Decree of of Divorce. When When there there is is an an existing agreement agreement for
55 DECISION AND ORDER ORDER DENYING DENYING MOTION MOTION TO TERMINATE TERMINATE CHILD CHILD SUPPORT DM0044-13; Eulalia W Valdez Eulalie W Valdez vs. vs. Peternilo L. Valdez
child child support GCA §34121 support obligations, 5 GCA § 34121governs governsmodification modificationstandards. standards. The Theparties parties are are seeking
the Court to to reconsider an existing child child support support obligation obligationbased based on on changes changes that that occurred occurred after after
the support order was entered. entered. Defendant requests requests· that that the the Court Court evaluate the request under under the die
standard of standard of a "substantial "substantial and and material material change in in circumstances." 33
In the absence In absence of of persuasive persuasive justification justification for for using a motion to deviate, deviate, the the Court Court shall shall
apply the of aa "substantial and material change in circumstances." the standard of See 55 GCA circumstances." See GCA §§ 34121. 34121.
11. II. Defendant endant Has NotNot Submi Submitted Sufficient tted Suf Evidence f i ci ent Evi Demonstrate a dence to Demonstrate Substantial and Material Change Change of of Circumstances
To demonstrate demonstrate a substantial substantial and and material material change change in in circumstances, circumstances, the the Court Court not only
considers income considers income but but also also the the party's party's overall overall financial financialsituation, situation,such suchasasassets, assets, debts, debts, and and gifts. gifts.
See Moylan, See 2002 Guam 18 Moylan, 2002 18 (citing Petrina v. Petrina, Petrini v. Md. 453 Petrini, 336 Md. 453 (Md.1994)) (Md.1994)) ("[T]here ("[T]here are are
several considerations several considerations the the trial trialjudge judge may may take take into into account accountin in deciding deciding whether whether to to include include aa gift gin
as income, as income, such such as as aa parent's parent'sactual'ability actual'ability to topay paythe child support thechild supportaward, award,any anylack lackof of liquidity or liquidity or
marketability of marketability of aa party's party's assets, assets, the fact that that the parent's parent's take-home is not take-home income is not an an accurate accurate
reflection of reflection of his or her his or her actual actualstandard standardofofliving living.... "); see ... ."), see also also In In re re Marriage Marriage of of Catalano, 204 Catalano, 204
Cal.App.3d 543, CaLApp.3d 543, 555-556 555-556 (1988) (1988)(trial (trialcourt courtabused abusedits itsdiscretion discretion in in setting setting child child support support that that
failed to failed to take take into into account account father's father's assets assets such such as real property as real property and and cars); cars); see see also also Petersen Petersen v. v.
Cal. App. Petersen, 24 Cad. 3d 201, 207 (Ct. App. App. ad App. 1972) 1972) (trial (trial court court abused abused its discretion by only
considering purchase of new home home and and increased increased salary) salary).
Here, Defendant Here, Defendant asserts asserts that that aa 17% 17% decrease decreasein in salary, salary, which which is approximately $19,000 $19,000
annually, constitutes a substantial substantial and and material material change in in circumstances. Deel. ~ 12. His Petemilo 1112. Deal. Peternilo His
income isis further income further reduced reduced because because he he states states that that California state taxes California state taxes are are higher higher than than Guam's. Guam's. Id. Id.
He also He also notes notes the the unanticipated unanticipated costs costs of ofJose's Jose's out-of-state out-of-state tuition tuitioncosts. costs. Id. ~ Id. 1]6.
6 DECISION AND AND ORDER ORDER DENYING DENYING MOTION MOTION TO TERMINATE TERMINATE CHILD CHILD SUPPORT DM0044-13; Eulalia W Valdez Eulalie W Valdez vs. vs. Peternilo L. Valdez
Whilethese While these representations representations may may reflect reflect aa significant significant and and material material change in in Defendant's
circumstances, he has financial circumstances, has not notsubmitted submittedsufficient sufficient evidence evidence to to support support aamodification modification in child
support. For support. does not For example, he does not provide provideiNformation informationabout about his his current current assets, assets, liabilities, liabilities, or
recurring u ning expenses, ns e s , which whic h would help the ld he the Co Court u rt e evaluate his ooverall v alu ate his financial v e rall financ ial c capacity. apac ity.
Additionally, there Additionally, there isis no no indication indicationofofwhether whetherhe hehas has access access to to savings, savings, investment income, or
other resources that thatmay may offset offset the impact of his reduced salary or of his or increased expenses.
Moreover, the Moreover, the only only evidence evidence that that the Defendant Defendant provided provided to to the the Court Court was was his his Declaration. Declaration.
Although declaration can ltho u gh a party's declaration helpful context, can offer helptixl context, courts courts generally generally require require some some
documentation to corroborating documentation to assess assess whether a change change is is both both substantial Ellis v. substantial and material. Ellis v.
Ellis, E 2009 WL l l i s , 2009 2999354 (Ct. WL 2999354 Ohio, 2009)1]34 App. Ohio, (Ct. App, ,r 2009) 34("[T]h6 ("[T]hetrial trialcourt courtininthis this case case did did not not abuse abuse
its discretion by its discretion by failing failing to to consider consider [[a party's] change a party's] in income change in during the income during the pendency ency of ofthe the motion
because [he] [he] did not present present documentation documentation to to substantiate substantiatehis his alleged alleged reduction reduction in in income at at
trial."); see triaL"), see In In re re Marriage of Bucklin, 70 Wash. App. 837, 841 Marriage of 841 (1993) (1993) (reversing trial trial court's court's
finding ofchanged finding of changed circumstances circumstances for for failure failure of ofparty party to to produce documentary evidence evidence and "other
sufficient verification" sufficient verification" of of his income."). The Court his income."). Court is is not not persuaded persuaded by Defendant's Defendant's mere mere
assertions in in his Declaration and requires a stronger showing Declaration and showing of evidence to illustrate of evidence illustrate a substantial substantial
and material change in circumstance. circumstance.
Finally, the Finally, the Defendant Defendant notes notes that that since since Jose Joseisisno nolonger longerliving livingwith with Plaintiff Plaintiff and Defendant
is now covering is now covering Jose's Jose's off-island off-islandeducational educational expenses, expenses, the continued support the continued support payments payments to toPlaintiff Plaintiff
longer serves no longer serves as as child childsupport support and and would wouldinstead instead"constitute "constitutea.n an increase increase in in discretionary discretionary
spending to spending to [Plaintiff]," and amount [Plaintiff]," and amountto toaa"windfall." "windfalL" Id. Id
However, the However, the Settlement Settlement Agreement Agreement requires requires the the Defendant Defendant to provide support beyond the provide support
ofmajority age of majority and and during during college. college. From Fromwhat whatthe theparties parties have have provided, provided, itit is is unclear unclear whether the
77 I i *
DECISION AND AND ORDER ORDER DENYING DENYING MOTION MOTION TO TERMINATE TERMINATE CHILD CHILD SUPPORT DM0044-l 3; Eulalia DM0044-13; W. Valdez Eulalie W Valdez vs. vs. Peternilo Valdez Pelernilo L. Valdez
current cu rrent payments paym ents are are used u sed for for the the benefit benefit of of Jose or are lose or are indeed 'indeed being being retained retained by by Plaintiff Plaintiff for other for other
purposes. purposes. Without information on Without further information on the the use use of ofthe the funds, funds, the Court Court cannot cannot conclude conclude that that the
support payments su paym constitute it u t e aa"windfall." " windfall. · as
Therefore, tthe Court ou is unable to determine whether thee claimed change iis ssufficient ffi to
justify modifying justify modifyingthe the current current child child support support obligations. obligations. Accordingly, Accordingly,based basedon onthe thepresent present record,
Court finds tthat Defendant the Cou has not Defendant has not mmet his bu et his burden rden tto o dem onst rat e aa su demonstrate substantial bst and material and at
change in circumstances. change circumstances.
CONCLUSION N LUS
For the foregoing For reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion foregoing reasons, Motion to Terminate
Child Su Chi Support.
SO ORDERED: S O JUN 062025 _JU_N_O~6_20_25__ _ -/ l/`- ~_ .':` ~5?>m_ ,_\~
H( ERREZ RR Ju sJi»f@'r;drc<\uu » i . / eaGun' -.41 Mr: - //r 1 *- : Fri: 6 _ ` "/:2~__ .n_, » _//, I _,
\