Guerrero v Moylan [2000] GUSC 28; 2000 Guam 28 (19 September 2000)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

DORIS LEON GUERRERO
Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.

DOUGLAS B. MOYLAN
Defendant-Appellant

OPINION

Filed: September 19, 2000

Cite as: 2000 Guam 28

Supreme Court Case No. CVA99-034
Superior Court Case No. DM0457-97

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on March 11, 2000
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for the Plaintiff-Appellee: Sandra D. Lynch, Esq. Carbullido, Bordallo & Brooks 259 Martyr St., Suite 101 Hagåtña, Guam 96910

Appearing for the Defendant-Appellant: Curtis C. Van de veld, Esq. The Van de veld Law Offices, P.C. Union Bank Bldg., Suite 213 194 Hernan Cortes Ave. Hagåtña, Guam 96910

BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, Chief Justice (Acting)[1], JOHN A. MANGLONA, Designated Justice, and RICHARD L. JOHNSON, Justice Pro Tempore.

SIGUENZA, C. J.:

INTRODUCTION

[1] This case presents two issues of community property. The first concerns disposition; the second, reimbursement. For the reasons below, we hold that the trial court erred when it determined that the Appellant-husband was obligated to pay to the Appellee-wife the full amount of her contribution even where the proceeds from the sale of the community property asset were insufficient to fully reimburse her separate contribution. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's decision and remand the matter for further proceedings with instructions to determine the fair market value of the residence and order its sale pursuant to the Final Decree of Divorce.

BACKGROUND

[2] On July 7, 1990, Doris Leon Guerrero (hereinafter AAppellee@) and Douglas Moylan (hereinafter AAppellant@) were married. On November 16, 1993, the couple purchased their family residence, located in Dededo, Guam. The purchase was accomplished by a contribution of $69,663.82 from Appellee towards the down payment. The parties agree that this was her separate property. Financing for the remainder of the purchase price was obtained through a loan from Citizens Security Bank in the amount of $278,655.18 which was evidenced by a promissory note. The obligations of the Appellant and Appellee under the note were secured by mortgage on the residence.

[3] On May 30, 1997, the Appellee filed a verified complaint for divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty and grievous mental suffering. On June 13, 1997, the parties reached a settlement on certain issues and were granted an Interlocutory Judgment of Divorce. The Interlocutory Judgment of Divorce was executed and approved by the court below on October 3, 1997. The decree purports to memorialize, inter alia, the property settlement agreement of the parties reached on June 13, 1997. Of relevance to this dispute, the decree provided:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED