Sinlao v Sinlao [2005] GUSC 24; 2005 Guam 24 (23 December 2005)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

ROSALIND M. SINLAO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

KID D. SINLAO,
Defendant-Appellant

Supreme Court Case No. CVA04-033
Superior Court Case No. DM 0867-03

OPINION

Filed: December 23, 2005

Cite as: 2005 Guam 24

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on June 29, 2005
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee: Joaquin C. Arriola, Jr., Esq. Jacqueline Taitano Terlaje, Esq. Arriola Cowan & Arriola 259 Martyr St., Ste. 201 C& A Prof. Bldg. Hagåtña, GU 96910	Appearing for Defendant-Appellant: David J. Highsmith, Esq. The Law Office of David J. Highsmith, P.C. Ste. 209, Union Bank of Cal. Bldg. 194 Hernan Cortes Ave. Hagåtña, Guam 96910

BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Associate Justice; ROBERT J. TORRES, JR., Associate Justice.

TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, J.:

[1] Defendant-Appellant Kid D. Sinlao appeals the trial court’s division of community property and debt in this divorce action. He argues that the trial court’s division resulted in Plaintiff-Appellee Rosalind M. Sinlao receiving an inequitably larger share of community property in violation of Guam law which mandates that in a dissolution of marriage by decree rendered on any ground other than that of adultery or extreme cruelty, the community property shall be divided equally between the parties. We hold, first, that Title 19 GCA § 8414 vests this court with the authority to revise the trial court’s division of community property even absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Such authority, however, is to be exercised only when there is manifest unfairness in the trial court’s division of property. We next hold that while there is no requirement that the trial court’s division be mathematically equal when dividing community property in dissolution cases based on irreconcilable differences; rather, the trial court should strive for an equal division, as required by Title 19 GCA § 8411(b), by evaluating the circumstances of each particular case and considering the overall equality of the award. Our review of the trial court’s award reveals that the assets and debt of the marriage were almost evenly divided between the parties. We find no manifest unfairness in the trial court’s division of the Sinlaos’ community property. We therefore affirm.

I.

[2]