Williams-Rohr v. Rohr

CourtSuperior Court of Guam
DecidedDecember 23, 2019
DocketCS0175-18
StatusUnknown

This text of Williams-Rohr v. Rohr (Williams-Rohr v. Rohr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Guam primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Williams-Rohr v. Rohr, (superctguam 2019).

Opinion

2 CLE!~7tor cot:nrr 3

4 By: ___ ~~~·-- 5

6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7

8 LEONE R. WILLIAMS-ROHR,

9 Plaintiff, Child Support Case No. CS0175-18

10 vs. DECISION AND ORDER 11 TIMOTHY J. ROHR, 12 Defendant. 13

15 INTRODUCTION

16 This matter is before the Honorable Michael J. Bordallo. Plaintiff Leone R. Williams-

17 Rohr ("Plaintiff') is represented by Attorney Joaquin Cook. Defendant Timothy J. Rohr

18 ("Defendant") is represented by Daniel Somerfleck. The Office of the Attorney General, Child 19 Support Enforcement Division ("AG") is represented by Assistant Attorney General Raymond 20 lllagan. The child support amount in this matter was determined by the Administrative Hearing 21 Officer B. Ann Keith ("AHO") in a Recommended Findings and Order ("Findings"), filed on 22 July 25, 2018. Having considered the evidence, arguments, and the applicable law, the Court 23 hereby CONFIRMS the Findings. 24 BACKGROUND 25 Plaintiff and Defendant were married on May 11, 1986. They separated in June of 2017. 26

Page 1 of 8 1 There are eleven (11) children from this marriage, two (2) of which are still minors. On

2 September 20,2017, Defendant filed for divorce. 3 On August 31, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Uniform Support Petition to request an 4 establishment order for child support for the two (2) minor children. The Defendant was named 5 as the respondent in the petition. On November 28, 2018, a temporary child support amount of 6 $300.00 per month was ordered by the Child Support Tribunal and was to commence 7 retroactively to October 1, 2018. On December 10, 2018, a child support hearing was held by 8 the AHO in which she ordered that the temporary child support amount be changed to $650.00 9 per month to commence retroactively to December 1, 2018. On April 1, 2019, the AHO 10 modified the amount to $594.41 per month to commence retroactively to March 1, 2019. 11

12 However, after taking into account changes in the Defendant's income and medical insurance

13 expenses for the two (2) minor children, the amount of $594.41 per month was adjusted to

14 $559.03 by the AHO and was to commence retroactively to April1, 2019. The AHO modified

15 the temporary child support amounts several times due to the several different child support 16 worksheets filed by the parties containing different values from the previous filed worksheet as 17 well as adjustments made by the AHO due to evidence introduced at subsequent hearings. 18 At the conclusion of the April 26, 2019, meeting, both parties agreed to certain child 19 support amounts for each month of child support that would be used to calculate Defendant's 20 arrears. 1 The parties were able to agree to child support amounts for arrear purposes for all 21 relevant months, except for August and September of 2018. 22

23 1 24 October and November 2018: $300.00 total per month December 2018: $650.00 total per month 25 January and February 2019: $650.00 total per month March 2019: $594.41 total per month 26 April, May, June, and July 2019: $559.03 total per month

Page 2 of 8 1 Due to their inability to agree on the child support amounts for August and September of

2 2018, the parties agreed at the April 26, 2019, hearing to defer the decision to the AHO. On

3 July 18, 2018, after reviewing all the current, relevant evidence and arguments, the AHO issued 4 the Findings. The Findings concluded that the proper child support amount for August and 5 September of2018 amount is $433.00 for each month and that this amount will be used to 6 calculate any arrears owed by the Defendant for those months. Furthermore, the Findings 7 ordered a Statement of Arrears to be prepared by the AG asserting $433.00 owed for August 8 and September of 2018, and asserting the amounts agreed upon by the parties for the subsequent 9 months. 10 On July 25, 2019, the AG filed an objection to the Findings. This objection was later 11

12 joined by the Plaintiff on October 10, 2019. Both the AG and the Plaintiff argue that the proper

13 child support amount should be set at $559.03 from August 2018 to the present time. Defendant

14 filed a response to the AG's objection on the same day the Plaintiff joined the AG's objection.

15 Defendant argues that there is no basis for the Court to deny the amounts stated in the Findings. 16 FACTS 17 1. On June 1, 2017, the Defendant left Guam with the two (2) minor children to the U.S. 18 Virgin Islands. 19 2. The two (2) minor children have never returned to Guam and have been in Defendant's 20 custody since their departure. 21 3. The Defendant filed for divorce on September 20, 2017. 22 4. In August and September of 2018, the Defendant made direct payments of $433.00 to 23

24 the Plaintiff to support any needs of the two (2) minor children.

25 5. A petition for child support was filed by the Plaintiff on August 31,2018.

26 Page 3 of 8 1 6. Based on the filing date of the child support petition, the earliest that child support can

2 commence in the above captioned case is August of 2018. 3 7. The parties were able to agree on child support amounts for all relevant months except 4 for August and September of 2018. 5 8. On July 19, 2019, the ABO issued Findings stating the amount of child support for 6 August and September of 2018 will be $433.00. 7 9. The Findings also stated that child support arrears owed by the Defendant after 8 November of 2018 will be based on the amounts agreed upon by parties at the 9 conclusion of the April 26, 2019, child support hearing. 10

11 10. The AG objected to the Findings on July 25, 2019.

12 11. The Plaintiff joined the AG's objection on October 10, 2019.

13 12. The AG and the Plaintiff argue that the child support amount for August and September

14 of 2018 should be set at $559.03 due to the actual income of the parties.

15 13. On October 10, 2019, the Defendant filed a response wherein it argued that the child 16 support for August and September of 2018 should remain at $433.00 and there is no 17 reasonable basis to modify the amount to $599.03 due to the fact that the Defendant's 18 income has substantially dropped after November of 2018. 19 ISSUES 20 1. Whether the Court should modify the August and September 2018 child support amount 21 set forth by the Findings. 22 2. Whether the parties April 26, 2019, agreement in regards to arrears owed to the 23

24 Defendant will be upheld.

Page 4 of 8 1 .PRINCIPLES OF LAW

2 11 In 2008, the Supreme Court of Guam adopted a "pragmatic approach, requiring the trial 3 11 court to "make a good faith effort to supervise the referee and correct any obvious errors. Lamb 4 v. Hoffman, 2008 Guam 2 <][ 41. 5 In determining an award of child support, after determining for the record a presumed 6 correct amount of child support, the trial court is required to determine whether to reject the 7 presumed amount as unjust or inappropriate after a consideration of all relevant factors. 8 Basham v. Williams, 239 S.W.3d 717 (Mo. App. S. Dist. 2007). 9 The party seeking the modification of child support has the burden to produce sufficient 10

11 proof that a material change of circumstances has occurred that warrants a modification and that

12 the best interests of the child are served thereby. State on behalf of B.M. v. Brian F., 846

13 N.W.2d 257 (Neb. 2014). Award of child support may be modified only upon proof of a

14 material change of circumstances that is substantial and continuing, and parent seeking the

15 modification bears the burden of proof. Lackey v. Lackey, 217 So. 3d 943 (Ala. Civ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Marriage of Basham v. Williams
239 S.W.3d 717 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2007)
Shannon v. Gaar
13 N.W.2d 257 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1944)
Lackey v. Lackey
217 So. 3d 943 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Williams-Rohr v. Rohr, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-rohr-v-rohr-superctguam-2019.